What is the difference between putting it in a private account or Congress borrowing it to use for some pet project. At least in the private account, it is in your name and you control it. When Congress takes it, you don't know where it is or if you will ever see it again.

Easy pass a law that they can't borrow from it...ding....problem solved.

David, privatizing SS is optional, as being proposed. It would work like a 401k, where the owner would have the option of various investments.

The problem DEMOCRATS (who I have begun to actively despise at this point because they are such liars and thieves) have with this is it requires a level of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

I'm opposed to letting people opt out and privatize their investments, but not because I disagree with personal responsibility.

I just fear the day when the stock market tanks again, and you have an entire segment of the population who opted to privatize their SS now broke. Sure, they could privatize and invest in Tbills, but many won't and risk losing it all in the stock market.

What then do we do with these people? I can't in good conscience condemn them to starve in the streets (even though that's what personal responsibility would dictate), so we end up having to share the portion of SS that was not privatized with all the idiots who pissed their "private SS" money away.

I think the idea of having a guaranteed public pension program, PLUS what anyone can save privately for retirement, really makes the most sense as it spreads the most risk around.

Now, if only we can get Congress to stop raiding the SS surplus....

DrowningGrover

David, privatizing SS is optional, as being proposed. It would work like a 401k, where the owner would have the option of various investments.

The problem DEMOCRATS (who I have begun to actively despise at this point because they are such liars and thieves) have with this is it requires a level of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

I'm opposed to letting people opt out and privatize their investments, but not because I disagree with personal responsibility

Anyone that does not accept Personal Responsibility, deserves what they get.

Drowning, you have just proved why people such as yourself cannot achieve anything.

My job is to provide to MY family, then teach my FAMILY how to provide for their generation.

Only an idiot thinks personal responsibility is an option.

Exactly, there you are sitting pretty with your privatized social security and along comes an administration that decides it good to cut taxes, go to war, and say that deficits don't matter.

Poof !

Destitution, no retirement, now what?

Set you off on an ice flow in Alaska?

Eric-913730

Exactly, there you are sitting pretty with your privatized social security and along comes an administration that decides it good to cut taxes, go to war, and say that deficits don't matter.

Poof !

Destitution, no retirement, now what?

Set you off on an ice flow in Alaska?

Social Security was an issue when? Bush did not break it. Who was the President that changed that fund to bonds?

Keep saying it Brandon, just Republicans trying to silence you is all.

Don Smith-973482

It was Jimmy Carter's Administration, and a REPUBLICAN Congress who overrode his veto.

ONE MORE TIME THE REPUBLICANS HAVE SCREWED US ALL

Nope, you realize that the Dems controlled Congress, President Carter (just like President Obama had a super-majority).

During Carter years he had a Democratic Congress.

Amazes me how you ignore history when Republoicans have only held the congress 10 years out of forty.

Gra

Very well said Governmentforthepeople -

You know we're in deep do-do when our creditors, the Chinese, voice their concerns and hope the "America will honor it's obligations". Even they see us as a debt risk.

Double dip recession? How could it not be???!!!

It would be very naive to think this country couldn't be the next Greece. We already have states that are insolvent. How much longer before the country becomes insolvent?

Don Smith-973482

It was Jimmy Carter's Administration, and a REPUBLICAN Congress who overrode his veto.

ONE MORE TIME THE REPUBLICANS HAVE SCREWED US ALL

Seriously you are an idiot. Carter had a Super Majority , Republicans did not takeoever till 1994.

You should not delve into idiocy when you are smarter than this.

Nonetheless, Democrats have been able to seize on the issue because of a proposal by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the top Republican on the House Budget Committee, that would allow younger people to put Social Security money into personal accounts.

Of course the Liberal Progressives will seize on this issue. The Republican proposal embraces the notion of personal responsibility and independence. Liberals cannot conceive the concept of American's thinking and investing our own money. We should all realize that we are incapable of rational thought and need Bigger and Bigger government to take care of us from the cradle to the grave. How dare We The People insult the Haavad educated likes of Barrack and his cronies Nanny and Hairy! The Liberal progressive collective is much more intelligent than we can ever hope to be. Their Ivy League intelligencia must be allowed to think AND act for us.

We American's need to understand what a wonderful job our hallowed government has done with all the entitlements they have created for us. Social Security has ONLY accumulated $14.5 TRILLION DOLLARS in unfunded liabilities. It is currently running in the red for the first time in history. But then again nowadays our elected leaders throw around TRILLIONS of our tax dollars as if it's the pocket change we toss into the charity jar at 7-11! What's a few more TRILLION DOLLARS down the road for our progeny to be responsible for? We have to be sensitive to the legacy our past and current governments have and want to create for themselves. Remember we elected our politicians to be remembered historically rather than responsibly represent us. In their alleged minds!.

Barrack blatantly lies about Republican support for issues as if he thinks we just sit here cluelessly and wait for his exalted words to be spoken. His narcissism is only exceeded by his hypocrisy. America suffers in a recession/depression as Barrack and his family jet-set around the country and the world while preaching frugality to all of us.

Perhaps if Barrack et al took a vacation to Arizona's Maricopa county and lived in the same fear our American neighbors do they'd understand the real problems facing us. Maybe if they vacationed in the still empty hotels all along the gulf coast and actually LISTENED to the plight of real American's suffering they'd understand the real problems facing us. But then again that would require true sacrifice from Barrack and we all know his superiority can never allow that to happen

Google "Cloward Piven Strategy" and you'll see what's going on. Really quite fascinating.

ok if social security money is in a private account it is being invested in the country. if social security is held by the government it is being spent and an iou is being issued. which is better for the country as a whole?

What they need to do is partially privatize it. 50% of the money should be forced into an interest bearing insured account with the government receiving some of the interest as a tax. 50% of the money should be in self directed mutual funds again with a small percent of the money going toward government.

for example if you have a 100 dollars 50 dollars goes to xyz bank and gets 2.5% interest while the government gets .5% interest for being there.

and with your other 50 dollars you can put 25 in a bond fund and earn 6% returns with the government getting 1%

and 25 can go into the let it ride internet fund earning between -25% and 100% annually depending on the performance of the fund. with the government sharing in the profitable years.

The Democrats are fickle friends of Social Security at best. Both parties are very corrupt and Wall Street, who has been salivating over the money in the SS trust fund for decades, contributes heavily to both parties, with probably more going to Democrats. Democrats always come out with ringing indorsements of SS when they are behind in the polls or are in some other kind of trouble with voters, then when that situation passes they start sounding a lot like Republicans on the issue. Bill Clinton had Lawrence Summers working on a plan to privatize SS back in the '90's but then that great american hero Monical Lewinsky interceded and because of the resulting scandal Clinton decided it wasn't time just yet to stab the american people in the back so yanked back on Larry's leash and came out defending SS!

