Do you guys remember Bush's promise on Social Security?

[oboe]

Just wondering if anyone else remembers.   There is a lot going on nowadays I know...

This from a Oct 19, 2004 LA Times article:

Kerry today accused his rival of launching an "an all-out assault on Social Security" with a plan to privatize the entitlement program that would jeopardize the financial security of senior citizens.

During a midday speech in eastern Pennsylvania, the Democratic candidate pressed his argument that Bush intends to privatize Social Security, a charge the Bush campaign has adamantly denied.

Kerry said that Bush used $509 million of surplus Social Security payroll contributions since taking office to pay for his tax cuts, and warned that his plan to allow younger workers to create private retirement accounts would gut the program.

To support his charge, Kerry referred to a recent New York Times Magazine article that quoted the president telling donors that he plans to "come out strong" after his reelection with an effort to privatize Social Security.

The Bush campaign dismissed the account as "made up" and said Bush has no intention of privatizing the program.

Bush, Kerry Clash on Social Security

[Staga]

Interesting topic; I did read day or two ago that social security is running out of money in US.

Anyways I'm not interested about register myself to that site.

[Eagler]

skerry lost as did a record number of his buds

LOL LOL LOL

as for SS, something has to be done and soon

don't know about you but I think i could get a better return for MY money than the gov does

oh yeah, the Bush plan is VOLUNTARY, if you are too stupid to manage your own money (only a small portion of your total ss contribution), Uncle Sam will be more than happy to do it for you.

[rpm]

Bush would lie?

[ra]

Bush has been talking about allowing taxpayers to control a portion of their Social Security since he first ran for President.  This  LA Times article was written right before the election so it is obviously just another attempt by the neutral press to help Kerry.

Right now you pay 14% of your income to Social Security and you have no control over what happens to it whatsoever.  Congress doesn't even have to give you any of it back when you retire unless they feel like it.  That's the way the Democrats like it.

The system is a Ponzi scheme and it will have major funding problems when today's workers start to retire.  Allowing taxpayers to keep control over some of it is a step toward creating a national retirement system that isn't owned by the politicians.

ra

[parker00]

So how do you pay for it during the transition?



68Parker

[lazs2]

I am sure glad I'm not in the SS system anymore.

What is the max benifiet for this truly horrible and costly program?  like 1500 bucks a month?   even eating dogfood an old person couldn't survive on that.

If you didn't make personal investments then SS won't do it for you.

What is the age up to now?  67 or so.. if they just raise it to 90 they can make it work and not have it cost more than 50% or so of the federal budget.

lazs

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by lazs2
I am sure glad I'm not in the SS system anymore.

What is the max benifiet for this truly horrible and costly program?  like 1500 bucks a month?   even eating dogfood an old person couldn't survive on that.

If you didn't make personal investments then SS won't do it for you.

What is the age up to now?  67 or so.. if they just raise it to 90 they can make it work and not have it cost more than 50% or so of the federal budget.

lazs

How did you get out of the SS system?

I didnt know not being in it was an option

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by ra
Bush has been talking about allowing taxpayers to control a portion of their Social Security since he first ran for President.  This  LA Times article was written right before the election so it is obviously just another attempt by the neutral press to help Kerry.

ra

When I read that I was thinking the exact same thing.
And not just when he first ran for president. but when he ran the 1st time

[lazs2]

You don't have many options but... Calpers is a program that is so superior to SS that you are allowed to opt out... there are like three states that I know of that have a Calpers like program.

Basicly, it gives you 2-3% of your last years salary at age 52 for every year of service.   It is possible to get 100% + of your last years wages for retirement.   It also pays cost of living increases every year after you retire.

It is a also..... PROFITABLE.... yep... it is not subsidized and makes money instead of sucking it up.  It is so profitable that they ask members how to better serve us... an example is that they gave veterans year for year service for their time served.

It is so profitable that state governments like The peoples republic of California think it is "unfair" and wish to raid it's funds..

They feel that Calpers is unfair in that it only invests in profitable realestate and shuns ghetto "investmet".    They feel that it (and it's members) should share in the pain of the less fortunate who turn their areas into ghettos.

This is how it could be everywhere but.... not if the government gets their hands on it....  Pers won't pay someone who never worked... the government can't have that.

lazs

[Shamus]

Making a portion of SS taxpayer directed could work out in the long run, short term funding could be problematic,

I do feel that any retirement accounts and private pension plans should not be guarenteed by the government.

It seems that we have developed a "have my cake and eat it too" mindset where we can promise ourselves grand returns on private  investments, and large pensions and health benefits , but if they go bust we run to the Government crying "make me whole" expecting the large share of taxpayers that dont receive those benefits to foot the bill.

We saw how this abuse can happen in the 80's in the savings and loan debacle, these guy's admitted to inflating the estimated returns knowing that when the institution failed the taxpayer would end up paying that inflated return.

shamus

[Sandman]

I think it was a mistake for the government to get into the retirement business in the first place.

Same goes for charity.

[J_A_B]

"like 1500 bucks a month? even eating dogfood an old person couldn't survive on that."

Not saying that paying into a system for 40 years only to get $1500/month out of it isn't pretty pitiful, but my old man gets by on less than that and has no debt.  


"It is so profitable that state governments like The peoples republic of California think it is "unfair" and wish to raid it's funds.. "


Everybody I know who is old enough to remember swears up and down that this is exactly what happened to SS back in the '50's.


J_A_B

[capt. apathy]

Originally posted by lazs2
Basicly, it gives you 2-3% of your last years salary at age 52 for every year of service. It is possible to get 100% + of your last years wages for retirement. It also pays cost of living increases every year after you retire.
lazs

so what happens if you work your whole life and for whatever reason you make much less than normal for a couple years in your early 50's?  If I'm understanding what you're saying it seems like a risky venture to gamble your retirement on how you'll do on any particular year.

[Shamus]

Originally posted by lazs2
Y



It is so profitable that state governments like The peoples republic of California think it is "unfair" and wish to raid it's funds..



Being a public fund all bets are off...it will be subject to political pressures.

shamus