PDA

View Full Version : Bush Criticized Over Social Security Plan


mtdman
12-21-2004, 07:13 AM
Bush Criticized Over Social Security Plan (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=5&u=/ap/20041221/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_social_security)

So, what does everyone think about this? Personally, I want to see how he is going to continue to fund SS for those drawing now while allowing those paying in now to keep their money. Those drawing now are paid for by those paying in now. Fuzzy math, if you ask me.

But personally, I support privatizing ss. As we all know from being self employed, self employment taxes can add up and put a hurting on your pocket. If I could keep that money and add it to the $$ I put away in IRAs already, I would have a nice amount of dough when it comes time for me to retire.

The problem I see with allowing people to self invest is people aren't real smart about that kind of stuff in general. Including myself. With the Enrons and stock market crashes of the world, you take large risks with your future. Not everyone understands that or has what it takes to invest on their own.

mtdman
12-21-2004, 07:15 AM
BTW, this isn't a political thing. I'm curious to learn what business people think about this and how they feel about investing their own money for their future vs relying on uncle sam for retirement. I don't care who is President or what party you support. Keep it to business and finance, no politicing.

nitrotim
12-21-2004, 07:48 AM
The bottom line is that in 2028 SS will start to be in trouble because it will only be 73% funded and after I think it is 2042 it be as low as 48% funded. I think the logic here is that it will cost more to fix later than what is being projected to fix now. I am retired from the federal govt and the TSP savings plan which is similar to what the Pres is suggesting was a great program. I put the max amount I was allowed for 20 yrs and had a nice size nestegg in addition to my retirement. I am not SS age yet but if I didn't have this I would not have been able to retire as early.

Grassmechanic
12-21-2004, 08:59 AM
The way SS is set up, it is nothing more than a pyramid scheme. It makes promises to those that it will not be able to keep. By allowing younger workers the opportunity to set aside a portion of their contributions in an account that they manage is a good idea (simple long term CD's pay more interest than what is now earned on SS funds). The politicians that oppose this idea are those that have long used the SS surplus as their "slush fund" to help fund their pet projects, balance budgets, etc. SS should have trillions of dollars in it right now, but thanks to the politicians, it contains only IOU's. Yeah, it may be a little painful now to start this, but by waiting 10, 20, 30 years, it will only get worse.

PAXLSI
12-21-2004, 09:10 AM
One of the guide lines for the privation of SS is that the brokers that would be doing the investments, would be limited in what they invest in. NO junk bonds. These same brokers if I heard correctly would only be able to deal with the SS people.

out4now
12-21-2004, 12:23 PM
Against privatizing. I have a 401 well diverisfied and still lost a huge chunk with bad markets. The avg. individual has too much to lose. There has to be a better way. Last thing we need is a bunch of broke baby boomers to support in the future. What I want to see is how he'll miraculously cut the deficit without raising taxes, what a pipe dream that is. And lastly where is Osama? How hard is he trying to catch him? I seem to remember bumper stickers saying we will never forget and it's turned into Osama who?

bermuda joe
12-21-2004, 01:02 PM
Edited: Every time you span the board like this, you will be banned.Jodi

mtdman
12-21-2004, 01:53 PM
Against privatizing. I have a 401 well diverisfied and still lost a huge chunk with bad markets. The avg. individual has too much to lose. There has to be a better way. Last thing we need is a bunch of broke baby boomers to support in the future. What I want to see is how he'll miraculously cut the deficit without raising taxes, what a pipe dream that is. And lastly where is Osama? How hard is he trying to catch him? I seem to remember bumper stickers saying we will never forget and it's turned into Osama who?


First, as I said, this isn't a political thread. If you want to bash Bush go do it in the dungeon.

Secondly, if the average person has so much to lose in investing their SS $$, maybe they would be more careful and not invest in the frivolous and risky. I'd rather have the choice.

DLS1
12-21-2004, 02:08 PM
Bush Criticized Over Social Security Plan (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=5&u=/ap/20041221/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_social_security)

The problem I see with allowing people to self invest is people aren't real smart about that kind of stuff in general. Including myself. With the Enrons and stock market crashes of the world, you take large risks with your future. Not everyone understands that or has what it takes to invest on their own.

