What about Social 'Security'?

Its no surprise the acronym for the Hutchinson/Pence bill on immigration is - guess - SAFE.
What I really cant wait for is the additional legislation from the GOP'S Amercan Values Agenda.
Legislate values?

Social Security????

I thought George W.,and his band of Einsteins fixed that problem a long time ago.

My mistake....

John E,

Problem would be on its way to being fixed exempt the obstructionist (that's people that get in the way) stopped it.

Are you really thrilled with a program that earns less than a 2% annual rate of return? Maybe that's a good return for you, but for the rest of America, that's pathetic. However, that's the return you get when 12.4% of your salary is confiscated and placed into a generational ponzi scheme.

Nothing new here...same things they fixed before.

Social Security was not fixed because the Dems obstructed any efforts to change the system. Even FDR did not intend Social Security to last as it was set up. And Terry is right. You libs happy to keep throwing your money into a system that only nets a 2 percent return?

And last time anyone touched Social Security was in 1994 when Al Gore cast the deciding vote to begin TAXING Social Security benefits on the seniors receiving them!!! So, not only is Social Security a tax to begin with, but when you begin getting a schmidgeon of that money back, the Dems voted to tax the tax!!

How typical, huh??

Terry,I have to ask the question once again,what do Republicans have against working people?

Under the Bush admin.,corporate profits have climbed to their highest share of GDP since the 60's.

Yet everyday we read about companies reducing or completely eliminating pensions and or health benefits for workers.

Since Republicans have taken control of Govt.the poverty and un-insured level has risen just like our National debt.

We now have 37 mil in poverty and almost 47 mil with no health insurance.

And you want to do away with Social Security.Do you have any idea how many retired families live solely off their SS benefits?

Terry,you think these people are worried about how their 401K's are going.You would like these same people to turn what little they have over to an in-experienced financial adviser and I'm sure they would invest it wisely for the old folks.

Just another example of Republican compassionate conservitism.

I hope I wasn't to harsh on Republicans,I don't want them to start whining in their wine spritzers like some need to do.

Terry, so you think that your SS money is safer with the money brokers than a system that has a proven track record? You know that your deduction for SS will probably stay the same, but they’ll just play with it in the stock market, which has the potential of losing your retirement money. Then who will take care of all those seniors if the stock market goes bust?

Social Security is not a retirement benefit. If you want to privatize the accounts answer this John D. or Terry. A worker at age 35 is declared permanently disabled by the Social Security Administration, how long do you expect this person to survive on a private account? What happens when this person's account is depleted?

Rory, Loon, do either of you have any 401(k)s? Own any stocks? Most Americans do today. Allowing workers to take the Social Security money and matching employer tax and to put it in CDs, IRAs, 401ks, bonds, whatever, will do those workers much, much better than the Social Security system. And come 2040, those Social Security benefits will NO LONGER be guaranteed?

Even after the stock market fell following 9/11, it was still higher than it was in 1995, 1990, 1985, 1980, 1970, 1960.

And, actually the Bush plan was to NOT take all the Social Security money for workers to put in their own private retirement account, but ONLY a fraction of it. Even under that scenario, they will still get Social Security money as well as their own private account come retirement, meaning they will be better off upon retirement.

Geez, as of this moment I will get a whopping $1,700 a month from Social Security once I retire when i turn 67, that is, if I'm able to retire. More than likely to save Social Security they will up the retirement age again. And, frankly, $1,700 a month will not cover expenses in 23 years.

Allowing people to invest their OWN money is NOT anti-worker. If anything, it is PRO worker.

Little Johnny D,your lack of knowledge in regards to our elderly comes shining on through.

Please keep your responses limited to what you have some knowledge in,which would be very little.

I can only imagine someone letting you invest their retirement money.YIKES!

Little Johnny D,another tid bit,The market does better under Dems than Repubs.

Just look at the above exchange. I put forth my beliefs, with no attacks toward anyone. Following that is one of the nation's great brain deads and his attack. Not using any fact, perspective, debate, just senseless attack. Yet, Dienne says that I and Bill and Terry bring the debate down into the gutter.

You see, Dienne, it is your ilk who brings the forum down to low levels. But because you disagree with me and Terry and a few others, we become your target rather than Loon, John E., Jack and the rest.

