 |
Why didn't we listen to G.W. Bush and put the Social Security Money in the hands of the Wall Street bankers? At least we know the government would then bail us out.
Treasury Secretary Paulson Says Social Security "Unsustainable" - America Talks Back, News
At least President Bush tried to reform the system . All the Democrats did was stonewall and let the growing crisis fester .And of course they will solve Medicare insolvency by offering universal healthcare for everyone!! If I was a young worker ,knowing what I know about SS and Medicare , I would be preparing to storm the Bastille. The system is ridiculous and has been a ponzi scheme from it's inception. Heck a ponzi scheme would be preferable . At least you only get ripped off once . This is perpetual pocket picking .
Hello:Quote:
Originally Posted by magprob
Wow! These guys are really sharp. I'm glad they're at the helm. Boy, do they make me feel better...
But... Wait a minute... He's been Treasury Secretary for about 8 years now, and THIS is all he can come up with??
Frankly, I don't think there's an 11th grader in this country that doesn't know that SS is "unsustainable".
excon
Hello again excon: I know you may have been busy dodging sniper fire, also; but Mr. Paulson goes back just a short while: "President George W. Bush nominated Henry M. Paulson, Jr. to be the 74th Secretary of the Treasury on June 19, 2006. The United States Senate unanimously confirmed Paulson to the position on June 28, 2006 and he was sworn into office on July 10, 2006 by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. As Treasury Secretary, Paulson is the President's leading policy advisor on a broad range of domestic and international economic issues."Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
U.S. Treasury - Biography of Henry M. Paulson, Jr., Secretary of the Treasury
Once again, the Dems roadblocked reform of social security and medicare because the reform proposals did not include more power and authority over your life and mine; I expect you know that, but some of the other posters don't.
John Snow was at Treasury until Paulson and before him Paul H. O'Neill
Hello again, George:
Ok then, that explains it. He's only a ROOKIE Treasury Secretary and hasn't been trained yet. That's why he's so dumb.
excon
PS> (edited) The only people dodging sniper fire over here are those who go hunting with Cheney (I used his first name, but the software didn't like it. We should change his name to Duck anyway.)
Lol; at least you aren't cherry- picking this time. Can't you think of some other reasons he might come up with this warning, at this time?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, George:Quote:
Originally Posted by George_1950
Uhhhhh, no.
You're right. Bush failed. It's a dead issue for THIS administration. That would be a reason for NOT bringing it up.
SS reform isn't on the horizon. Nobody is talking about it. McCain, a self admitted dufus on the economy, isn't even talking about SS. So he's not lobbying him. I don't know, George, maybe he's looking for a job.
Nope. I really don't know why this problem, which isn't news, is being mentioned now.
Is it true? Yes. But, it's like mentioning to the passengers aboard the Titanic, who were being loaded onto life boats, that the ship was sinking...
excon
Ummm because he is required to make an annual report on the subject ? It is an actuarial requirement .
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Ahhh, I got it. He was just doing his job - reportin.
He's not fixing... He's not leading... He's not suggesting what to do. He's just doing his job - reportin.
Sounds like the Bush admin.
excon
It is not his job to fix SS ;it is Congress' job to do so. The President offered a plan and it was according to the Dem obstructors DOA . Ok what is their plan ?
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
No... A leaders job is to lead, not pass the buck and make excuses. You're right about one thing. That's how this administration has been run. There's NO accountability in the Bush White House.
Tom, the dufus in chief had BOTH houses of congress. If you can't get the job done with THAT, you ain't no leader...
Course, we know that.
excon
You can't blame Bush for the system we all live within, as you know fully well it takes 60 senate votes.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
As you know the minority party has a great ability to throw a monkeywrench into anything they don't agree with . As an example ;The Republicans as you know have been able to thwart any attempt by the Democrats to defund or cut and run from Iraq. So it is not just a matter of leadership. Example . The last time Social Security was "reformed " or as I call it kick the can down the road was during Reagan's term . What you call leadership was actually capitulation . He gave Tip O'Neil everything he wanted in increased taxes . That kind of leadership will not reform the system. The system needs an overhaul that is the equivalent of scrapping it and starting over . But SS being the 3rd rail in politics means real solutions cannot be considered . The President's plan was bold so it had no chance of succeeding .
Hello again, tom and George:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
See, here's where you loyal Bushies go wrong. Clearly, it DOES take 60 votes in the Senate. With good leadership, and more importantly a good plan, the job could have been accomplished...
But, of course, Bush didn't start with a good plan. It would have put the burden of fixing social security on the working class, while his friends, the "have mores", drink Champaign...
