Everything this administration does is so phony and manipulated yet a good number of people don't like what Bush is doing on Social Security.
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20050313/D88PO9H80.html
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20050312/D88PCKLG0.html
Benefits are rising faster than revenues and the U.S.A. taxpayers are gonna have a big problem paying for those benefits. Solution: Keep future benefits from growing so fast and let young workers (you leftys love that word---"workers")build up retirement savings to offset the shrinkage in benefits.
In 1950, there were 16 "workers" for every person on social security. Now, there are 3.3 for every person on ssi. And increasing benefits for inflation is another major cost factor.
So, letting "workers" put money into an index fund "tax free" is a fantastic idea. Now you leftys may say that is to risky--BUT the market has outperformed ssi IN ANY 30 YEAR PERIOD YOU CAN PICK.
on paying for the reduction in revenue when you have all those wage earners taking money out of Soc Sec and putting it in unsecured private accounts?
Borrow?
Cut benefits?
Raise taxes?
BTW the lowest estimates on how much it will cost is 2 trillion.
MissDemeanor, don't even bother to argue with this bull crap. These guys want everybody to believe that you should amputate your legs just because you have a common cold.
All that has to be done to fix Social Security is to change the tax law so people who make over 300,000 per year paid into SS on their ENTIRE income (not just upto $90,000). That is all. It is that simple.
These people think we are soooooo stupid that we are not going to notice that they are trying to get rid of one of the most successful insurance programs we've ever had in this country. They are greedy jerks.
Let's not give them an ounce of creedence by responding to this incredible stupidity. Let them jerk each other off with this fantasy land reality crap.
Funny, you accuse the right of being unreasonable while at the same time, suggesting the "simple" solution of a massive tax increase.
Am I unfairly representing your position? Do you really think that the problems should be fixed by just forcing rich people to subsidize a program designed 60 years ago?
To me, the "simple" solution is to raise the retirement age. Life expectancy and thus the length of time people can be productively employed continues to rise. Why peg the retirement age to a number better suited to 30 years ago? Isn't that more fair for everyone than just lumping the burden on the wealthy?
At the outset, I should point out that I've never ever considered Social Security as part of my future. Most people my age laugh at the thought of relying on a government program in our later years.
In any event, simple solutions like raising the retirement age are not unreasonable. But neither is taxing, in a very modest manner, the fortunate. I'm fortunate, how about you? Can you afford an additional 5 to 10 dollars a month? Problem solved.
Why do I care? Our parents, aunts & uncles, teachers, neighbors, etc., for some strange reason thought that in supporting their elders they also would be supported. I know, they are fools that should have known better, right?
We know how this will play out. One group turns on another. It's like a cock fight (no pun intended), mean, fixed, and
ugly.
'Why do I care? Our parents, aunts & uncles, teachers, neighbors, etc., for some strange reason thought that in supporting their elders they also would be supported.'
Tikal, what you wrote above was touching. It made my morning knowing people care about responsibility. I can't emphasize enough what a quality statement you made..!
'We know how this will play out. One group turns on another. It's like a cock fight (no pun intended), mean, fixed, and
ugly'
I don't like to read between the lines as I often arrive at a different or wrong conclusion. Are you suggesting a scenario that pits generation against generation, or some other form of manipulation of ss?
Just so we're clear:
1) I avoid responsibility like the plague
2) I don't know shit, that's why I post on the politics board of a fantasy escort site.
Now that we have that out of our way:
Generation vs generation, have's vs have nots. Whatever. Each party has Rove like creatures in it's bowels crunching numbers, stats, doing the demographic dance. They'll figure out what portion of the population is necessary for their position to prevail and then they will use fear to get that group to respond. Sex is powerful, but nothing motivates as much as fear.
Just so we're clear:
1) I avoid responsibility like the plague
2) I don't know shit, that's why I post on the politics board of a fantasy escort site.