And, sorry Loon, I know the elderly very well. They are able to live well NOT because of their Social Security income, BUT because of their investments and savings.

Raving Loon, asking what republicans have against working people shows your bias. If you wanted to ask a similar stereotypical, not connected to reality question it would be "what do democrats have against small business owners?"

But we both know these questions are pure rhetoric used by the parties to stir up easy votes and they don't reflect the bulk of the membership of either party.

As a pure sidenote, what exactly makes someone a working person? I work 8-10 hours a day, 5 days a week, but it's in an office. I create a product, a magazine. I'm usually defined as a white collar worker in all my census and tax forms. But I've often asked, does that mean I don't work hard? Because I don't do manual labor? Or I have some degrees hanging off my wall?

Don't get me wrong, I love the trades and wouldn't be here without the hard work of lots of people who didn't work in offices to get me where I am today. My grandfather was a coal miner in southwestern Pennsylvania and my other grandfather was a brick and stone mason. Until his recent retirement my father was a maintenance man in a steel mill (still mill, for you Pittsburghers) and my mother was a public school teacher who just recently took a state early retirement buyout.

I'm thankful for everything I have and I recognize the sacrifices they all made so I could go to graduate school and do what I enjoy, writing, for a living. But I also believe they instilled the value in me that a hard day's work is the only thing that earns a hard day's pay. And I think they'd be proud of my efforts at what I do. So, to me, hard work happens in all professions. It's not the province of the trades exclusively, but, rather, a mindset and dedication that transcends any "class."

Raving Loon, you really shouldn't criticize other people's knowlege of the issue when you're own post says the republicans want to "do away with social security." Anyone who has even followed this debate in a cursory manner knows that creating voluntary personal savings accounts within social security would do no such thing. The current system would still exist for those who don't want to take the private investment option. Here that, it's optional! How does giving people more options hurt social security?

As soon as the baby boomers all retire the current system will collapse on its numbers alone if we don't do something. What do you suggest?

JD.

$1,700 per mo. will look pretty good then. Of course it's not supposed to be 100% of your retirement, but about 50%. Of course most of us have 401K and other retirement money. Hey, maybe more than you, even!

But the S.S.S. is the safety floor for a lot of people that have not been been able to save. And, there are lots of hard working people in that catagory.

Besides that, how can you trust all those insiders involved in stock price manipulation? The rich get richer for a reason. They are buying and selling to themselves, at your expence.

Now, can we trust it to be there? Not if you keep electing Republicans.

But C. Morris, it wasn't republicans who raided the teamsters pension fund to build Las Vegas, now was it? So we can't trust republicans or democrats to fix this problem. What do you suggest we do?

Bill,as usual,your just a hypocrite.

On this post you talk about working people,and on the other post your slamming the unions

Tell me Bill,I'll bet your parents were or are hopefully,good republicans.I'll bet your mother retired with a nice union package.

So I find it interesting you come from a good working back round,but the party you so feverishly support is so pro big business.Anyway you want to slice it Bill,you can't be pro big business without sacrificing support to the working class.

As far as SS,once again you are being dis-ingenuous,you can't allow people to pull money from the SS system because that's what's paying retiree's right now.Unless your for raising taxes?

Your own party wouldn' even support the lame idea,so as usual you try and blame someone else.

You point the finger at unions,tell me,did your mother like the union negotiated deal she left with?

Now if you and Little Johnny want,tell me the percentage of retirees living solely off SS right now.

I guess in your little yupee worlds,you just assume everyone has 401k's and money in CD's,that's how out of touch with reality you little Repubs are.

Yes,Little Johnny,I have 401K's,CD'S,and you know what,my 401K hasn't done jack @#&* since your crazy party has taken over.

Fair question. First both parties need to stop raiding the system to pay for other projects.

The Teamsters pension fund has no connection to SSS.
That's a criminal matter. The criminals may or may not be Dems.
I know that the Teamsters backed Nixon, so they may change stripes depending.

As far as solvency of SSS, the 'problem' may not even be a problem if job growth increases.

Also, if it becomes necessary, remove the cap and phase in very small increases over decades to keep solvency into the distant future. You may call this tax and spend, but at least the Dems get the tax side of the equation.

