TRUTH: the current Social Security System relies on the same math and returns something on the order of 1 - 3% or less per year invested in the program.

While you bitch and moan about the rates and numbers, you fail to point out this reality.

The current system doesn't grow the money that is collected, or grows it at a number that is barely at or below the inflation level, such that the money that could be, and should be compounding is doing none of the same.

Instead of growing that money, you and others would prefer that the younger generations that follow you be forced into paying into a broken pyramid scheme so that you can continue to have your retirement without concern for the generations that follow that could have had much better.

REMINDER TO ALL - Pres. Bush has promised that no one aged 55 or old will see any changes to their system. THAT MEANS THAT ANYONE OLDER THAN 55 MUST SHUT THE HELL UP AND STAY OUT OF THE DISCUSSION. This isn't your problem. It's a problem for my generation, my son (and daughter)'s generation and those to come. Let us choose a solution that makes financial sense for all, rather than protecting our own assets at the expense of everyone else.

While it may be true that in order to get the most benefit out of the system that Pres. Bush may be proposing one would need to invest for a long time, it still beats the crap out of the existing system or any system that the Democrats and other liberals like Clueless Old Liberal (COL) Gene proposes.

COL Gene frets over transitions costs that can easily be covered -- BY SOAKING THE RICH (one of C.O.L.'s favorite tactics) -- by eliminating the current cap on earnings that are subject to the Social Security contributions. Doing that means that someone that earns more than $87,500 (approx) would find that all of their salary is subject to being taxed for Social Security, rather than just the first $87,500. If that cap is raised, then the transition costs are covered very quickly and easily, all in exchange for allowing people to put their own money into their own accounts which they would own forever.


Congratulations on getting two S.T.H.U. (Shut the hell up) awards in one day. You're really trying to earn these.

Terpfan1980

Who appointed you dictator? George W.

I showed that for all but workers under about 30, the Bush plan does nothing to help them. In addition, the issue of the individual accounts does not resolve the funding issues which Bush gives as the reason we need to act. It is a little like the reason we weant into Iraq. They were a so called danger to us. When it become clear that was not true , Bush changed the reasons about three times. The current version is the spreading democracy idea. I never said soak the rich. The wealthy did just fine under the higher tax rates that were in effect before Saint George and given our inability to balance the budget we need the added tax revenue.

THAT MEANS THAT ANYONE OLDER THAN 55 MUST SHUT THE HELL UP AND STAY OUT OF THE DISCUSSION. This isn't your problem.

I'm 54 years old. I guess that leaves me SOL. What about my kids? Am I not supposed to worry about them? The HELL this isn't my problem. How freakin' arrogant of you to suggest this isn't my problem. Damn, this is about us, you and me and our kids, and our kid's kids. WTF???????

I'm 54 years old. I guess that leaves me SOL. What about my kids? Am I not supposed to worry about them? The HELL this isn't my problem. How freakin' arrogant of you to suggest this isn't my problem. Damn, this is about us, you and me and our kids, and our kid's kids. WTF???????

Who determined that you should decide for MY KIDS, or ME, or my friends?

How arrogant of you also.

Again, if you are 55 or older, STFU. If you have relatives that would be affected negatively, then worry about them, advise them, and help them make the decision to support or not support the plans that are being talked about. BUT STOP COMPLAINING AS IF IT DIRECTLY AFFECTS YOU. These changes are not going to impact people that at or very near retirement age. Why the AARP is lobbying against these changes has far more to do with the fact that they don't want competition for their own insurance plans and financial services than the fact that they feel these plans are a bad thing.


And to the COL, again, your math doesn't add up when you continue to ignore what the existing returns are for the social security as currently structured. The returns on money invested in social security currently are virtually nil. For you to say that Bush's math doesn't add up shows how you don't want to acknowledge the faults in the existing structure.

You are both whiney old geezers who wish to continue parenting people that know better than you how your generation and the ones before have screwed over the financial futures of my generations and ones that follow.

So again, STFU and below me.

Since I am NOT 55 years or over, or anywhere remotely close to it, I assume I can speak my mind without getting a snap back that it doesn't concern me. I think that the current system is in need of a tune-up, but I also think that Bush's plan is not much different, or better.

Why the AARP is lobbying against these changes has far more to do with the fact that they don't want competition for their own insurance plans and financial services than the fact that they feel these plans are a bad thing.

So you say. As if I'd take your word for it. My opinion is that the above statement is abject bullshit. And, I will NOT STFU.

Go pound sand.............

terpfan1980

First, Social Security benefits increase each by the CPI not what the bonds pay in the Trust fund.

If the trust fund were increased by lifting the limit on Social Security income subject to the tax and invested in equities within the trust fund the picture would be very different. Every state pension plan has invested their trust funds in stocks and corporate bonds and produced very positive results. That is what Social Security should do. That will mean the Fed can not use the Social Security Trust fund to help balance the Federal Budget.

If the reason to change Social Security is to correct the funding problems, why would any rational person suggest a change that does not solve the problem at hand- The ability of Social Security to meet its obligations? Only George W.

Finally you would be better served to look at the reality of the issue at hand then calling people names. I will be glad to go toe to toe with you when it comes to education, past experience and accomplishments.

Why the AARP is lobbying against these changes has far more to do with the fact that they don't want competition for their own insurance plans and financial services than the fact that they feel these plans are a bad thing. So you say. As if I'd take your word for it. My opinion is that the above statement is abject bullshit. And, I will NOT STFU. Go pound sand.............