LOL, fair enough...I still respect what you wrote about our responsibility to our elders who paid for their elders...
Good day...
So, at $300,000 a year, I guess your thinking is it's all "fuck you" money? A person making 9 times my income is capable of paying twice my tax, and that's understating it. They will complain that it's not half my tax, but to me, nine times my tax sounds fair.
I'm forgetting that we're living in conservative politically correct times, where criticizing the rich (except George Soros) and suggesting they are undertaxed is verbotten.
The right *is* unreasonable. If you're going to cut taxes tell us out front which programs you wish to abolish or cut, then pass that through Congress-- then cut the taxes from the surplus. But don't cut taxes to sabotage programs that Congress-- with the full support of the people, has passed into law. That procedure, which Reagan and Bush both followed, should actually be unconstitutional. A way to circumvent the will of the people by bribing the rich.
This will keep the system solvent well into the 21st century, and it's FAIR. The current tax is REGRESSIVE. Taxing all income the same percentage is neither regressive nor progressive. Yes, it's a tax increase, but if Congress could cut much of its wasteful spending, maybe they could balance it by cutting more of the progressive income tax we all hate. Social Security is NOT wasteful spending, but so much of government spending is, and we all know that.
At least you are honest and admit you want to reduce benefits to pay for the cost of private accounts. Only a few other GOPers have the courage to propose reducing benefits for seniors. And BTW that's why AARP is against private accounts.
However, I don't believe merely reducing benefits by increasing the age or retiring will offset the trillions lost via private accounts.
Have you actually seen any numbers relating to this reduction of benefits and how much money it will save?
I didn't want to increase retirement age as a way to PAY for private accounts, I saw it as a viable ALTERNATIVE to fix the system.
Don't have a link, but read Greenspan's address to Congress yesterday. He basically says the same thing.
I believe they know exactly what they are advocating.
I donlt know many people who would be opposed to raising the retirment age a little -- but that is only a small part of the solution. Plus, we would have to strengthen age discrimination laws. I know a lot of people who get forced out of their jobs long before they turn 65.
your "solution" is effectively a 12% tax hike on income over 90K, but why stop there? Let's hike it another 10% so everyone gets a better retirement package, wait, let's hike it 30% so everyone gets a free car!
I hope as I've turned it around that you see the absurdity your line of argument implies. You know why zero percent taxes are bad. I know why also.
If you can't find a good argument why a government provided car for everyone would be a bad idea, don't worry, we liberals are ahead of you on that...
When we're not annoyed by your conservatives marshalling out the same 6th grade arguments-- again.
Using your same line of reasoning, If taxes are so good, let's just raise them to 100%. Oh, I forgot, that's been tried already, they called it socialism and it didn't work.
Why does the left believe the solution to any fiscal problem is to tax the most productive members of society. If you remove the $90,000 cap on SS,that would mean a small business owner who was lucky to make, let's say a million dollars in one year would pay $150,000 in payroll taxes. That's in addition to the hendreds of thousands he/she would pay in income tax. That's not an insurance policy that's highway robbery!!! That is $150,000 that could be used to hire two fulltime employees, or do you believe giving the money to government is better than creating jobs?
I forgot, it's been done. It's called Liberia-- and guess what? It failed too!!
BTW, the highest a socialist state ever taxed was 70 percent by average. The State that did this in Europe did not fail, never had a revolultion that overthrew it's government, and is still around today, and thriving.
On a different topic, I wouldn't even say the Soviet Union after its failure, suffered as much as some other failed States that were never socialist-- like Haiti, like Congo: now those are failures! What's happened to the Soviet Union is just a restructuring by comparison.
My point, since you pretend that it has gone over your head, is that neither extreme is proposed by either side, and neither is considered a good thing: the conservatives don't propose having no taxes, the liberals don't propose having maximum taxes. Don't ask us why not 100 percent? We know it will cause rebellion and absolute corruption in the goverment. Whereas you know zero percent will cause the fall of the government and a power vacuum. I hope you know that.