Social Security is the most successful social program ever and greatly reduced or put an end to a bad problem that had existed for a long time: extreme poverty in old age.

I guess some people on here are nostalgic for the days when seniors ate cat food in order not to starve but most americans would rather not return to those "good ol' days" of free market capitalism.

Having said that a lot could be done to strengthen SS as a government program, for instance taking the cap off of contributions to the SS trust fund for people making over 100 k or what ever it is now. They should be lowering the age at which you can retire with full SS benefits and making them more generous, so people would retire and open up positions for younger workers. This would create millions of jobs.

Social Security is not in trouble at all and is in better shape than most government programs and probably most american businesses.

Obama's support of the NY mosque was deleted...why???

The program would give the US citizens the ability to put away up to 5% into mutual funds. And with the Gov't in control of the funds, they could be very conservative. If it is anything like my 529 (Children's College Saving Plan, every state has them) they will be very risk adverse.

This is a political hot button issue, good idea and bastardized by the left as a bad idea and risky. Worlds less less risky than the US buying GM, Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac.

Let the middle class have a 401K too.

Maybe Scott Gibbs called and told them to take it off. Judging by the posts, my guess is Obammy is feeling some heat.

Though the idea of privatizing SS is noteworthy, the bottom line is HOW do we do that without causing more financial issues that we already have. If the young people put thier SS deductions into thier own privatized account, Then HOW do we provide the SS that our seniors need right now? Do we just take it away from them since they had no choice to put it into a privatized account when they were young? The $$$ program as it is currently set up, the contributions of the young now provide for those seniors who need it. When the young become seniors, the contributions of thier children and grandchildren provide for them etc. Good idea or not, the logistics of privatizing of SS is nearly impossible to work out. How I wish our congressmen and senators would stop fighting amongst themselves just to prove which party is 'right' and just work together to come up something that is realistic and sustainable!

You are wrong, bush tried but the dems who were in control of congress for his last term and the liberal media didn't want it. Then they can't use your money and years latter we need more taxes to cover shortfalls. Remeber the media bush wants to end ss yes only for the new work force not the current ones but they left that out

If you want reality check out Galveston Texas social security and the option they had to privatize and the results of the accounts of who did and didn't

David Nelson: As one who qualifies for ss payments within the next sixth months, I can tell you that the entire system as it exists is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE! For nearly 45 years, my PRIVATE SECTOR employers and I have contributed approximately 12% of my base salary. The return on that investment is extremely poor. In comparison, my PRIVATE SECTOR employers and I contributed the same 12% to a private plan for only 15 years, which I, not the federal government, totally controlled . The rate of return has been much, much higher with the plan that I controlled. From the start back in 1965, the federal government should have given me the choice of contributing to my own pension plan that I could control, not them. They are thieves!

How can you tell if Obama is lying? When he opens his mouth.

Unlike wine, this guy gets worse with time.

Is it 2012 yet?

Angry 1000 (2.4) said --- "Have you seen how most people handle their finances? They do a terrible job at it and I think the people shouldn't have much control over it."

Yes, I've seen this. But, maybe you're very young and are still too influenced by liberal Kool-Aid to understand that responsible Americans do NOT want to endlessly support the lazy and ignorant.

It sounds like you're saying that the government should control my husband's and my SUCCESSFUL financial portfolios so that the government can control inept, stupid, and ignorant people who spend more than they make and can't control their own money? Why should any of us continue to bail out irresponsible spending?

We didn't work a combined 90 years to fork over more money to the government than we have to pay through our income and property taxes.

Here's a thought ..... YOU support those irresponsible people. Give them YOUR money for their mortgages, rents, healthcare, etc. Feel free to spread YOUR wealth. Leave me out of it!!

My husband and I worked too hard throughout our lives and don't want the government to control us. We educated ourselves and our children WITH OUR OWN MONEY. We willingly give to charities and food banks of our choices. Irresponsible people aren't among those choices.

Wake up ... and don't make the USA more of a nanny government than it already is!!!!

If I recall correctly, 1958 is the first year that Congress voted to remove funds from Social Security and put it into the General Fund for Congress to spend. And if I recall correctly, it was a democratically Controlled Congress. From what I understand, Congress logic at that time was that there was so much money in Social Security Fund that it would never run out / be used up for the purpose it was intended / set aside for. Lyndon Baines Johnson 36th. President, Democrat, Term of Office: November 22, 1963 to January 20, 1969. LBJ was the first president that took money from the soc. sec. fund and used to to pay for other things. This practice has continued til SS is basically broke. THANK "YOU" DEMOCRATS AND OBAMA THAT IS WHAT YOU CLAIM TO BE.

Re: Obama approves the mosque near ground zero. It is traditional Islam practice to build a mosque in an area that they believe has been conquered.

whata Cheap Shot !!,, for political gain..however, this time around; coming election, things are up in the air..political jargon promises you the World, just to kick one in the seat..i sure hope the American People are a little more sure about a track record of a Natural Good Leader...as for Social Security; if that crumbles, everything heads into a tailspin..they know it, we know it..Danger; rough ride ahead !!..put on your boots, the doo doo gets deep.........

Red Maple: Google Congressman Paul Ryan's website to learn of his two-tiered plan that covers those aged 55+ under the current, awful, rip-off system and that creates a new plan for those under 55. Voters in SE Wisconsin, please keep this guy in office. Everyone else: throw the bums out, except for Joe Wilson in SC, who is the only one with any balls.

Lynn: Thank you for the post. LBJ? So glad that you brought him up, as I just did my lunch with the very mention of his name. I grew up in and around Newark NJ. LBJ and his "great society" policies built the high-rise public housing projects in Newark that made many people very rich and that were destroyed by the occupants almost as soon as they were built. Thanks for the memories, Lynn!

It's pretty simple to move to a privatized system - kind of like what state employees now enjoy. It would need to be done incrementally, over a 10-20 year period. You could build in safeguards, a minimum of 50% must be in secured, low risk, or insured instruments, limit speculation, and allow a secondary account like the 401k/IRA for people wanting to invest beyond the standard withholding and take more risk.

The issue is not Republican or Democrat. It is solvency. Our government has proven to be the absolute worst at managing money. They've spent our "trust fund", they've overspent for 40+ years, why in the hell would anyone trust these buffoon's with their future security?

Give me a good answer, non-partisan - why would we trust any of these idiots - Rep, Dem, Ind, with our financial future when their record is 0-40?