Look, SS is a safe, sure way to diversify your retirement portfolio. If anything a stable SS system will give Americans the confidence to do more investing with their other funds.

Again, John D, you're putting words in my mouth that I challenge you to prove. Yes, I said that your level of discourse has brought down the quality of discourse on this forum, and I stand by that, and I believe others will agree. A handful of non-insulting posts does not negate the slew of other nasty posts. However, I never said anything about Bill or Terry. In fact, Bill is generally respectful and I enjoy reading his perspective and back-up for his arguments, even if I don't agree with his points. And, you completely overlooked the fact that I called out Raving Loon, who is a fellow liberal, on exactly the same rude behavior.

JD,

I generally agree with Dienne's previous post.

Also, Neutral Lady gave you are real good role in her little story about you and JE, and you blasted her for it.

Crazy Duck,

I have nothing against working people. I would like for them to keep an additional 12.4% of the wages, not have it confiscated by the gov't.

The 47 million was similar to the number that Presdient was quoting in the 92 election to fear monger socialized health care. Considering the population has grown, I would say the percentage of uninsured has not changed since the early 90's.

To the current retires, their promise of payments must be kept, to future retirees get them the hell out of this program. The stock market has earned a 8% return over any given forty year period - much better than the measly 2%.

If a 46 year-old whoc currently makes $40,000 per year and all he had earned since he was 22 was 3% raises were able to take all of social security taxes that he has paid and invest them in the DJ Index (without dividend reinvestment) and also keep getting just a 3% raise until he retires at age 67 (retirement age for someone born in 1960); that individual would retire with a nest egg of over $800,000. This in addition to any pension and/or 401K.

Compound interest is a wonderful thing.

Also, your response to JohnD at 10:57 was void of any facts, just some name calling.

All the growth in the stocks came in 90's due to the growth of the personal computer and internet. By the way, the lack of investor confidence is due to the lakc of faith in financials that has occurred - culminating with Enron's collaspe in 2001 for funny accounting that occurred during the Clinton Administrations SEC.

Rory,

The problem is so many people are financially illetrate. Chalk another success story of public education.

Jethro,

You are correct that SS is more not just a retirement benefit. That is its problem, the funding of the retirement piece and the workers comp/survivor benefits are the same. The risks that each of these programs are entirely diffeerent and should be treated as such.

CMorris,

$1700 in about 20 years will be worth about 1/2 that much due to inflation. It might pay your real estate taxes.

The cap is being removed very gradually already as it rises at about 4-5% per year as opposed to the average person's salary increase which is more closly tied to inflation.

The SS system just makes me depressed that all this money is going down a rat hole and if I get it back, my kids will be paying thru the nose. As far as diversifying, I guess if you mean adding a bad investment to a good investment; that is diversification.

"However, that's the return you get when 12.4% of your salary is confiscated and placed into a generational ponzi scheme.

Posted by: Terry | Aug 31, 2006 9:57:09 PM"

Terry,

If you want to see a ponzi scheme, check out the high yield offers on the stock market.

And after you have accumulated your small ,say 500K, nest egg after all the uncovered illness, car repairs, house repairs, college fees, broadband bills, 5 generations of computer hardware and software or more, just wait till you see what your 'annuity' will be.

You will be glad to see some SS coming in.

Thanks, Dienne, I enjoy your posts, too. They are always well-thought out and backed by facts.

Loon, if you consider pointing out facts "slamming the unions" then sign me up for the slamming. Everything I've said about unions is backed up by facts. Read any history of Las Vegas and you'll realize the Sands hotel casino was built with money looted from the Teamster's pension fund. Yes, I think allowing that to happen was a mistake by a gigantic union, no sane person, even a union member in good standing, would disagree with that.

And are you really saying that simply raising taxes would fix social security? That's awfully naive. I tend to think like the taxpayers who threw their tea into Boston Harbor. Taxing the people more because of government's mistake is ALWAYS a bad policy.

What's a "good working back round?" Like I asked in my previous post, because I wear a white shirt does it mean I don't work? What are you saying? What is "the working class?" Because I don't believe in classes or me versus the kids I caddied for at the country club. Most of them serve me drinks at bars back home now. But I certainly don't hold anything against them because they and their families had more money than mine. I don't believe in classes, I just believe in me.