Tell me, what's fair about a working man paying 8% of his income for SS, when a "have more" pays only 1% or 2% of their income?? Maybe if they had a plan that was fair, they could have gotten the job done...
But, nooooo.
Bush's solution wasn't a solution. He really kind of misses what SS is all about. Course, that's not surprising, ifin you never read a book. His plan was no plan - it was a dodge. Let the market decide if you can retire - not the government.
excon
Um, I honestly can't remember when this wasn't news. Seems I was told there would be no SS for me when I got my first job at 16, 31 years ago. The reports have crossed the spectrum ever since and probably long before that. There is a bit of good news in this report though, under Rubin in 1998 depletion was projected in 2032, while Paulson says it will be depleted in 2041. Rubin projected the negative cash flow to begin in 2013, while Rubin projected it 10 years, 2018. But then, it is an election year and I'm sure those numbers will be very fluid on both sides.
Well for one thing it is not about fairness . It is not supposed to be a tax . It IS supposed to be an insurance . It is supposed to be a protected "investment " in your retirement ;it is NOT supposed to be part of the general revenue. It has been a fraud for all those reasons.
No Bush got exactly what SS is about . It is supposed to guarantee a return on your investment . IN that regard it only worked for the people at the beginning of the pyramid . Just like a ponzi scheme.
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
In 2041 Social Security will currently only by able to pay out seventy-eight percent, although many of the analyst term this as "broke." I strongly suggest, when possible, anyone not putting money into an IRA do so. There are four or five different types. With this recession if you have an a 401K account, set it to mostly conservative funds with lowers risk, although smaller gains. If a person wants they can indulge into some moderate funds, but only place perhaps forty percent at max. But absolutely no high risk adventures. I know people that indulged and lost twenty-five percent of their portfolio in the last year. It's well worth money spent for those not from a financial background to go to Barnes & Noble.com - Books, Used & Out of Print, Textbooks, Children's Books, DVDs, Music, Toys or Borders - Home and search engine the personal finances section. Suze Orman, the blond haired Jewish woman seen on TV, has many books out that cover a wide range of issues.
Also adjoined to the topic of issue, politics, both Democrat and Republican, see one advantage of giving amnesty to illegals because the fact it helps replenish our Social Security. In the following new article, link below, you'll read where the original forecast was only a seventy-five percent payback in 2041, but now have recalculated to seventy-eight percent based on legal and illegal immigration contribution.
www.kansascity.com | 03/25/2008 | A warning on Social Security, Medicare
Your advice to get into your own plan ;the sooner the better for the young is excellent advice .The money that SS will return is not sufficient ;another reason it is a scam. And it reinforces my argument that the President's plan would've encouraged such savings.Quote:
I know people that indulged and lost twenty-five percent of their portfolio in the last year.
Yes the loss in the market is a short term paper loss . Your advice would be contingent of course on how many more years before retirement . If I was lclose to retirement I would've already found conservative investments to park the account in. I am still too young to take that approach although I did rebalance my plan somewhat early fall last year . I look at the current correction market as a buying opportunity .
I don't quite get that . There are current illegals who pay into the system that are not ever going to see their money if they are not made legal . Once given amnesty it seems there will be a greater burden on the system. But I know where an argument can be made that by increasing the number of immigrants you can fund the system until the next crisis (more kicking the can down the road. )Quote:
Also adjoined to the topic of issue, politics, both Democrat and Republican, see one advantage of giving amnesty to illegals the fact it helps replenish Social Security. In the following new article, link below, you'll read where the original forecast was only a seventy-five percent payback in 2041, but now have recalculated to seventy-eight percent based on legal and illegal immigration contribution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Part of the losses were offset by the employer contribution to the 401K. Although most financial experts place 401K investments above other options because of the touted contribution factor, personally I still take the IRA route. Corporate downsizing, lay-offs, and business stability are factors in tough economic times. As you alluded to earlier, we need to try to keep a much control over our own destined investments as possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Yes. For anyone looking at fifteen to twenty years plus down the road toward retirement, although it still effects those retiring sooner depending on lifespan.
Correct. This would be an effort to offset the number of baby boomers retiring with contributions from the population of increaed immigrants legal and those that would be granted amnesty. In other words our government trying to buy themselves time to sort out the Social Security mess. Likewise similar to the "stimulus package" rebate checks that will be a temporary band-aid.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
You betcha. Unfortunately, thanks to about 6 years of significant health expenses for my wife I have been unable to do so. We do have a couple of moderate risk IRA's that have done quite well (I haven't checked this month's statement yet) and one healthy conservative IRA that's just collecting interest. We aren't putting our hopes in SS so we do need to start adding funds to our retirement accounts.Quote:
Originally Posted by BABRAM
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I feel for your family's burden on the medical expenses. I trust that whatever didn't get picked by the insurance, you were able to deduct to some degree off your taxes. As I recall reading the IRS standard for this years minimum started somewhere between 2.5K and 3.2K in accumulated bills with qualifications, or 7.5 % of your adjusted gross income. You're in spot even more precarious than most, although with the current economics much of the middle class can't save much for the future either.