It seems pretty crazy that a pay as you go system, like social security, is currently over-collecting, and that the excess is merely being spent on things like defense, medicare, foreign aid, and all the other government operations. If it were truly a trust fund, the excess money would be invested in assets that can eventually be sold, with interest, to meet the obligations. But it's not and we've been screwed. When benefits begin to exceed revenues, the difference will be made up by taxes or more debt, since the US treasury bonds held by SS trust fund will have to be paid out of US Treasury funds when SS redeems them.

If, when the time for payback comes, our country is more prosperous and secure because this borrowed money was spent wisely, then maybe this charade will be justified.

• Workers making $17,000 a year are expected to receive about 50 percent more per month on our alternative plan than on Social Security - $1,036 instead of $683. [See the Figure.]
• Workers making $26,000 a year will make almost double Social Security's return - $1,500 instead of $853.
• Workers making $51,000 a year will get $3,103 instead of $1,368.
• Workers making $75,000 or more will nearly triple Social Security - $4,540 instead of $1,645.
• Galveston County's survivorship benefits pay four times a worker's annual salary - a minimum of $75,000 to a maximum $215,000 - versus Social Security, which forces widows to wait until age 60 to qualify for benefits, or provides 75 percent of a worker's salary for school-age children.

In Galveston, if the worker dies before retirement, the survivors receive not only the full survivorship but get generous accidental death benefits, too. Galveston County's disability benefit also pays more: 60 percent of an individual's salary, better than Social Security's.

Two government studies of the Galveston Plan - by the Government Accountability Office and the Social Security Administration - claim that low-wage workers do better under Social Security. However, these studies assumed a low 4 percent return, which is the minimum rate of return on annuities guaranteed by the insurance companies. The actual returns have been substantially higher.

Guidance for Today's Reformers. Congress could consider making participation in any privatization plan voluntary at first. We made our plan voluntary in the beginning and 70 percent joined. It later became mandatory, and now there is full participation. Also, if some workers remain uncertain about investing a portion of their contributions, the plan could include a guarantee that low-income earners receive the same funds they would get with total participation in Social Security.

He contended that such privatization was "an ill-conceived idea that would add trillions of dollars to our budget deficit.

I can't believe he actually admitted it in a round about way....privatization will take the ability of the Govt to steal money from SS and spend it recklessly like it is their own. The Govt will be forced to come up with what they have already stolen from SS to pay us back. He better get on the phone to the Chinese and tell them he may need a couple boat loads of money ASAP.

Drowning Grover: I am not a financial advisor by profession, but there are ways by which investors can avoid a stock market downturn by sheltering funds in guaranteed rate investments, bonds, and cash. Real estate and equities don't always move in the same direction but sometimes do. As to equities, buy low and sell high. This basic, disciplined principle usually works (not always-as when a specific stock never, ever sees the light of day again (e.g: E-Trade Inc, just to mention one)). I have no crystal ball, but, in spite of stock downturns, I have done much, much better with my own personally controlled pension plans than with the social security system, which is a total rip-off.

Social Security was never meant to:

Allow teenage girls to go out, get pregnant and have the State take care of mom and baby (babies) while she never marries dad, even though they are still involved.

Act as some sort of "car payment fund" for wealthy Boca retirees who have plenty of dough, but they're 'entitled' to use that $800 a month for a new Audi every year that they use while they're in town for the season.

Generate state issued, credit-card 'free grocery' cards for illegal immigrant families to use, even though these people shouldn't be here in the first place.

Same applies to the families that drive a nice SUV, with kids wearing $100 sneakers using the same cards to buy food, using their cash for beer and cigarettes.

No, that's not what Social Security was supposed to be.

If it's any one group forcing their dirty hands on our social security system it's the democrats. They've been handing it out and dipping into it like it was unending, free flowing water. There are people in Russia getting paid to stay out of our country using our SS monies. Please, please stop blaming the GOP for everything wrong with Obama's administration.

To Obama: The time has come for you, your advisors, and the liberal left of this country to face things like American men and women and do the job and quit whining every time things get rough. Do the job you campaigned so hard for. Quit vacationing, stay home and help this country. Find out what the people want you to do. That's why you were elected in the first place. And when 2012 is around the corner, please have the guts NOT to run as the incumbent with the hopes that we will fall for your lies again. Mr. POTUS - you don't know what you're doing. Sit the next election out.

Well put NJ Person. Angry 1000, do you seriously believe the Federal Government is better with the citizens money than they are themselves? Let's look at some facts:

National Debt: $13,323,366,000,000

Federal Budget Deficit: $1,436,577,000,000

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (Run by the government): Nearly destroyed our economy all together. Just ask Barnie Frank, he will tell you all about how well they are doing/were doing before they tanked.

AMTRAK (Created by congress in 1970): Lost money EVERY YEAR since they started (that is tax payer dollars being lost).

The Postal Service: Breaking records every year.....for losing more and more money. On track to lose $6-7 billion this next year.

Medicare/Medicaid: Only costs $786,354,000,000 a year.

Social Security: $691,645,000,000 a year, what a bargain!

First Lady: Spent $300,000 for a trip with her friends to Spain (that is the portion paid by TAX PAYERS). But, as President Obama says. We all need to sacrifice a little for the collective good. I guess that was her way of being a good example to us all.

The Liberal Progressive perspective of government:

The U.S. Post Service was established in 1775,"you have had 234 years to get it right" and it is broke.

Fannie Mae was established in 1938, "you have had 71 years to get it right" and it is broke.

Freddie Mac was established in 1970," you have had 40 years to get it right" and it is broke.

War on Poverty started in 1964,"you have had 45 years to get it right" $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to the poor and they only want more.

The War on Drugs started in 1971, you have had 39 years to get it right. $1.6 TRILLION dollars later it is STILL a failure.

The Department of Education was established in 1979, you have had over 30 years to get it right and our children STILL rank in the lower half and quartiles of developed nations in math, science and reading.

The War on illiteracy has been in effect for generations and yet the majority of Americans read at an 8th grade level. It is an abysmal failure.

Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965, "you have had 44 years to get it right" and they are broke.

The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil, it has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a year and we import more oil than ever before, "you had 32 years to get it right" and it is STILL an abysmal failure.

And last but not least,,,,

Social Security was established in 1935,"you have had 74 years to get it right" and it is broke.

Yes, Liberal Progressives. I see your point. MORE government is obviously the answer to all of our problems.

God help us and our great nation.