You should take your head out of what you told him to go pound and look at things a little more objectively. And I agree with something else too.... you should STFU! Your overwhelming ignorance is matched only by your over-bearing arrogance.

when it comes to ignorance, you have won the Academy Award many times over!!!!!!

when it comes to ignorance, you have won the Academy Award many times over!!!!!!

since I wasn't reffering to or talking to you in particular maybe *you* should STFU!

Social Security Math:

15% of income - $0 = While the FICA tax isn't voluntary, the private investment part is, so if you don't want to participate in it, you don't have to.

Col Gene...What part of "no risk if you don't participate" do you not understand?

Nice post col gene , not one rant,,

I am 58 and will discuss social security btw all I want.. last time I checked this is still AMERICA.

The above was not met for you colgene ok?

Reply #7 By: COL Gene - 3/10/2005 7:37:18 AM If the trust fund were increased by lifting the limit on Social Security income subject to the tax and invested in equities within the trust fund the picture would be very different. Every state pension plan has invested their trust funds in stocks and corporate bonds and produced very positive results. That is what Social Security should do. That will mean the Fed can not use the Social Security Trust fund to help balance the Federal Budget.

So, let me get this straight. It's ok with you for some government wonk to sit and decide which funds my contributions to Social Security goes into, even if it the money is invested (as it would potentially be in private accounts) in the market? Or are you still not allowing for that possibility.

Either way, in the grand scheme of things, I believe that offering U.S. citizens a choice of say 5 - 10 different investment plans, all of which have vast numbers of participants in them (just as we see with the scale of participants in 401-K programs run by groups like Fidelity) is a good thing. Enough choice for someone to choose a growth option, a bonds/mutual fund option, a real estate investment option, etc. But with the choice open to the participants. Not automatically decided by someone managing all of the fund at one time.

More choice is a good thing. How would you and other idiot liberals feel if I (or god forbid for you, Dr Miller) was in charge of your retirement and offered you absolutely no choice? If I managed the fund the way that Social Security retirement funds have been managed, I'd be eligible to be sued for failure to live up to my fiduciary responsibility. Malpractice and other fine words would be tossed around.

Instead, we've had a government mandated and regulated program that works to show the Peters principle still very much applies (just as it did with many mid level officers in the military ). We've put people into place that let the system run as poorly as possible so that the government can borrow more money from the fund (which they absolutely would not be able to do with private accounts) and then pay back with a minimal amount of interest and return -- WHICH HISTORICALLY NEVER MEETS THE INFLATION LEVELS, SO THE MONEY NEVER GROWS (except for the new mandatory contributions that are added in any given year).

There's no compounding of funds in the current social security system, because there's such poor financial management that the best that can be done is just keep pouring money into the bottomless pit so that those that are currently getting funds can use the money of those that are currently earning a living. If I recall correctly, the government uses RICO statutes to shut down organizations like the Gambino family and the mythical TV Sopranos because of these sorts of financial schemes, but with social security we sanction such a system and not just encourage, but mandate participation.

It is broken worse than the military promotion system was when I was in and they handed out promotions to any Tom, Dick, Harry or Gene that would re-up for just a little longer.

First, is the issue of the money needed to pay the benefits to those that are too old or choose not to opt into the private accounts. Where is that money? Next, any money diverted from the Social Security taxes into individual accounts needs to be replaced since it is needed to pay the benefits of those not in the new system. Where is that comming from?

Finally, for those who would choose the individual accounts, they have the risk of the market being down (like 2001-2003) when it is time for them to retire. It also takes 35 plus years to produce a sizeable investment amount, even at an 8% net yield. The advantage of pumping added tax revenue into the trust fund and investing that into a broad equity base moderates the timing issue and the costs would be less then to maintain millions of accounts. In addition, many average workers are not well suited to making sound investment choices and for the larger investor, the limits Bush is suggesting ($1,000 in year one which would be increased by $100 per year starting in your two) will not produce a large result before 35-40 years.

And yet you continue to overlook the obivous - the same problems exist in the existing program. Does that just not show on your radar screen at all?

The answers to your questsion are out there:

Where is the money for those that aren't going to participate or don't opt in - the same place it has been all along. That mythical trust fund that doesn't have anything but a bunch of no-good iou's. The money will continue to come in from portions that aren't permitted to go into the private accounts. The money that is still iou'd to the recipients still must be paid out. That money isn't going anywhere, so again, you have no issue since your benefits don't change, and the funding for your payments doesn't change. You collect from the debts that already exist, and have existed for years.

Is there risk, yes. But the same risk is there if heaven forbid the government just decides to declare bankruptcy and close out social security entirely. If for some reason the government decides it's easier to just go broke rather than really fund social security, than where is your money? It's still in a bunch of useless and worthless IOUs, right?

Finally, the $1,000 is a starting point. Bush originally started at figures of around $4,000 per year, but the figures have changed as the plan starts to come together. Over time, the idea is to move people away from depending on the government, and over to depending on their own investments. Reduce the government payouts by an amount that is covered by the private investment growth, so benefits stay the same, without the government being on the hook for providing the money.

Eventually the government loses the ability to play with the social security money (which I would think you'd see as a good think, given your constant cries of the government borrowing more and more), and the public becomes self sufficient (some might say empowered).

Where is the down side, other than for those that demand control over other's purse strings?