I have not read anything about it yet but I would hope they would have plenty of restrictions on what you can invest in.
I would think you get maybe 10% max return per year on conservative options such as bonds,etc.

Hopefully only get to invest in things like government insured bonds and other insured investments and real conservative investment options. Taxpayers do not need to pick up the tab at retirement time for those that didn't invest wisely.

AEW
12-21-2004, 02:22 PM
Grass mechanic is right....SS would be fine right now if it werent for the politicians that kept taking money out to use elsewhere. SS has been a huge success with reducing old age poverty...why get rid of it. The US spends less than 6% of the GDP on it while European countries...with full health plans etc. for all persons...spend over 10% of their GDP. I dont think the SS program...like most programs ran by the federal government...has been ran correctly. If all prgrams were ran responsibly then there would be plenty of funds out there to support all programs...and of course this deficit could be taken care of as well.

By the way...the movie Napoleon Dynamite came out today...if you havent seen it yet...get it and watch it. It is the funniest movie out right now.

nitrotim
12-21-2004, 02:38 PM
Against privatizing. I have a 401 well diverisfied and still lost a huge chunk with bad markets. The avg. individual has too much to lose. There has to be a better way. Last thing we need is a bunch of broke baby boomers to support in the future. What I want to see is how he'll miraculously cut the deficit without raising taxes, what a pipe dream that is. And lastly where is Osama? How hard is he trying to catch him? I seem to remember bumper stickers saying we will never forget and it's turned into Osama who?


How long do you work before you collect SS. 35 40 yrs. Its long term thing and alot of people lost money during the dot.com bubble years but if the they still have those accounts I bet they see they are still ahead then when they first started investing. ALso the plan only calls for a portion of the SS taxes to privatley invested so there are safeguards built in.

Soupy
12-21-2004, 02:53 PM
Bush Criticized Over Social Security Plan (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=5&u=/ap/20041221/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_social_security)

So, what does everyone think about this? Personally, I want to see how he is going to continue to fund SS for those drawing now while allowing those paying in now to keep their money. Those drawing now are paid for by those paying in now. Fuzzy math, if you ask me.

But personally, I support privatizing ss. As we all know from being self employed, self employment taxes can add up and put a hurting on your pocket. If I could keep that money and add it to the $$ I put away in IRAs already, I would have a nice amount of dough when it comes time for me to retire.

The problem I see with allowing people to self invest is people aren't real smart about that kind of stuff in general. Including myself. With the Enrons and stock market crashes of the world, you take large risks with your future. Not everyone understands that or has what it takes to invest on their own.

The government is one big Enron. Poorly run and nothing but lies to us citizens (shareholders). I am a bush supporter, but why doesn't the government invest it's own money (tax money) to pay back SS. If it is that safe then they should have no trouble taking the risk.

Fvstringpicker
12-21-2004, 04:50 PM
The primary problem with SS is that, since day one, the excess receipts over disbursements (amount paid to retirees) has been used as additional tax revenue and squandered along with regular tax revenue. Hence, the lower income folks who fall below the SS cutoff has paid a surtax of probably 2-3% of their income. If the SS funds collected had been put into a real trust fund, there wouldn't't be a problem. Actuarially, and I use that term loosely, the total taxes paid (employee + employer) is set at a rate to collect sufficient fund to allow a person to draw from the system for 15-20 years. I have paid the max into the system for a number of years and I have calculated I would have to live to be 104 to draw out what has been paid in under my social security number. The average individual who has worked 40 years earning an average of $25,000/yr would have contributed approximately $130,000 to the system (employee+employer) That person should be able to draw their benefit for 18 years before withdrawing their contribution. Extrapolate that to a 1000 , 10,000 or a million workers. Hell ya it's an entitlement but it's an entitlement that each employee has paid for with dollars withheld.