Social security equals no interest on your investment. What if a bank did that? Because of inflation our money in social security is worth less each day. If you owed the government money, do you think they would not charge you interest on it?

we need to reform the budget before we can reform social security. as long as we're using social security trust fund money to pay for current gov't operations, talk of reforming social security is wasted energy. Social security performs vital functions that cannot be duplicated by privatization, unless we include a guaranteed gov't bailout in cases where crooks or incompetents (ie, wall street) either steal or lose workers' retirement money. SS Trust funds should be invested in some kind of securities, such as to finance infrastructure improvements, and not just thrown into the general fund to be wasted on war or welfare depending on which party is in control.

There were a few suggestions written here and a lot of bashing. I will make mine. Unfortunately I lost the figures I did on my research to back this suggestion up but the results are still sound. Remove the ceiling of $109,000 (which goes up every year at less then the rate of real inflation) and spread the total of only what is needed to run both SS and medicaid to ALL personal income. That would lower taxes to a combined employee/employer cost of just 4%. The figures could be played with some but this is what is needed. Could be 3% employee contribution and 1% employer contribution. Collect only what is needed to run both programs, no borrowing or investing. ALL that money would trickle back up however since it is all going to be spent and re-spent. More money left in peoples pockets where they could actually put into private accounts if they want to or can afford to. Only raise in tax would begin at approx. $10 million. We could also then add a debt pay-down tax of 2% (maybe) if we are serious of paying down the debt. Still more money left in most peoples pockets. But everyone here knows the debt has to be paid down. Pass a balanced budget amendment to the constitution.

What happens here is when the boomers retire, more money is needed, the tax could be looked at every year or two and adjusted, up or down. Add this to the constitution too. As the so-called IOU's are paid back (treasury notes) because we are now paying as we go, that would be the buffer.

I read here the suggestion about personal responsibility should be the law. It is a personal responsibility for people to pay this in and if we did this they could invest their savings.

I read here the suggestions that the government steals from the fund. Same people I assume are the ones who ridiculed Vice President Gore suggesting a lockbox. Of course we need to make cuts, but taking it from the less fortunate is not the way. Think of it this way, if everyone was as fortunate as you, who would change the sheets at motels, or cook and serve your food in restaurants and such? I look forward to hearing the bashing from my proposal. Thank you and have a good day.

$OCIAL $ECURITY HI$TORY

It’s easy to check. Show it to your teens. They need a little history lesson.

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary,

***No longer Voluntary

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,

***Now 7.65% on the first $90,000

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,

***No longer tax deductible

4.) That the money the participants put into the independent ‘Trust Fund’ rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and,

***Under democrat Johnson the money was moved to The General Fund and Spent!

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

***Under democrats Clinton & Gore…Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to ‘put away’ !!!!!!!!

http://www.redstate.com/reelman/2010/08/13/social-securityits-baaaak/

Just think how much more severe our economic collapse would be today if Bush would have been successful in his pitch for the "ownership society" where social security was privatized and the dollars invested into the stock market. The private sector is motivated by greed which translates to losers and winners. The losers are always going to be those without inside connections or deep pockets. I had rather take my chances with government inefficiency---at least I might have something to live on at the end. One reason I claim independent status today instead of being a Republican is this issue. Republicans would rather assure the wealthy keep their full SS allotment rather than subject SS to means testing. They would rather protect this benefit for their wealthy constituents who use it for luxury purchases, while allowing those with lesser means to do without by allowing the system to bankrupt itself. Means testing is the only option for the solvency of SS. Isn't means testing for SS already in place for teachers and other public servants with a pension? Why not extend means testing to those whose incomes exceed $ 50,000 in retirement per household? Many of the wealthy generated their wealth during their employment years by taking advantage of a generous IRS system that allowed them to shelter their income. Means testing their SS is a way for them to give back to society for their special financial treatment during their career.

Rogue, and under republican programs old people who worked all their lives and then got ripped off by someone like Bernie Madoff, a republican, would be sleeping and dying on sidewalks. Seriously, name calling and partisan hype isn't going to help solve our problems. First thing we need to do is stop using excess social security money to fund gov't operations... that means we need the lock box suggested by Al Gore (a democrat).

Great post Windsong! RogueUSA..redstate.com? Ok here I will say..that neo-con rag? Really? We are to believe THOSE 'facts'? LOL

Nice to know that this problem is going to get worse. At least we will have SS,........ nvm.

Public Pension Funds Are Adding Risk to Raise Returns

States and companies have started investing very differently when it comes to the billions of dollars they are safeguarding for workers’ retirement.

Companies are quietly and gradually moving their pension funds out of stocks. They want to reduce their investment risk and are buying more long-term bonds.

But states and other bodies of government are seeking higher returns for their pension funds, to make up for ground lost in the last couple of years and to pay all the benefits promised to present and future retirees. Higher returns come with more risk.

“In effect, they’re going to Las Vegas,” said Frederick E. Rowe, a Dallas investor and the former chairman of the Texas Pension Review Board, which oversees public plans in that state. “Double up to catch up.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/business/09pension.html

joe mota

Rogue, and under republican programs old people who worked all their lives and then got ripped off by someone like Bernie Madoff, a republican, would be sleeping and dying on sidewalks. Seriously, name calling and partisan hype isn't going to help solve our problems. First thing we need to do is stop using excess social security money to fund gov't operations... that means we need the lock box suggested by Al Gore (a democrat).

Umm Joe, Bernie Madoff was a DEMOCRAT.

But as allways a nice try to belittle. Also "Republican Programs?"

So the Republicans controlled Congress for 10 years since 1960 and they have programs?

Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address Saturday: "We have an obligation to keep that promise, to safeguard Social Security for our seniors, people with disabilities and all Americans — today, tomorrow and forever."

Yep, another "promise" made to be broken and can be added to the following clip:

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UErR7i2onW0

Someone "smell" this as an attempt to garnish senior voters ???

Past Administrations and Congressional assemblies have failed to "keep their fingers out of the Golden catch all", so why does Obama even think he can find the tons of money to replace what has already been "stolen" ? Maybe a MANDATED TAX on seniors living too long ???

Its not a lie, Sharron Angle a republican wants to privatize social security, shes said it multiple times. So yeah Obama isn't lying....

demitrix... Ok you called my bluff... I really had no idea to what party Madoff belongs, and it doesn't matter. The republican program to end social security (Sharron Angle and some commentors on this vine) or allow private fund managers to "manage it" (meaning they'd manage it into their own fat wallets) would result in old people who worked hard all their lives but never made enough money to invest in 401(k)s or had their pensions ripped off by people like Ken Lay (a republican) or Charles Keating (a republican) or Charles Hurwitz (yet another republican) sleeping and dying on sidewalks.

All that aside, we should be able to agree that the worst thing about social security today is that the Trust Funds are being siphoned off into general gov't funds. To me, that's an outrage, and I don't care which party started the practice or which other party failed to stop it, I'm mad at both of them.