Why is it poltically incorrect to criticize the wealthy now?
Don't substitute "most productive member of society" for the word "wealthy." Not every wealthy person is "most productive." You should know this. Why this unquestioning awe of the rich? Some of them are-- sorry to put it this way, derelict, absolutely corrupt and rotten as anybody could be. A guy who makes 9 time my income can afford twice my tax. And that's understating it. Period.
-- Modified on 3/16/2005 12:24:00 PM
Thank you, for admitting that you said something stupid,and I said something equally stupid back. Now that we've got that out of the way. It's always been easy to crircize the wealthy, but that's not what I'm talking about. What is blatantly unfair, is that if I work my ass off to make $300K a year, which certainly does not make me wealthy, without a $90K cap on SS I would have to pay $45,000 in payroll tax. What is fair aboput that? I still have to pay state income tax, federal income tax and every other tax that comes down the pike. What is even more unfair, is that someone who is indeed rich, lets say someone worth 100 million dollars, who makes 5-10 million in dividends and interest, wouldn't owe a penny in SS. You tell me, Is that fair?
But for general taxes, I'll declare, it is.
But suppose we make the cut off at $100,000, then? Or make the tax "regressive," the percentage goes down with a higher yearly wage?
OT: So, for somebody worth $100 million dollars as you describe (and I notice it didn't take you long to imply that we should be taxing the richer!) he's loaded with all the fuck you money he needs. With his free time and money power, his game is he's always able to divert taxes originally meant for him to people like you, and then have people like you do his work of agitating for him. (BTW, can liberals help it if he's always able to do that?) At the end, Republican politicians, (usually his golf buddies, BTW) get to say they cut somebody's taxes, he gets to draw his dividends and interests at minimal or no tax, he gets praised as the "most productive member of society," and you and I get screwed.
Now, on topic: for a solution to the "problem" that the SSI ship might begin to take on water in 2048, I really suggest that we index it to average life expectancy/productivity, with a gradual phase in, and an eye to lowering the tax-- moderately. I mean, it still looks like we have 40 years, doesn't it? What boat wouldn't sink in 40 years without maintenance? We don't need to man the lifeboats and scuttle it.
So, you could relax. My proposal to tax you more for SSI was just a ploy to get your attention.
That's an exception, though, given the special nature of this program. My general view about taxing the wealthy is not.
See what happens when people actually listen to someone else's point of view instead of hurling insults. We actually agree on something. BTW I'm not really talking about you with that last comment. There is just so much name calling and not enough real dialogue around here sometimes. From both sides, I'll add.
I do agree SS is not going belly up tomorrow, but doesn't it make sense to try to address the problem sooner than later. I don't necessarily mean a massive overhaul immediately, the more gradual the changes the easier they'll be to adapt to. Even you have to admit that as the number of people drawing from the system goes up, and the number of workers putting money into the system goes down, something has got to give.
I believe one solution is to reserve SS for those people who really need it. As you suggested earlier and quite accurately btw, For myself I have already given up on SS, I don't plan on needing it and I really don't expect it to cover my needs if I do. I would not be opposed to a sliding scale of benefits where those people with incomes over a certain level would receive reduced benefits or no benefits at all depending on their income. SS would transform itself from a retirement plan for everbody, which I don't believe should be left to government, to a safety net for those of the population who could not survive without it. I mean let's face it, even the most cold hearted amongst us can't advocate letting our seniors starve. Even me.
Nobody is advocating what you just wrote and you know it. We are simply advocating a fix to this sytem that is very reasonable. In fact it is FAR more reasonable than Bush's totally illogical scheme which does NOTHING to fix the solvency issue. When are you guys going to get real?
BTW, you know that Reagan helped create the first fix to the system in the 80s which created the trust we we have now. He did it with a tax increase.