"you can't be pro big business without sacrificing support to the working class," Really, why not? If companies succeed, as Ford did in the late '90s and early millenium when it got its biggest SUV boost (I know it was poor long-term planning, but just follow the example) didn't its union workers make more money? The UAW counted record wages for its members because of overtime, regular wage increases and production bonuses its unions negotiated in 2001. The company and the union made money, isn't that how the system's supposed to work?

The problem, as I see it, with much of the union leadership today (the AFL-CIO in particular) is that they see the argument just like you do, Loon. That business can't succeed without screwing over labor. Well, somehow Microsoft and other new economy companies succeed and workers can't wait to sign up for employment. Union or no. The silicon valley companies have the most attractive benefits and perks packages in America, yet none of them are union. Maybe management realizes a happy labor force is in their best interest?
That's why the Teamsters and other big unions have left the AF of L. They realize that to succeed WE HAVE TO WORK TOGETHER.

It's not labor versus management. It's not big business versus big labor. It's DEFINITELY not class warfare. We're all in the same game and on the same team here.

Yes, raiding the pension fund wasn't a government matter but Anthony Spilotro and Lefty Rosenthal were both contributors to the democratic party. That's why I drew that comparison.

Let's be honest, though, both republicans and democrats have been raiding the social security trust fund for the last 30 years. Neither party has credibility here.

"Yes, raiding the pension fund wasn't a government matter but Anthony Spilotro and Lefty Rosenthal were both contributors to the democratic party. That's why I drew that comparison.

Let's be honest, though, both republicans and democrats have been raiding the social security trust fund for the last 30 years. Neither party has credibility here.

Posted by: C. Morris | Sep 1, 2006 8:26:31 PM"

I didn't make this post, though I may agree generally with it.
C.Morris

CMorris,

Please describe how your statement "If you want to see a ponzi scheme, check out the high yield offers on the stock market." is a ponzi scheme? An investment with high yields does not make it a ponzi scheme.

Do a present value calculation of all those social security payments you will receive and see how little they are worth. For that, you will need to know when you are eligible to retire, your estimated mortality, and your payments amounts. You will discover that the amount is pretty small - it won't approach that $500K.

Remember, President Clinton wanted to invest social security funds in the stock market. The difference between his plan and President Bush's was that the gov't would retain control, not the individual.

I will agree with you however that social security taxes have become nothing more than funding for current expenditures. However, that makes social security more of a ponzi scheme, not less. There is no "lock box".

Hey C. Morris. I think I meant to address you in that post and accidentally put your name in the name box instead of the comments box. That post was mine. One too many last night, I guess.

Bill,

Yeah, I thought that too. I knew no harm intended.

C.Morris

Terry, give some time! Work, play, wife, etc. takes so much time! ha ha

Terry,

Here is scenario:

Daddy Warbucks owns three million dollars worth of stock in, say,
military quality vibrating devices, and it's doing real well. Very high.

He puts in a 'sell' for all his stock, all 3meg worth and gets huge profits.

The next day the stock, due to the large sell off the previous day, falls significantly, and continues to struggle.

A month later Daddy Warbucks buys the stock back at a lower price.

Also, see ENRON for a real world scheme.

CMorris,

You are talking specific stock, I am talking stock market indexes.

Let's take you one stock scenario:

Back in late 80's there is this stock that runs this stuff called software on something called a personal computer. You take your mouse (now what a rodent has to do with this I don't know) and all you do is point and click and some software will appear.

This software will allow you to type papers. Don't know why I need this, I have a typewriter. Also, allows you to use this thing called an elctronic spreadsheet. Don't need this either, I mean I have some 14 column accounting worksheets and a calculator.

I mean this company called Microsoft, they'll never amount to much.

By the way, that Company called Enron was sending all those phonied up financial statements in the late 1990's to which administration's Security and Exchange Commission?

T.

I can't argue against the point that capitalism is the most efficient means of producing wealth. Your Msoft example is correct.

But it's just too much of a crystal ball requirement to think the majority of the people have the finesse, or the capital to turn that into a safe, adequate retirement.

I repeat, the safety of the return on SS is the key. It's the floor.
Terry, if you think any of these corporation give a hoot in hell about us, or America you are just wrong.