"President Barack Obama used the anniversary of Social Security to trumpet Democrats' support for the popular program and accuse Republicans of trying to destroy it."

When is his next speech on bipartisanship? What a complete joke. Giving people an option is attempting to "destroy" something????

P.S.

"a proposal by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the top Republican on the House Budget Committee, that would allow younger people to put Social Security money into personal accounts."

See that word ALLOW, not REQUIRE as was done with the healthcare takeover.

Personally I would love to have the option to control my retirement benefits instead of any of these clowns using it to pay for personal agendas.

Joe Mota: you forgot the part where Al Gore is an Idiot and he invented the internet.......

Joe, I know what you mean :)

Me personally, i would love to see Social Security dissolved and allow people to make their own choices, and live by them.

However, I have to agree with you that Sharon Angle is just plumb crazy.

or the part where George Bush multiplied the Internet(s). MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

Here we have another classic example of the Democrats lying about the Republicans view on SS to attempt to sway voters. Unfortunately, the Democratic record is soooo bad, there is no reason to believe them any longer.

Same old lame game playing........yawn..........................

I heard SS was going to be broke in 2014 and 2024, why the new number, is that to make the populace feel better?

At the rate we are going, I'm fairly certain I will have to work until I die. I would love to see something for me when I get to retirement age. I've paid in all these years, I should get something back.

demitrix... I wouldn't necessarily oppose getting rid of the existing social security by phasing into something else. But I think the function of providing security to people who work all their lives, even low pay workers, should continue. along with benefits for dependents of workers who die before retirement and the disabled. Some kind of backstop against dying in poverty on the street seems morally required for people who work all their lives, even if they fail to invest wisely. I'm not a fan of paying benefits so wealthy retirees can get a new motor home every 3 or 4 years.

willowbrook... and republican never lie about democrats ("pals around with terrorists", "death panels", "total government control of your life", "never saw a government program they didn't like", "mobile chemical weapons labs", "buying yellowcake from Nigeria", "mission accomplished", "the fundamentals of the economy are strong")... no no, republicans never lie or distort.

Fact is, almost all politicians routinely lie and distort in order to win an argument. they're no better than lawyers because most of them are. If you think one party always tells the truth and the other always lies, you're living in a fantasy.

being from wisconsin, and a more elaborate look at to the account thing, i know what the idea is he was referring to. a personal account as said, would be made, so that X= amount of money, that is set aside, will be what you get. Not what the gov can stick into stock markets, bank investments, commisions, and so on. a small part of what the economy and deficit is what it is now. You think all that $ you spent on medicare, and SS never gets touched? must be kidding me if you do. 2nd... dem's have had control for a while now, and where do we sit? more people unemployed, and a lot more coming soon, once again. more deficit, more bs from nobama the clowns mouth how he did something, yet didnt, and taking everything possible he can get his grubby little hands on, and twisting it to his favor, to gain trust. meantime people are starting to wise up a little. Guess it took being out of work, losing a home, being unemployed for so long, some people might have forgot was a job was. If someting bad happens, he blames the republicans, and something good, right off he takes the spotlight....hmmmm bit odd i think. Thus someone comes up with any type of an idea or suggestion, who is republican, he goes on a rant, "omg! if this happens....!" speech, where as like someone kicked him in his little coin-purse or something. Nobama, if i could tell you to get lost to your face, go dig a hole, and go away, and dont bother people with your crap lies, and so on, i would.

What is the difference of social security money going into something private and the government raiding the fund and using it for all the programs that they don't have the money to pay for? It's not only Obama but all the past Presidents and congresses. If they hadn't raided the plan it would be solvent now. Social security has nothing but a room full of IOU's that the government needs to pay back with interest. They all are nothing but thieves.

reagan took 350 billion fromm ss didn't payit back,george sr 300 billion,georgee800 billion if georgee would have gotten his way the sswould have been privatized and all the senors would lost there whole retirement when the stock market collapsed

willowbrook you what entitlements a repud want's entitilments how bout that a welfare repud

here we go with ron avery, shouting a kool aide classic, when we all know its the dem's who want to land everyone on welfare, and take whats left of the REAL job market, and toss it in the dumpster....lmao

It will never happen. Both parties know it's political suicide to mess with social security. There will be changes but it will still be government run. I fully expect that the age to collect will be increased by a few years very soon.

It is only political suicide because the media makes it so. The media backs the failed system and they will attack any effort to make it responsible. They have done it before and they will continue. The media doesnt want SS fixed or workable. They are like the dem party, they want socialism even when it fails and they will attack anything else...

The fix to Social Security is a simple one. Pass a law that forces Congress to pay back every dime they have "borrowed" from Social Security from day one. While they are at it STOP Obama and Congress from raping Medicare for $500 billion dollars and diverting the increasing Medicare tax to Obamacare. This would kill two birds with one stone. Combine this with David's idea and no more financial woes for Social Security or Medicare. If people want to invest their money in private retirement plans I say let them, but all and I do mean all pay into Social Security and Medicare. With Congress and the POTUS having to pay back what they "borrowed" from Social Security and are STEALING from Medicare, both programs will be solvent for quite some time to come and people will get their Cost of Living raises each year (COLA) as they deserve.

It's really as simple as putting money into a simple savings account at your bank. If over the course of a person's working life time they save say a million dollars, when they retire that million dollars should be there for them to draw on plus interest. Same goes for the money we put into Social Security. We pay into it for say 30 working years, we should be able to draw from it for the remainder of our lives when we retire and another thing: People who's only income when they retire is Social Security SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY INCOME TAXES ON IT! It is hard enough to live off of Social Security alone without having to pay income tax as well! If you get a job when you retire say as a Walmart greeter for instance, you pay income tax, Social Security and Medicare on that income only and it does not effect your Social Security! For far too long our government has taxed Seniors to death and there is no reason for this other than GREED and we as a people have not stopped them. I for one would like to see Congress and the POTUSs both past and present have to live off of Social Security when they retire and have Medicare as their ONLY medical insurance. I would be willing to bet things would get changed and changed for the good, quickly!

Of course this will not happen because Congress and the POTUS are "better" than the average American and we let them get away with it!

There is an easy fix for Social security. Eliminate the cap ($106,000 per year) and make everyone pay in based on all their income. The system would be solvent in no time. It is time that the wealthy pay their share.

Under the present system, someone making a $106,000 a year pays $6,625 in Social Security taxes (as the right likes to call them). A CEO making $30,000,000 a year pays exactly the same amount.

Eliminate the cap, and the problem is solved once and for all!

@ Joe Mota, You spewed many "terms" most of which, I've never heard of. "The Republicans want to take you SS away from you" is a front runner among lies.