Ex, I know you love to kick Bush, and the SS mess is another excuse to do so, but WAIT, wasn't it the Dems under the leadership of LBJ who STOLE the SS trust fund which had a huge surplus? They then put it into the general fund and promptly spent it on a fool's errand of trying to eliminate poverty. Remember the "Great Scociety"? LBJ ran on a patently communistic philosophy and the people were stupid enough to elect him. You are too selective in your criticisms.
Thanks, Bobby. With all I've paid out of pocket the past few years you'd think I would be all for universal health care ;). Trust me though, I do understand first hand the health care burden. We were able to deduct some this year and last but I'm not sure that's a good thing, lol. I'll put it this way, our house is paid off so we have no mortgage interest to deduct, so with our charitable contributions, medical, sales tax, etc. it just topped the standard deduction. It's a good thing we give because we want to or it might make a guy wonder why he would give when he sees he could have hung on to his money and received the same deduction. That's OK though, a healthy wife and being able to help someone is better than any tax deduction. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by BABRAM
They have been saying social security is going bankrupt since the 60's
Some how it always manages to pull through. At least they quit paying alcohols to have a keg party once a month. Oh well I am just a bystander watching the whole mess and wondering when it is going to go from the downward spiral to the nose dive.
No matter what differences the parties may have on reforming the healthcare system, the bottom line is that our family's health is more important than gold, diamonds, or driving the latest sports car.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Excellent! I've been watching Lou Dobbs commentary on Paulson and housing foreclosures, and on this I think Lou is right on.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
1] Do you know the tax system is "progressive" that is the more income you make the GREATER PERCENTAGE in taxes you will be paying.
2006 Federal Tax Rate Schedules
And what kind of kool-aid are you drinking? ;)
2] All these politicians are hypocrites.
- Do they have all their retirement money only in social security or are they investing in the private sector? What are they're portfolios doing?
As a former federal employee , I had the option to invest pre tax money in the private sector, why is it not good enough for the average american to decide what to do with a greater portion of his income rather than have the government decide how to do it more inefficiently?
- Some may want universal healthcare, how many have private sector insurance?
- How many send their kids to private schools?
Yet they all pander by saying we'll tax "the rich" so you can have more entitlements.
Why would the average politician care? They'll be dead or out of office when SS and Medicare collapses.
At least "the dufus in chief," as you put it, had the b.ll.. s to address a political third rail.
That is an excellent question.Quote:
As a former federal employee , I had the option to invest pre tax money in the private sector, why is it not good enough for the average american to decide what to do with a greater portion of his income rather than have the government decide how to do it more inefficiently?
Hello in:Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
INCOME tax is progressive. SS Tax is RE-gressive. The rich pay the SAME amount the poor does, making it a much smaller percentage of their income.
Still not drinking that kook-aid.
excon
Social Security benefits are calculated on the basis of a worker's earnings over their career. However, only the worker's earnings under the maximum taxable amount are used to compute those benefits. So the rich wage earner is getting no additional benefit than any other worker gets from the plan.
Of course if you did increase the cap the smart rich guy knows how to beat that game. All they have to do is control their wages and make up the difference in interest and dividend income.Whereas a wage earner who cannot use these options would be penalized.
Already the tax system encourages wage earners to control their hours of work lest they fall into the alt. min tax bracket. This is not rich people but regular middle class families living in area where it takes more money just to feed and house them . This has a negative impact on the productivity of our economy and it would be worse if you drove more wage earners to stop working those extra hours.
Elimination of the cap would be by far the highest increase in taxes in the country's history . I find you position to hardly be libertarian on this issue.The kicker is that all it would do is increase the pool of money in the general revenue that Congress would I'm sure find more reasons to spend it. There would instead be more IOUs in the "trust fund" that will be coming due in the future and the solvency issue would only be kicked down the road for less than a decade . For the worker the net effect would be an even less return on their contribution.
just one more thought. If I'm a wage earner making income above the cap then there is a bigger probability that I can take the option of early retirement at the age of 62 and start receiving my benefits. I would have to seriously consider that option over being fleeced by people who think that the SS retirement safety net is a redistribution of wealth tool. That's a potential 5 years of my paying premium income taxes and SS contributions into the system against my beginning to take money out of the system .
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:53 PM. |