Suggested reading:
Grapes of Wrath, Steinbeck
It Can't Happen Here, Sinclair Lewis
Little Steel, Upton Sinclair

PS: I have already read everything published by Ann Ryand

PS to Bill,

Your reasoning that in the late '90s the phoney stuff was being sent to Clinton Admin. is just another reason to keep SS out of it.

You can't assume all libs. or progressives like or defend Clinton.

CMorris,

Not too much of a crystal ball involved. There are plenty of tools out there to help those with little economic or financial education. The fact that they have that little of financial education says something about the 13 years of free gov't education that they receive.

As far as Corporations caring about us, you are correct; labor is a commodity. That why individuals need to become shareholders and share in the wealth of America.

Terry,

That PS was to you, not Bill.

"As far as Corporations caring about us, you are correct; labor is a commodity. That why individuals need to become shareholders and share in the wealth of America.

Posted by: Terry | Sep 4, 2006 9:53:11 AM"

Terry,

Labor is a commodity, yes. And that's a problem, esp. in the globalized economy that BOTH parties has shoved down our throats. Unions recognized this, a long time ago, and helped balance the deal. But unions must die. Don't fit into the brave new world economy.

The financial attrition of a work life will take the pitifully small working capital the little man or woman can earn for investment purposes. Even a well off, insured family can be broken these days by fairly routine medical procedures. I would add, we need universal health care on top of a vigorous SS system.

Don't you see that retirement and medical protection would give all of us the confidence to march off into that brave new world? Just think, if you get fired because your store didn't sell enough landfill junk for one quarter, you wouldn't have to worry about losing your retirement or health care.

To invest enough to cover an actual retirement the worker must be compensated enough to leave enough after obligations to well, invest!

But those jobs are going going gone. A huge number of Americans are no longer working for entities like Bethlehem Steel, mining, automotive, etc. They are in a big box store earning below living wage selling the stuff made in Indonesia.

You seem to speak like a rich man. Maybe you are or maybe not. I don't know. But maybe you need to reread 'The Christmas Carol' by C. Dickens. Pay particular attention to the part about 'the worm on leaf looking with contempt upon his brethren in the dust'.

CM,

You want to add Universal Health care onto Social Security. So lets see, the federal gov't would be in charge of your retirement, workers' comp, life insurance (survivor benefits) and then your doctor and dental bills.

Why stop there? Why shouldn't the feds be in charge of your housing? your food? your cars? your clothing? Where does personal responsibility start and the nanny state end?

I am a believer of personal responsibility, not getting handouts from the gov't. I know there are times people need a hand-up, but it should not be a lifelong committment.

The only things that gov't should be in charge of that the individual can't are things like the defense and infrastructure to name two.

CM, I am not a rich man. My family leaves pretty much paycheck to paycheck, but part of that responsibility is putting aside some for retirement, some for the kids education funds, etc... We don't have vacations every year, we aren't mortgaged up the rear-end by living in the fancist neighborhood, we drive domestic and we drive the cars into the ground. Providing for one's needs is not rocket science, but it does take effort and discipline; not being lazy and relying on your neighbor (the gov't).

Terry,

I believe you.

And everyone should save for a large part of their retirement.

But old age security and medical care are not the same as shopping around for jeans, or a car. So, that's where I draw the line.

And, as I have said before, SS should only be one component of your retirement security. It's just a floor.

And SS is NOT a hand out. I have been helping pay for my grand parents, parents, old aunts and uncles, etc. for 40 years, and gladly. I know it's not an account, but pay as you go system. And when we are ready to collect, someone else will pay as we all go,
forward. Then some day, they will get it too.

Re. medical care, it won't be long before only the very well off or rich will be able to afford medical care at all. The current system is going to come crashing down. Cost shifting will cause it.

It's a matter of the US, as a country, being willing to dedicate the needed money for single payer, universal health care. How to pay? Give business a break, and only require (you fill in the number) % of what they pay now. A substantial reduction for them should be possible. The rest, increase in Medicare taxes, move everyone in.

How will I pay the taxes? Our medical ins. costs us $4800 per now, plus a high deductible of 4000 if we use it, so, there you go. This is where everyone is headed. Business is abdicating it's d'facto pledge to provide medical insurance to their employees.

CMorris,

I guess we will just disagree on how much gov't involvement we want in our lives.