And honestly, from where I am at as a controller at work, the Dems are doing exactly what the Republicans say. Every day, more compliance, more govt. involvement in our small business. And yes, Obamacare is going to ruin the public Insurance Industry if it is fully implemented. (We are fairly certain we will lose our plan when the taxes kick in, YES, they are taxing small business for Obamacare. And NO, we were not able to keep the plan we had, as the increase was 31%. In the years before, the increase was 4-12% a year. Yup, that is change that is ruining our country.)

Lately, the Republicans can't get a word in edgewise, since the Dem majority keeps them painted into a corner.

You said: "mobile chemical weapons labs", "buying yellowcake from Nigeria",

I can only assume that you believe in black helicopters and the NWO. PLUEEEEEZE!

Don't insult me by saying I live in a fantasy land. I live in a land where we are struggling to be successful, despite govt. intervention. We are trying to preserve the jobs of our employees, and find enough work to bring back the 40% of our staff we had to lay off in 2009. What are you trying to do?

@ ron avery - What? How about something in proper English? If I edit it for you, I believe you think the Republicans are entitlement hungry. You need to put down whatever you are smoking as that is what the Democrats are doing, not the Republicans. And no, I'm not on any entitlements, I work for a living.

@ Dave - SS is paid as a tax, it is under form 941, EMPLOYER'S TAX.

The money collected are secured by US Treasury Bonds and the money is not gone! Next, the social security fund is totally funded for 30 yrs and if nothing is done which is stupid wd be a 75% payout. Now, there are several solutions. I believe that FICA should be extended to all which would primarily fix this situation. Add profits from Estate tax that only effects some 1/4 of 1% of people. This is really a no brainer. There are numerous wealthy people agreeing they should pay more. As for the false arguement that it would effect small business. Only 2-3% of all business fall in that category and those are primarily law firms, medical docs, etc.

WE borrowed SS; where did the money go?

$1.2 Trillion prescription drug plan designed to protect drug compant profits.
$1.1 Trillion for wars in Iraq & Afghanistan (the worst prosecuted wars in history).
$1.7 Trillion for the 2001 &2003 tax cuts for the wealthy; trickle down failed.

That's $4 TRILLION of Bush's unfunded spending which drove the economy into the ditch. That is what we are trying to fix today.

What are the Gop for and /or not destroying for the American people..It is all about their corporate donors and the wealthy...

Republicans ==Shameless corporate whores!

Simple plan just include congress's plan into the social security plan. The health care plan should be the same one as congress's.

Brandon-801 I've put money into SS but since I have a Police Officer Pension, which I put my money into, I can not get my full SS. Even though I worked three jobs, when my kids were growing up, besides being a full time police officer. It was the Democrats that started to borrow from SS, cause they said there was so much money in it it will never go broke. It was a Democrat, Jimmy Carter that passed a law giving SS to Aliens. It was Democrats in the past 8 years that tried to pass a law giving SS Benefits to Illegal Aliens. So how can any one, but a closed minded Liberal Like Odumbo, can blame Republicans for errors of the Democrats is beyond belief.

Just because I looked ahead when I first started to work and put money into a 401-k plan, and private savings, it is the Democrats that want to tax the Shi$ out of me for looking ahead. It was your Odumbo that said he wanted to redistributethe wealth. But he made $5 million last year. How much of his $5 million did he redistrubute or did he keep that money for his family. But he want to redistributemy wealth. I have not taken a vacation for a few years, but Odumbo and or his family take one every week. While I have to look for money to pay my bills and tighten my belt, Obumbo and the Liberal Democrats want to spend what I've earned. They don't have to pay taxes, ask Rangel, or half of Odumbo's staff. Odumbo bailed out the pensions of union workers at GM and Chrysler with taxpayer money. But they could get full SS benefits, while Fire fighters, police officers, teachers can not. It was AFL-CIO and SEIU that mis-manged pension funds, and the taxpayers have to pay. If I were a union member, I would want a full federal investigation into it. But Odumbo and Holder will not investigate the Unions, since they gave them $$$$$ of Unions, possibly pension funds when they ran.....

How about the government put the money back in with interest now. That was never money of there's to spend. That is why our congress does not need it they voted them self a big way out and just keep spending and cutting SS. If it is the Rep than explain what just happen to buy vote for the teacher union and fed union hmmmmmmmmm some how people just don't want to talk about how it was paid for on the back of our old people and the poor.

Way to go you pack of crook and thief and liers and creeps. Yes you congress and our President for signing it. I hope everyone remember this in Nov.

may you all go to hell for what you are doing to this great country.

Agree 100% with David Nelson-922104

People need to understand that WE the WORKERS pay into this program. I do not want MY hard earned money manipulated by wall street, just so that they could profit at my expense, possibly leaving me broke.

I pay into SS (and have for decades!), I also have private investments. My private invesments have gone up/down so much that I certainly would be an idiot to depend on them for my retirement.

As a hard working, voting tax payer, I DEMAND that my SS be left alone! SS should NOT be tapped to aid or fund other programs (IT IS MY MONEY THAT I PAID INTO!), and I expect whatever party who wins in November to make sure that SS stays in tact and eliminate any law(s) that allow it to be touched or borrowed by other programs!

I am fed up with this debate! LEAVE SS ALONE!

I don't think the Bush idea of private accounts would necessarily force one to go into stocks, as there probably would have been an option for government bonds. The main reason I liked the private accounts idea was that money would be in your own name and prevent the Congress from pilfering. At least Bush had the guts to try solving the problem of Social Security. As long as we continue denying the problem and pushing it under the rug as Obama and Congress is doing, it will eventually go under for sure, and I suspect a lot sooner than they admit.

Don...that is correct...No one has ever stated that people would be forced into risky stocks. That is the scare talk from the left. Are the dems the party of NO? They killed the idea before they even got to the point of deciding what investments would be approved for this investment. I am certain that gov bonds would have been on the list. This is more unreasonable hype by the left....They want the gov to keep stealing the money from the elderly. How can the public still be confused by this group of socialist gov officials and media?? The closer to elections, the more lies and scare talk.

Bush swore during the 2000 campaign he wouldn't do anything to Social Security - and before he'd even taken the oath of office we discovered he was lying. (To our everlasting regret, that wasn't either the first or last lie Bush told.)

Bush wanted primarily to re-direct the Social Security revenues from younger workers into a 401K type of scheme. Let's remember, Bush was ALWAYS a tool of Wall Street and the large banks. The scheme to privatize Social Security is intended to enrich brokers and executives of those firms - and to gamble with the national pension fund money.

Thank GOODNESS he didn't get away with it. Take a darned hard look are the markets today - I know so many people whose investments for retirement were wiped out.