Your God, Ronald Reagan, apparently disagreed with you.
I find id f**king amazing that those on the left have NO CONCEPT of fiscal responsibility (and before we get too far off track, yes, I have not bee thrilled about Bush's track record in this area as well). Perhaps instead of trying to take other people's money, why don't we try a little self control (damn what a concept!). BTW, I think if you get more money out than you put in plus any interest, you need toface facts that you are on Government WELFARE, nothing more.
Bottom line is they geared a benefit program to pay out right when you were expected to die, but forgot to put any indexes in it to account for life expectancy changes. I'm afraid the "greatest generation" really screwed up on this legislation.
Why does this argument come out when the discussion turns to taxing the rich *like* everybody else?
With two of their last three administrations, the Republicans have decided to give tax cuts **without** the unpopular work of first deciding which programs to cut. These were programs that were legally and fairly passed by our Congresses. However, the Republicans chose to circumvent the the legal process through tax cuts, illegal tax cuts that underfunded programs otherwise required legally to be funded, while they bought the support of the wealthy through making the tax cuts disproportionately favorable. This wasn't responsible, fiscally or otherwise.
If you're not thrilled by what Bush did, you shouldn't have been thrilled by what Reagan did either, because strategically and fiscally, they are equivalent; fiscally, Bush has only done moreso.
I'll point out that if it wasn't for social security, you couldn't get the life expectancies going up as we have. They couldn't expect it, because they didn't know what success would look like demographically.
No, the greatest generation didn't screw up, it's the generations that followed that have. Social security in Germany has survived since Bismark, survived two world wars and a worldwide depression. Why can't we maintain ours for 70 very good years?
Does that mean you want me to pay $45,000 a year or more into a system that will never pay me back any more than a bare subsistence living if I can't provide for myself. I already begrudge the $12,000+ a year I pay into SS already.
There are not too many things I am sure of in this life, but one of them is, I can invest my own money better than the government. Socialism does not work, we've already proven that. Why is the left's solution to everything, Let's just take more money from the productive member of society and redistribute it?
If you want to donate another twenty or thirty grand a year to SS that's your business, just don't go volunteeering my money. I pay enough.
...rather than cutting everybody elses? It sounds like you might be in the right income bracket for them to listen to you.
And of course, if you don't like what's passed, and think you can strike out better on your own, you could always leave. I think taxes are low in Slovenia. Stay away from France, though. Its tax rates are higher than the US.
You may be able to invest better than the government now (through government bonds perhaps?) but the fact is, if you get brain-damaged in an accident tomorrow where you can't invest better than the government, you get to draw social security for life. Find me an investment program which guarantees that.
As a gambler, you know that's called hedging your bets, and as with any insurance, some people do well with it, some people don't.
-- Modified on 3/15/2005 11:48:33 PM
Hey *sshole, You leave. This my country, just because I don't want to give all my money to government doesn't mean it's any less my country.
Right now SS is not an investment in anything. We give the government money, and they give us an IOU. It's not even insurance in the true sense of the word. Insurance is based on a system where a company collects premiums, invests the money, and at some later date pays the insured party with their own money. The whole idea is for the company to invest the money wisely so when it comes time to pay off, there will be sufficient funds to pay the insured party, with money left over for the company to profit. With SS the money is not invested into anything, we're simply mortaging our future with the hope that future workers will support us in our old age.
SS worked just fine when the ratio was 16 workers for each SS recipient, but not so well when the ratio goes down to 2 or 3 to one. For SS to survive one of three things needs to happen.
One, we reduce benefits. Two, we raise payroll taxes. Three, we actually invest the money into something besides government IOUs. In reality it's going to take a combination of three of these measures to actually fix the problem. There is no easy fix, but we have to start somewhere.
And as my country, too, my vote and my voice also count for what we adopt for policy. Liberals are often told, as a matter of course now, to move to another country; I like your response when it's turned around to you.