Rhett
12-21-2004, 07:30 PM
Believe it was 1981 when they put SS into the general fund. I t was all good to go up untill then. Actually it was one of the fastest growing accounts. It was origannly planed to be a stop barrier for folks that were too old to work but unfortunately turned into a fund fo everything else. Got a drug problem SS is for you. ECT ECT. What is going to happen if the market crashes and all of the money that you personally invested dries up? Are you going to want a hand out or are you going to be happy eating cat food? Time to make SS back into what it was ment to be!

bugspit
12-21-2004, 10:10 PM
Bush said he was going to do something with it so I expect he will.
I'm sure it will ruffle some feathers on both sides and it probably get hung up in congress until his term is up anyway.
I think it will be a system of where you can op-out but show proof to the Gov that you are planning for the future...who knows, seems like I heard something like this before.

The other thing he said he was going to fix was the tax-code..anythings got to be better than what we have now. The only thing bad about fixing this is that there will be a lot un-employeed IRS agents mowing grass for a living. :cry:

Premo Services
12-21-2004, 10:39 PM
The government is one big Enron. Poorly run and nothing but lies to us citizens (shareholders). I am a bush supporter, but why doesn't the government invest it's own money (tax money) to pay back SS. If it is that safe then they should have no trouble taking the risk.

They can not invest their-your tax dollars in america, they are investing all of it in Iraq and Afganistan, so the very rich of america can get richer!!! :angry:

mtdman
12-22-2004, 12:51 AM
I personally have no faith in SS, do not expect it to be around for me, and personally despise it. The program has become much more than just a retirement option for seniors, it's a welfare plan for those who don't want to work, pretend to be injured, etc etc. It's a tax on the working man to pay for those who don't work. I'd rather have my $$ to invest how I chose. If I screw it up, it's my fault. Chances are I won't. Chances also are the government will screw it up, and has screwed it up. I just think I should have a choice.

sailinstud420
12-22-2004, 01:44 AM
My favorite argument to use against those in favor of SS, Welfare, etc.

Why don't you go to your neighbor next door and ask him for money?

These people dont understand that the government is the people!!! (or at least it used to be)

VanceTrendov
12-22-2004, 04:02 AM
I am a 20 year old and have looked around and did some fact finding myself. The biggest problem is that no one is willing to look for a solution to fix the problem. Some people say that they donít trust people investing their money retirement because the stock market is riskyÖ The Stock market is less risky then you thinkÖ.(just ask me and I will explain).Why not let them invest that money??? They most likely already invest some money in the stock market. Do you really think a people plan to have SS fund 100% of their retirement. From what I understand about these programs are that you chose to invest part of your money. If you donít want to you donít have to, and that money is still there. Also being from a younger generation I think the government should retool SS so that the younger generations of people have get benefits at an older age. Someone in the forum said that there are better ways to fix SS. Why donít you list them and talk about them. Like any problem everyone says its messed up but no one wants to fix is. I am a Republican that didít vote for Bush but I think that he is doing a good job with what he is trying to do with SS. If we get anything from this thread is the understanding that SS is going to fail and we need to do something about it. This is a problem that needs to be fixed.

jeffex
12-22-2004, 07:34 AM
I work full time for the Post Office. They have a retirement that started in 84' that is based on SS as part of retirement. None of us will be able to retire under this plan at 55 unless we work. The one element of the plan, called thrift savings, is great. I put 5% of my pay into a fund that is matched by 2% from the post office. Many of my co-workers have no idea how the plan works and simply believe that someone will take care of thier of thier retiirement for them like the old cival service plan that stopped taking new people in 84'. HAH! they won't have sh__t when they go to retire. Bush proposal as I understand it alows workers to allocate part of thier SS money into a Gov mutual fund simular to our thrift savings plan. It has several sectors that place your funds in accounts that buy stock, bonds, government securities [ie; t-bills,] and growth funds as well as foriegn stock funds. It is one of the largest mutual funds in the world. For the average idiot who doesn't know how to allocate they will still do better in the long run by investing in even the safest portion of these funds. That is the gov. securities based fund . I think it is worth the effort. We can always go back. Now if Pres. Bush can just get the Mexicans to pay SS taxes to pay for my SS retirement !!!