YOU REPUBLICANS AND FOOL LIBERTARIANS HAVE ALREADY WRECKED OUR COUNTRY AND ECONOMY. HANDS OFF SOCIAL SECURITY!!!!!!!

Concerned..."I am fed up with this debate! Leave SS alone." Your next sentance should have been "let the government keep stealing our retirement". If you have paid into the system for decades you would not even be eligible for the private account as only the younger people would and they only would put a small percentage in to that area. Just be dumb and happy with the gov stealing your money....send the socialist dem party a big donation....

Here comes the president's new campaign pitch...scaring senior citizens into voting Democrat in November by using the 'straw man' of the impending doom of Social Security...naturally a goal of the GOP...according to Mr. Obama.

Can't wait to see this all over the news...shirt sleeves rolled up, skinny finger flailing away, threatening the doom and gloom that will follow, should the evil GOP have anything to do with it.

How boring is this guy, anyway ???

Well, at least they are coming up with ideas, even bad ones are still a move in the right direction as far as discussion goes.

And lets be realistic, the Republicans are not going to say boo about SS, it is the third rail of politics. Obama and the Democrats lack the nuts to deal with the problem too.

SS will go bankrupt soon, the government will bail it out, and our economy will continue to limp along in its imaginary sustainability. One day reality will hit and I for one will hate to be living in America.

Hey John, please leave us libertarians out of this. You guys are far right compared to us.

I agree that the money put into SS should NOT be used for other things, with simply an IOU put in it's place. We all know that those simply do not ever get paid back.

So, money for SS goes into a SS account, period, and cannot be touched.

Then, as things stand now, you pay SS tax on earnings up to something like $120K of income (not sure of the exact cutoff, but this number is pretty close). Simply say that SS tax is collected no matter how much you make.

NOW.... the problem is completely solved. Seems nobody has the balls to do something like this. It's clean, simple, easy to understand.... I suppose that's the problem, the crooks in DC are unable to slip in loopholes for their buddies to take advantage of.

Why make things difficult? this suggestion solves the problem.... SHAZAM!!!

Personal responsibility? Social Security is NOT a government HANDOUT. It is something we PAY INTO over the course of our lives and you must prove you have paid into it to be eligible for the benefit. We would just be getting our money BACK if Congress wasn't putting their greedy paws all over it for other things. You are not lacking "personal responsibility" by expecting back money you worked hard to pay in. Lacking personal responsibility would be expecting a HANDOUT from WELFARE when you are a senior because your Social Security was taken away. I am all for personal responsibility. And by the way, just because someone isn't saving for retirement doesn't NECESSARILY mean they are "irresponsible". Maybe the genuinely can't afford it. Maybe they were responsible enough to pay their rent first. I am totally against welfare and any other kind of government handout, but Social Security is different. Where were all the "personal responsibility" people when unempolyment benefits were extended? Why don't they tell THOSE people to go out and get whatever job they can get, even if it's McDonalds or Wal-Mart?

See, someone "gets it!!"

There's nothing wrong with eliminating social security, but just try telling that to the old people.

When we have been forced to pay into SS for years it is not looking to the gavenment to support us by choice. It is our money that will supplement our retirement. If they were to return all the money I have paid in with interest along with the oher investments I have made I could retire very comfortably right now.

Those voicing that it should be eliminated are probably young.

Things happen when you get old. You can get sick and your savings can go in a flash with expensive care. Then what? Just unplug them? Put them out in the street?

Keeping social security just makes sense. It's my money I have put in there and it needs to be there when I'm old.

So, Eric, so why would you object if that money was put in an account with YOUR name on it, that would GUARANTEE it would be there, because it remains YOUR money? You would be free to manage it, and if you wanted to put it in Tbills (basically the equivalent of the dusty pile of IOUs you keep prattling about) it's equally safe as if its in the government's hands - because tbills ARE the government.

I'm going to guess why you don't want to do that.

Because you want to be able to collect MORE than you've put in.

who is going to take of the seniors??? let's just be inhuman and let them fend for themselves!!! oh and just piss on my mother, she is disabled!!! she would be living on the streets and would be homeless!!! should we just watch our own people suffer! while we are sending aid to other countries, the helpless are right here!!!! they need our help. if you don't think they don't help the economy your sadly mistaken. i think all the wealthy should be denied social security! if you have the money to pay for it then your excluded!!!!!

Stop the whining and hyperbole, Jay. Bleeding heart liberal twang isn't working on anyone but other bleeding heart liberals.

Obviously, any massive changes to the current system would have to be phased in over years, more likely decades. What, you think it starts Tuesday?

Get a grip.

Read, social security is not socialism at all. I doubt you know the definition of socialism. It certainly isn't communist. Have a happy tea party day !

Prag, as I've said above. Things happen in life that are unexpected. You could use that savings up and then what. Just die?

There has to be a safety net, and I don't see anywhere in your posts where you address that.

Actually, it used to be that families took care of their parents and grandparents when they got old. It actually helped to keep families together. In some countries it is still like this.

Yep, in those families there is some version of disability and social security. I agree its good to take care of family.

T-Rex: Your response is a good example of narrow-mindedness and ignorance. You exist only in your own little world. Does it occur to you that by cutting off Social Security, you would be taking away the income of millions of elderly people and disabled people who would not be able to "plan for retirment" or "plan for disability". They are already retired and/or disabled. It's too late for them to start saving now. You need to get out of your shell and open your eyes to the world.

Eric: Readthatoutloud is obviously extremely uneducated. Note the lack of sentence structure, puncuation, etc. If a person cannot construct a simple sentence, they are not to be taken seriously.

There's a reason why we have Social Security and Unemployment. It's because businesses are built on the backs of people who do not profit from their success. It's been apparent for a very long time and government took these steps to protect its citizens who'd been left completely at thier (non-existent) mercy.

It's the same reason we have Healthcare and Medicare now. It's the same reason we have federal management of food, so we don't have downer cattle and diseases in the food supply. The same reason we were SUPPOSED to have FEMA and Minerals and Metal Management that had been knocked-down and rendered innefective by the Republicans

The right wants to do away with every safety valve that keeps us healthy and happy and it's the worst thing that could ever happen to us. They Spout, "FREEDOM" but Americans will NEVER be free in their tiny white world.

Jay,
Who will take care of the seniors? How about their family? If they didn't have kids they should have been able to save enough for retirement. It's not my responsibly to take care of someone who failed to plan properly for their future.