If the government gives you and IOU for your SSI, investment is just the IOU you describe. Give us your money; we'll give it back with returns-- an IOU. The point is, there's still no guarantee. MCI and Lucent were wise investments once. The difference is, you can collect from the government now: just get a crippling injury.
I'll ask, can't you still invest without digging into Social Security? What's stopping you? Since, with the reform, the government is mandating you to still set the money aside in your private account, or its Social Security program; doesn't that involve the government telling you what to do with your money, even moreso? I mean, you still can't use it for your medical bills.
If your taxes are too high to invest anything, I notice that it didn't stop the day-traders during the onerous, overtaxed Clinton era. My point is, Bush's proposal does nothing you can't do yourself, regardless of Social Security. It's just a good way to disguise slashing the program, but it doesn't reduce benefits, it doesn't raise payroll taxes. It does nothing. I could only conclude that your third suggestion on "saving" the program is not saving the program. You've already written in off, and already wrote it off before the debate began. You might as well be telling me that one way to fix a bridge is to get a boat. You're not answering the question.
You give me your ratios, but they mean nothing, because I know my grandmother worked for 27 cents an hour in a stroller factory in the late 40s, early 1950s. Even allowing for inflation, that sucks. By the 70s, the highest amount my grandfather ever made before he died was $6,000-- and he was a union worker! The ratios mean nothing unless you also consider income and revenue. At best, they're an incomplete argument.
If your ratios mean anything, why is it the dire prediction that the program may be endangered-- in 40 years. We fixed it once already-- with a far less leeway in time. We can fix it again without sabotaging it.
BTW, I am also advocating that I pay an additional $60,000 per year. Why? Becuae it is the right thing to do. Your life is not good enough? I hope you feel good about yourself when elderly people are left destitude and in poverty as a result of what you are advocating. Have fun talking to Jesus about it.
It is just not right, what you want to do.
You should be a little more selfish about Social Security, Stam. It *is* supposed to benefit you, directly, if eventually, remember? How could it do that if you pay into it a thousand percent more than you could ever get out of it?
Thank You. I am used to the wackos on the right throwing Jesus at me, when they disagree with me. Now do I have to hear this jesus crap from the left too. What does jesus have to do with this?
Just how can someone say that it's fair for a selfemployed person should pay 15% of everything he ever earns into SS. I already pay 39% to the feds, 5% to the state, 15% of my first 90K to FICA, where does it end? If Stamina wants to pay another $60K a year, fine let him, just don't volunteer my money. I pay enough, especially into a system that purports to be for my retirement, yet in reality will never give me anything more than small fraction of what I put into it.
-- Modified on 3/17/2005 5:48:41 AM
It is an insurance policy for the disabled, dependent spouses and children of bread winners who die and for the poor.
SS it is basic sustinence for the elderly poor who could not afford to save anything in "private accounts" during their working years. How can anyone save anything meaningful on $20,000 a year? BTW, these people DO NOT pay FICA, but they do receive SS.
You can say what you want about how they should work harder, yada, yada, yada, but these are the people who are picking our fruit, cleaning our houses and hotel rooms, etc -- we are all okay with them working that hard to clean up our crap, aren't we? But when it comes to SS, these righties say they should "get a better job". Okay, who's going to clean up your shit?
I don't mind paying more to cover these people. After all it is "Social" Security. It is a Social program and should remain so. The rightees go on and on about how Social programs don't work. Of course they are wrong since Social Security is the most successful social program in the world. It does work. It will continue to work. And affluent people should not be such assholes about giving more back to society. We have better lives than 98% of the population of the earth.
My point about Jesus is that people who spout all this moralistic stuff are hypocritesas -- they hoard wealth while having no sense of obligation to help "the least among us" as Jesus taught. Maybe that is why Jesus said that it was almost impossible for a rich person to get into heaven.