Grassmechanic
12-22-2004, 07:45 AM
I think it will be a system of where you can op-out but show proof to the Gov that you are planning for the future...: .....:drinkup:.....

Kelly's Landscaping
12-22-2004, 12:45 PM
First call it by its original name Social Security Insurance. It was only meant to be a safety blanket for the poorest Americans that had nothing to live on when they got old. Some how it has become the sacred cow that cannot be changed. It was never meant to be a retirement plan. Secondly you were suppose to be Dead average life expectancy was 62 when they made it you had to be 65 to collect so you were suppose have been dead for 3 years. If they wanted it to continue to work the way it was originally designed they should have had added 3 months a year to retirement age every year since it was founded. It needs to be 80 years to collect right now but we wont do that god forbid we correct a mistake.

I personally do not want to ever give one more cent into it I do not want to collect not do I want to be part of it. I will provide for my own retirement and yes I know what if something bad happens well then I live under a bridge happy in the knowledge that I was not a drain on society. There are always going to be risks but they are very over stated here. The sad truth is we have created 3 generations of people that cannot take care of them selves. Imagine how much stronger this country would be if we had not sucked the trillions out of our economy to fund this welfare state.

Soupy
12-22-2004, 01:08 PM
First call it by its original name Social Security Insurance. It was only meant to be a safety blanket for the poorest Americans that had nothing to live on when they got old. Some how it has become the sacred cow that cannot be changed. It was never meant to be a retirement plan. Secondly you were suppose to be Dead average life expectancy was 62 when they made it you had to be 65 to collect so you were suppose have been dead for 3 years. If they wanted it to continue to work the way it was originally designed they should have had added 3 months a year to retirement age every year since it was founded. It needs to be 80 years to collect right now but we wont do that god forbid we correct a mistake.

I personally do not want to ever give one more cent into it I do not want to collect not do I want to be part of it. I will provide for my own retirement and yes I know what if something bad happens well then I live under a bridge happy in the knowledge that I was not a drain on society. There are always going to be risks but they are very over stated here. The sad truth is we have created 3 generations of people that cannot take care of them selves. Imagine how much stronger this country would be if we had not sucked the trillions out of our economy to fund this welfare state.

Welfare is not perfect but I think we would be a lot worse off without it. Not everyone is on it by choice. I do agree that a lot of people take advantage of it, but just imagine how bad crime would be without it. Crime is already high enough if you ask me. I wouldn't feel safe at all walking the streets with homeless people on every block.

LHlandscaping
12-22-2004, 01:09 PM
I support privatizing SSI. The days of government entitlements are over and this country needs a wake up call. I prefer to handle my own retirement, not hand it over to an inverstment banker. Any true investor knows that a stock market crash is one of the best things that can happen. I am looking forward to the next crash when the baby boomers retire. I am now studying the market and planning to take advantage of that crash. SSI is a waste of money for my generation. I can put that money in much better places to make it grow.

out4now
12-22-2004, 01:15 PM
I support privatizing SSI. The days of government entitlements are over and this country needs a wake up call. I prefer to handle my own retirement, not hand it over to an inverstment banker. Any true investor knows that a stock market crash is one of the best things that can happen. I am looking forward to the next crash when the baby boomers retire. I am now studying the market and planning to take advantage of that crash. SSI is a waste of money for my generation. I can put that money in much better places to make it grow.

Going to sell short? Good luck timing the next crash. My guess is that now that companies will have to expense options starting next year things will be interesting.

Randy J
12-22-2004, 02:26 PM
The key is time. If you invested in the stock market before the great depression, you'd still be a millonare today. All 401K's/investment plans I have had experience with allow you to invest based upon the amount of time you have to retirement. If you have a long time, you invest in more risky stocks. If retirement is right around the corner, you invest in bonds and other less risky stocks. I don't pretend to understand how the stock market works, other than if you give it time, you will make money - period. But for the life of me I can not see why anyone would argue with giving control of their own money back to the people. They earned it, why shouldn't they be allowed to invest as they see fit?

