PiLfan Posted March 26, 2010 Share Posted March 26, 2010 maybe this is where death panels would come in handy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted March 26, 2010 Share Posted March 26, 2010 Its basically the only solution left. Anyone 35 or younger HAS TO BE ALLOWED the OPTION to get out of SSI, or else we are pissing away 6.7 percent of our incomes the rest of our livesHow on earth can people opt out? The government has put a majority of people in the position of relying on them for some sort of retirement. As has been said, pyramid schemes cannot be brought to a gentle halt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Paint Posted March 26, 2010 Share Posted March 26, 2010 It's like global warming. Everyone knew it was coming and everyone was in denial or figured it was far enough down the road that they could afford to ignore it.So much work to do. SS in a real problem. Global warming is a hoax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted March 26, 2010 Share Posted March 26, 2010 SS in a real problem. Global warming is a hoax. Hope you're right. Probably not though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted March 26, 2010 Share Posted March 26, 2010 Ding.Its basically the only solution left. Anyone 35 or younger HAS TO BE ALLOWED the OPTION to get out of SSI, or else we are pissing away 6.7 percent of our incomes the rest of our lives Yeah, this would be nice...but that's never going to happen, particularly with the direction our country continues to head in with our absurd spending practices and increased entitlement programs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 26, 2010 Share Posted March 26, 2010 Haha. Good luck with that. When I was 23, I desperately wanted out. That was thirty years ago.. I fondly remember the innocence of youth as well,though they beat that out of me long before 23. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ax Posted March 26, 2010 Share Posted March 26, 2010 Just raise taxes and get it over with. It's the only solution acceptable to the 3 headed monster. They just need a slick campaign to convince people it's really a tax break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaxBuddy21 Posted March 26, 2010 Share Posted March 26, 2010 Blame it on Bush. After all, wasn't AL advocating the LOCKBOX in the 2000 campaign? As I recall, Bush was advocating privatized SS at the time and that never got pushed through either. If we made the Federal government balance the budget like the state governments do, we would not be in a lot of the mess we are in now. And I remember the SNL skits around that time talking about the "Lockbox" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted March 26, 2010 Share Posted March 26, 2010 Could you imagine the panic that would have ensued after the two big stock market crashes had we privatized Social Security during Bush's Presidency? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted March 26, 2010 Share Posted March 26, 2010 Could you imagine the panic that would have ensued after the two big stock market crashes had we privatized Social Security during Bush's Presidency? What are you saying Burgold.... Social Security which is one of the most popular government programs of all time, credited with lifting like 70% of seniors out of poverty; actually might be a worth while program? That after 80 years of turning a profit each and every year, the first year when a dubious ultra conservative organization like CATO claims it doesn't turn a prophet, might not be all that big a deal, or time to panic? Perhaps that by lifting the social security retirement age by say three or four months we could return it to the black again? Perhaps that polititians have "tinkered" with social security each and every decade since 1933, and this isn't all that unprecidented; If it's true. Nawwwww, who would believe that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 26, 2010 Share Posted March 26, 2010 Could you imagine the panic that would have ensued after the two big stock market crashes had we privatized Social Security during Bush's Presidency? Care to tell me the real difference between losses of savings in the market and the very real shortfalls we face as a result of bailouts? The market might have risen,the very real debt service will not change Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted March 26, 2010 Share Posted March 26, 2010 What are you saying Burgold.... Social Security which is one of the most popular government programs of all time, credited with lifting like 70% of seniors out of poverty; actually might be a worth while program?That after 80 years of turning a profit each and every year, the first year when a dubious ultra conservative organization like CATO claims it doesn't turn a prophet, might not be all that big a deal, or time to panic? Perhaps that by lifting the social security retirement age by say three or four months we could return it to the black again? Perhaps that polititians have "tinkered" with social security each and every decade since 1933, and this isn't all that unprecidented; If it's true. Nawwwww, who would believe that? Care to tell me the real difference between losses of savings in the market and the very real shortfalls we face as a result of bailouts?The market might have risen,the very real debt service will not change Not saying either of the things y'all are implying. Just that linking SS to the stock market was a very dangerous idea as seen by real world history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted March 26, 2010 Share Posted March 26, 2010 Care to tell me the real difference between losses of savings in the market and the very real shortfalls we face as a result of bailouts?The market might have risen,the very real debt service will not change Under Option 'B' seniors still get a check every month? Seniors got a check this month, and they'll get a check next month. Under option 'A', they'd be sol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejaydana Posted March 26, 2010 Share Posted March 26, 2010 and we just passed another massive entitlement. Sweet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejaydana Posted March 26, 2010 Share Posted March 26, 2010 Under Option 'B' seniors still get a check every month? Seniors got a check this month, and they'll get a check next month. Under option 'A', they'd be sol. They also had a cost of living increase frozen for this year so no keeping pace with inflation. go ahead, try again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 26, 2010 Share Posted March 26, 2010 Under Option 'B' seniors still get a check every month? Seniors got a check this month, and they'll get a check next month. Under option 'A', they'd be sol. But we could simply borrow money to give them or of course allow nature to take it's course. What real difference is there in the path we chose when we act to prop up the market? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejaydana Posted March 26, 2010 Share Posted March 26, 2010 But we could simply borrow money to give them or of course allow nature to take it's course.What real difference is there in the path we chose when we act to prop up the market? how about this parlor trick: Pump out another, smaller, stimulus and call it instead a "jobs bill" Did anyone notice that one this past week? It just looked like more money printing to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted March 26, 2010 Share Posted March 26, 2010 They also had a cost of living increase frozen for this year so no keeping pace with inflation. go ahead, try again. What was that? Less than 2%? OMG!!! They got clipped by 2%, why even cash the check?... Is that your point? The politicians are definitely going to tinker with Social Security. They're going to hike the retirement age a little, and slow the cost of living increases a little.... And they're going to fix it... It's pretty much what they do every decade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted March 26, 2010 Share Posted March 26, 2010 But we could simply borrow money to give them or of course allow nature to take it's course.What real difference is there in the path we chose when we act to prop up the market? twa, are you serious? Social security has been in the black for 77 years. It's been the goose that laid the golden egg for the federal government. The government has borrowed all those social security profits. That's why the fund won't be insolvent for 20-30 more years. Even so, they won't let it run in the red for very long. They're going to tweak it back into the black just like they do every decade. The estimates I've read call for it to begin in the red in like five years or so. Not sure if Cato is right or not, but they are probable premature a little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 26, 2010 Share Posted March 26, 2010 twa, are you serious? Social security has been in the black for 77 years. It's been the goose that laid the golden egg for the federal government. The government has borrowed all those social security profits. That's why the fund won't be insolvent for 20-30 more years.Even so, they won't let it run in the red for very long. They're going to tweak it back into the black just like they do every decade. The government 'borrows' from the market as well,how does not having those funds in the market change that? I certainly agree they will simply tweak SS,after all what other choice is there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted March 26, 2010 Share Posted March 26, 2010 What real difference is there in the path we chose when we act to prop up the market? The difference is if you let loose dick and jaine taxpayer on the market with say a few hundred billion a year; the smart market players will take their money. If you pump federal reserve money into the financial institutes and then make them pay you back; you can still retire that money from the economy after a few years; and you haven't fundimentally corrupted your market. And grandma and grandpa still get to live above the poverty line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins24 Posted March 26, 2010 Share Posted March 26, 2010 They're going to hike the retirement age a little, and slow the cost of living increases a little.... And they're going to fix it... It's pretty much what they do every decade. Easy for you to say... In that case, by the time I should retire, the retirement age will be around 120 years old Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted March 26, 2010 Share Posted March 26, 2010 The government 'borrows' from the market as well,how does not having those funds in the market change that? There are three ways to raise money from the market. Sell Stocks, Sell Bonds, and Borrow. The government sells bonds. They don't "borrow" from the market technically. The largest holder of US treasury bonds is the Social Security Administration, that's how they get their money out. Social Security holds about 53% of our total national debt, foreign countries only hold about 25% of our debt, 22% is held by Domestic US investors ( private retirement accounts etc.. ), I certainly agree they will simply tweak SS,after all what other choice is there? No other choice.... But you are acting like having choices is a bad thing. Choices are good things, things that can improve the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homercles82 Posted March 26, 2010 Share Posted March 26, 2010 Blame it on Bush. After all, wasn't AL advocating the LOCKBOX in the 2000 campaign? Bush advocated for the option for people to be able to opt into a program where their social security withholdings could be placed in a savings program of their own choosing with it earning interested. Those opposed used scare tactics saying to old people that Bush wanted to make them poorer than they already are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted March 26, 2010 Share Posted March 26, 2010 No other choice.... But you are acting like having choices is a bad thing. Choices are good things, things that can improve the country. Exactly. Such as the choice to allow me to invest that 6.7 percent as I choose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.