I already pay over $13,000.00 a year, in FICA alone. How much more do you want me to pay? If payroll taxes stay exactly where they are today, which they won't, I will payover $260,000 into SS over the next 20 years. How much do you think I should pay $1 million? $2 million. How much is enough for you people?
If you want to give more than be my guest, just stay out of my wallet. If the libs have their way, someone like me, and I am far from rich, could easily pay over a million dollars into SS.
I don't mind paying my fair share, but I've got my own retirement to worry about. If you're so damn rich maybe you could pay my share.
Poor people would LOVE to be in a position to PAY $260,000 over the next 20 years.
I think you should pay FICA on all of your income whatever that works out to be. Yes those of us who make more should give back more. The difference to the poor is HUGE. Yet you'll still have a better life than 98% of the population of the world. But, I guess that is nt good enough for you, is it? That is why I say you are selfish.
So what you're saying is that it is ok for me to pay 15% of everything I ever make into SS, while the truly rich pay nothing or next to nothing. That is what you are endorsing. The truly rich have a much higher ratio of passive income, which is exempt from payroll taxes, to earned income which is not. Your plan does nothing to shift the burden to the rich, instead it places it squarely on the backs of those of us who actually work for a living.
A truly wealthy person who earns millions in dividends and interest pays nothing in SS, while someone like me, who might bust his ass to make 300k would pay $45,000 in payroll taxes alone. Tell me how that is fair?
I am not being selfish. The rich pay next to nothing, the poor pay next to nothing, so it's up to people like me to pay everthing. Excuse me, but that's Bullshit!!!
Then why does everything you've proposed effect only those of us that actually work. It's OK to give me a 50% tax increase, but who else is going to contribute. I am not rich. I work for a living. Maybe I work a little harder or a little smarter than someone punching a clock, but does that give you the right to tax me into oblivion.
There are tax-free retirement funds already, Geezer. 401k's. IRA's. Social security is more comparable to insurance, not investment. Compared with any other insurance program it outperforms all of them. And you don't even have to sue the insurance company to get paid.
So, how will diverting money from the social security fund into these accounts make it *more* solvant? Explain this math, this "expanding pie" to me, please. Instead of having a Social Security shortfall in 2048, we'll be having it in 2012.
I like how you conservatives are trying to make yourselves look moderate, hiding your conservative radicalism from the American people to destroy a successful, popular program. Truth is, you guys never liked it-- and the entire Bush family especially has never liked it, and would like to erase anything Franklin Roosevelt did.
Sabotaging Social Security so that it must fail is not reforming it.
I know if you succeed in this, you'll also use it to prove how all government efforts are futile.
those too. Same old argument time after time: "It's just not fair. Only the rich people can afford to have IRA's"
Would you leftys PLEASE GET A LIFE! How do you know private ssi accounts will not work?! Bush hasn't even laid out a specific plan yet! The rough sketch is that young adults plus all other ssi tax payers under 55 would have an option to put X% into a private account. And that X% would be very small.
Why not let the professional economists critique the plans from the president before thinking that it will not work.
Because, if it came from Bush it's bad. For some people if a Republican suggests something their knee jerk reaction is, it's bad. Of course the same thing holds true in reverse, except the Dems haven't proposed anything. It's all some of them can say aout anything is "Bush Lied, Bush Lied" that's their answer for everything.
At least the House was Democratic for both of them, I think the Senate was Democratic when one, and perhaps both of those passed.
Therefore, most you could say is liberals/Democrats were divided on the issue, maybe.
I already posted on how private accounts will "work." It works like manning the lifeboats and scuttling the ship. With private accounts, the Social Security system will fail, far sooner than now forecast, but some people will get lifeboats when it does.
It's perfect if you don't like Social Security to begin with; (The Bush family hates it, BTW, a matter of no debate.) it's a pretty good way to sink it. Alternately, since withdrawing trillions from the fund will sink it within a decade rather than 40 years, you conservatives can then point to that as further proof that a government program isn't working-- again. A perfectly evil, deceptive plan, I'd say.