Green-Pro
12-22-2004, 03:05 PM
But for the life of me I can not see why anyone would argue with giving control of their own money back to the people. They earned it, why shouldn't't they be allowed to invest as they see fit?

Randy,

I agree with your assessment of stock market risk and especially the argument that we should have control over how to invest our money.
You start a business, do you plan and research before starting that business or do you just wake up one morning and decide screw it I'm starting a business. To a person of even somewhat limited common sense this is no way to approach decisions of this caliber, same applies to investing, i.e. show some initiative and do some research:example, investing all your money in a sole stock, investment, company stock, or whatever is unwise,(don't put all your eggs in one basket), better to invest in a variety of researched options this is called diversity and allows you some degree of protection financially. In the likely event one investment tanks you are gaining in another. Randy's point of the degree of risk versus the life of the investment is also valid and will be told to you by investment counselors or brokers as well.

I suspect that the people that would have trouble with this from a financial point of view are likely in poor financial shape now and would be no better at retirement.

Just my .02

G-P

DennisF
12-22-2004, 07:26 PM
First call it by its original name Social Security Insurance. It was only meant to be a safety blanket for the poorest Americans that had nothing to live on when they got old. Some how it has become the sacred cow that cannot be changed. It was never meant to be a retirement plan. Secondly you were suppose to be Dead average life expectancy was 62 when they made it you had to be 65 to collect so you were suppose have been dead for 3 years. If they wanted it to continue to work the way it was originally designed they should have had added 3 months a year to retirement age every year since it was founded. It needs to be 80 years to collect right now but we wont do that god forbid we correct a mistake.

I personally do not want to ever give one more cent into it I do not want to collect not do I want to be part of it. I will provide for my own retirement and yes I know what if something bad happens well then I live under a bridge happy in the knowledge that I was not a drain on society. There are always going to be risks but they are very over stated here. The sad truth is we have created 3 generations of people that cannot take care of them selves. Imagine how much stronger this country would be if we had not sucked the trillions out of our economy to fund this welfare state.


Social Security is not welfare. It was never intended to be welfare. It was intended to provide Americans with a small income in retirement. It was essentially a forced savings plan for retirement and would have worked beautifully except for one thing...politics. When the system was originally set-up, the taxes collected were to be placed in a trust and invested in income producing securities (bonds) and not to be used for every day government spending. Had this happened, the Social Security system would have had more money in it than it could have ever paid out in benefits. Washington politicians knew this and decided to spend it their way. Social Security didn't fail...your elected representatives failed.

Economists did a study on Social Security and what would have happened if the money had been left un-touched. As of January 2000 the fund would have had 28 TRILLION dollars in it, if the Slime-balls in Washington would have left it alone. That's a lot of money flushed down the toilet by politics.

Soupy
12-22-2004, 07:37 PM
It's a pity that the government seen fit to force people to let them save for their future. But then they couldn't handle the task.

It just go to show you that even the government is house rich/cash poor. The average american doesn't know how to save for the future and neither does the government.

Drew Gemma
12-22-2004, 08:55 PM
Lots of good points from everybody but lets make a list of the pros and cons of the current system then post soulutions to each if you have any.

Cons.

Should only be a 2nd income when you retire.
Yes to many ppl use it as welfare
Not enough ppl pay in to the fund to support the top heavy load of retires. (ie. job over seas)
The money had been mismanaged
no matter what ppl aren't happy about money no matter what

Pros.

It is an income for the elderly
if you can't work it is money comiong in.
Hopefully we all have 10 kids who pay into it so when can have some of the money!
I don't have to do any thing They take it out then I get it back later
It's money coming your way.

Hey its all a big joke and if you privatize it know how will we provide for the baby boomers when we already don't have enough. What ever they do. I max out my 401k and my roth every year. Not to mention i bury some in the yard each month. LOL

Fvstringpicker
12-22-2004, 10:09 PM
Lots of good points from everybody but lets make a list of the pros and cons of the current system then post soulutions to each if you have any.

I've got a suggested solution for starters. Take half the money used for corporate welfare, half the money given to other countries (not the poor countries but countries like England, Saudia Arabia), half the money provided for Haliburtian errr.. excuse me...to rebuild Iraq, put it into the Social Security system and wa-la, the system is fixed.