I'll repeat my question: what's stopping people from setting up private accounts now? Do they really need the government to tell them to do it, with funds the government has already restricted?
I'd let economists critique it, which would give Bush time to pass it while debate is paralyzed, but this is a no-brainer. It's basic math, albeit with very big numbers. Other than that, there's not anything complex about it.
Regarding the 3.3 for every person on SS -- duh! That is why Reagan and Tip O'Niel came up with an initial fix that created the current trust fund (by raising FICA taxes). We basically have to do the same thing today and maybe tweek the retirement age. But these are the options with the least amount of pain. Once the baby boom is dead, we'll be back to easy street until the next bump. So what? It is not that big of a crisis that can't be fixed with these tweeks.
Every other solution is way more costly -- including getting rid of the program completley.
that EVERYBODY knows social security has to be fixed, but they know politicians would not do anything because they'll never get elected.
So all of a sudden now the left think SS is a great program and nothing needs to be done?
Apparently they decided that since they don't like Bush, they are against EVERYTHING he stands for.
Please get that straight. Even Bush Republicans in Congress will tell you, in their frank moments, this does nothing to fix social security. It's not fixing a leaking ship; it's more like manning the life boats and calling that fixing it. Bush's maintenance will bankrupt social security sooner, while giving a few lucky people lifeboats.
Politicians fixed Social Security once before, remember? In 1982. No, I never thought politicians would do nothing, as you've accused. I just never thought a Roosevelt-despising politician would try to pull this kind of deceit. I don't think that because I hate Bush; I hate Bush more because I see it.
Frankly, I've have my gripes with social security, major and minor. One of them is, in my pessimism, I've always doubted it would be around when I'm supposed to benefit from it.
But Bush's plan makes that a certainty. It's a no-brainer. Tell me how withdrawing trillions of dollars from the fund to do something that Americans can already do without the government makes SSI **more** solvant.
Please refer to your Arithematic 101 notes if necessary.
-- Modified on 3/16/2005 2:28:48 PM
Everyone is in some sort of agreement that changes need to be made to insure the long-term solvency of SS. Most of the discussions have centered on raising the tax levels above $90,000, raising the eligibiliy age or reducing benefits.
What hasn't anyone suggested the SS Adminstrators investing the monies collected in an indexed fund that would generate more return that the current bonds? This is basically what Bush is saying, but his plan is to have individuals take this responsibility which adds up to $2 trillion in additional costs. If the logic is that the stock market will outpace the current returns, then why not let experts handle this vs. individuals?
The answer of course is that this is a plan that was suggested by Bill Clinton, but subsequently rejected by the Republican Party. Until partisian politics can be pushed to the side in favor of working for the people no real solution can or will be found. Who are these elected officials working for anyway?
The problem with investing the money into an index fund or anywhere for that matter, is that the money would actually have to be invested, real money not IOUs. The way the system works now, the money collected from payroll taxes goes into the general fund and is basically replaced with an IOU to SS from the federal government. The money is not available to be invested anywhere. If we could stop spending the money generated for SS the problem would be much easier to fix.
Can would provide any examples of the leaders of "the left" who say nothing should be done to change Social Security? From what I've the left, right and center are all saying that the solution to solvency issues 30 or 40 years in the future is not to take $1 to $2 trillion out of the system as Bush is proposing.
Can you guive us any examples of leading politicians of "the left" saying that nothing needs to be done with regard to Social Security? I guess I'm reading the wrong news sources because from what I've seen the Dems and the left are saying let's examine the problem and find a solution before it becomes a crisis. They are opposed (like a majority of Americans) to Bush's plan to address the future solvency problem by taking trillions of dollars out the system.
I wonder the percentage of poor people who suppot the presidents idea on this?