SpudsM15
12-22-2004, 11:13 PM
Well I'm for the system but only for the sole reason it was founded for! supplemental retirement income....
I have alot of customers that this is their sole income!

First thing that needs to be done to solve the current problem. SS need to be on its own in a private SS only Fund! Only to hold incoming funds, send out payments and pay admin fees....
Also each person should recieve the same % amount paid to them, to that they put into the system
so say today i put in $1 today. In 44 years from now I should recive $1.76 figuring inflation stays an average of 4% a year
Some people do not think at all about their future so this system is a must! But the people of the nation should have a choice of how much to participate in the system.
There must be a min. just to protect the people that have no idea how to handle their money. But this way the people that feel that gov. can take care of their money better than they can(I know a few) can make max contributions.
As long as each person gets out the same % they put in I think its a great system. The surplus of the funds interest gains... Can be spent on stupid stuff and pay admin fees...
Sorry for the long post but the SS fund must be made seperate before anything! because as long as it is part of the general treasury there will be problems of poloticians sticking their hands in the cookie jar!

Turf Medic
12-23-2004, 12:15 AM
Plain and simple people don't save for retirement, unless it is forced. Now before everyone says " but I do" the national average for money saved for retirement is at an all time low of 0.2%. This means that a family that is taking 50k to the house after taxes is putting away a hefty $1.92 per week on average. The big problem that you will have if you privatize the SS and people don't save for retirement, is the total anarchy that will follow. You may be able to provide for yourself well in retirement, but do you think the other 30 neighbors that are living around you that didn't plan ahead will let you keep it. If you are the only one that can afford lights, gas, food, the others will be breaking down your doors and beating you to death to get theirs. In their mind it will be your fault that you have plenty while they have nothing.

jeffex
12-23-2004, 08:22 AM
For an intelligent person who can handle thier own finances they don't need help. As pointed out by many here some people would blow any extra money they get on Friday night. Then, as our system is now, we would pay for them anyway, medicare medicade, welfare, etc. The idea is to set up a system that gives people an option to allocate some of thier funds while protecting the ones who don't bother. Our society first used SS as a safety blanket and now it is a sole source of retirement for many. As the program stands now the money has less people paying more into it to support 1 retiree. Bushs plan is something like taking some of your safe money in passbook savings earning a tiny % of interest and diversifying into a higher risk but higher potential return. The goal is to bridge the gap of defficient funds and start teaching people to invest. I don't think you can give peope the option out of the program. Many stupid people would spend the money now.

Fvstringpicker
12-23-2004, 12:32 PM
The sum total, bottom line for "saving" SS is to get the Washington politicians hands out of the till, whether it be through privitization, laws to put the money in a separate trust fund (and leave it alone) or whatever.

Soupy
12-23-2004, 12:43 PM
For an intelligent person who can handle thier own finances they don't need help. As pointed out by many here some people would blow any extra money they get on Friday night. Then, as our system is now, we would pay for them anyway, medicare medicade, welfare, etc. The idea is to set up a system that gives people an option to allocate some of thier funds while protecting the ones who don't bother. Our society first used SS as a safety blanket and now it is a sole source of retirement for many. As the program stands now the money has less people paying more into it to support 1 retiree. Bushs plan is something like taking some of your safe money in passbook savings earning a tiny % of interest and diversifying into a higher risk but higher potential return. The goal is to bridge the gap of defficient funds and start teaching people to invest. I don't think you can give peope the option out of the program. Many stupid people would spend the money now.

Most americans barely make enough to get by week to week and that is why it has become sole retirement. No, I'm not talking about the people that are house rich/cash poor. Those are the people SSI was originally design for.

America just isn't as rich as it used to be. Inflation is going to keep producing poorer and poorer people.

Sir mowsalot
12-23-2004, 01:08 PM
The sum total, bottom line for "saving" SS is to get the Washington politicians hands out of the till, whether it be through privitization, laws to put the money in a separate trust fund (and leave it alone) or whatever.


^5 brother, right on