Oh and if you couldn't put a roof over your own mother's head you are a complete and utter failure as a son. Sounds like you should step up to plate and take care of your own family and stop asking for Government to take money from other people to cover your ineptitude.

if we do away with ss and the other do you think they will stop taking the taxes for it. it is something we pay for it is not a handout. to tell true it is really a loan to goverment and the pay back is ss and medical when we get older. our goverment isn't in money trouble because of not enough, it is because of lack of good business sense and throwing money away. we give money to countries who take it then use it to undermine us and smile the whole time. we supply most of the money and equiptment and man power for nato and un and get treated like we are the bums. and don't do enough. get real people and wake up it isn't the ss and medicare, and whatnot thet is killing us it is the coruption of the people in the angencies who are suppose to watchout for coruption and abuse who are killing us. you can blame repubs all you want but dems are just as much to blame just look at the oil spill the border trouble just to name a few our leaders have dropped the ball and laughed at us and they been doing it for a long while. but obama hasn't brought hope or change he is as bad or worse then any other president and if you think not get a perscription for the craniumrectalinversion you have

I am reposting this because it was collapsed for no reason. If the Right cannot handle opinions of other Americans, ignore them, don't censor them. Conservatives already have a horrendous reputation for hating ideas.

After paying in for 20 years, I sure hope it is around "forever."

But, if the GOBP, Party of No or Baggers have their way, it will be gone by 2020. Or it will be privatized and everyone's savings will vanish in the Great Social Security Credit Default Swap Depression of 2018.

Social Security has worked to protect American Worker's Retirement for over 70 years. It provides for a GUARANTEED return, which you cannot get from investing in any other type of private market investment.

I trust the federal government to oversee my SS payouts FAR GREATER than I trust the Corrupt, Fat-Cat, Wall Street Scam Artists with my retirement money!

t-rex what you going to do if you get disabled, MD < MS< do you think people can really cover the price of medical and make it if they have those and other unplanned things. give me a break already, in this day of age no one can.

obviously they are not just going to shut the program off. what you do is you stop the program now. guarantee benefits for everyone over the age of 40 as of january 1st and then reduce the benefits on a sliding scale until they disappear. so an 18 year old kid today would get nothing from the current program but would have his money invested in his own private account. a 30 year old would get 25% benefits from social security but would have 75% of his money invested in a new plan. etc etc.

Except they want to keep raising the age to collect all the time. It's like that carrot you dangle in front of the horse. You know it's there, you want it, but you can't get it. They want you to die before you get your money back. Many people die before they are eligible for any number of reasons. It's just outright legalized theft.

Onepoker
obviously they are not just going to shut the program off. what you do is you stop the program now. guarantee benefits for everyone over the age of 40 as of january 1st and then reduce the benefits on a sliding scale until they disappear. so an 18 year old kid today would get nothing from the current program but would have his money invested in his own private account. a 30 year old would get 25% benefits from social security but would have 75% of his money invested in a new plan. etc etc.

I want ALL of my money back, not just a percentage.

You're right on that one Mtnsport -

Wall Street will never again see a dime of my money ever again. I sure as hell would never trust my retirement to them. Unfortunately, I seriously doubt I will ever see a dime of Social Security money no matter what El Presidente thinks. I wish I could stop paying on it now so I could cut my losses.

Social Security wasn't socialism. It is now. The crooked politicians of all parties spent all the money. It's gone. It is now a ponze scheme. And the clock is running out on it, so they are going to propose "modest" changes. Like taking more of our money now out of each and every paycheck, and moving the retirement age, so we all work longer.

Why? Because they stole our money and spent it on their failed wars, failed social programs, on trips, booze, porn, and so that our esteemed Congress can retire in style and with benefits 95% of us will never receive.

• Workers making $17,000 a year are expected to receive about 50 percent more per month on our alternative plan than on Social Security - $1,036 instead of $683. [See the Figure.]
• Workers making $26,000 a year will make almost double Social Security's return - $1,500 instead of $853.
• Workers making $51,000 a year will get $3,103 instead of $1,368.
• Workers making $75,000 or more will nearly triple Social Security - $4,540 instead of $1,645.
• Galveston County's survivorship benefits pay four times a worker's annual salary - a minimum of $75,000 to a maximum $215,000 - versus Social Security, which forces widows to wait until age 60 to qualify for benefits, or provides 75 percent of a worker's salary for school-age children.

In Galveston, if the worker dies before retirement, the survivors receive not only the full survivorship but get generous accidental death benefits, too. Galveston County's disability benefit also pays more: 60 percent of an individual's salary, better than Social Security's.

Two government studies of the Galveston Plan - by the Government Accountability Office and the Social Security Administration - claim that low-wage workers do better under Social Security. However, these studies assumed a low 4 percent return, which is the minimum rate of return on annuities guaranteed by the insurance companies. The actual returns have been substantially higher.

Guidance for Today's Reformers. Congress could consider making participation in any privatization plan voluntary at first. We made our plan voluntary in the beginning and 70 percent joined. It later became mandatory, and now there is full participation. Also, if some workers remain uncertain about investing a portion of their contributions, the plan could include a guarantee that low-income earners receive the same funds they would get with total participation in Social Security.

Mtnsport said at 4.18 -- "Social Security has worked to protect American Worker's Retirement for over 70 years. It provides for a GUARANTEED return, which you cannot get from investing in any other type of private market investment. I trust the federal government to oversee my SS payouts FAR GREATER than I trust the Corrupt, Fat-Cat, Wall Street Scam Artists with my retirement money!"

I hope that the above is sarcasm. If not, I certainly hope that you're at least a "boomer" or older and are willing to live on a meager SS amount. If not, don't count on your Social Security and Medicare contributions to be there for you when you finally qualify. The well will be dry, due to "borrowing" on that money and the government has never replaced it.

There are NO guarantees in life .... ESPECIALLY from the US government. The US government ... BOTH sides of the aisle .... are in bed with big business and big pharma to control citizens.

"Honest politicians" is an oxymoron. My retirement years are secure due to personal responsibility in knowledgeable, diligent planning for decades. Good luck to you in yours.

Mtnsport: Sorry, I have to disagree with you. For SS to provide a guaranteed return, it first needs to be an investment, but it's not an investment. As soon as you pay your SS taxes, that money is no longer yours. At some point in the future when you retire, someone else's taxes will pay for your SS, but make no mistake, it's not your money you're getting back, if it was, then your family would be able to inherit it when you die.

It's odd that people think that if you privatized SS that you will get screwed over by Wall Street. Do you people know there's other ways of investing? You can always put them into t-bills, or bonds or the like if you want to invest in the government. You could put it into a savings account at a bank if you want. You wouldn't be restricted to stocks or company bonds.

Mitchell

Wow,, where to start.

OK Valerie. if you are so concerned with cutting old folks off cold. Either phase out SS or have families and churches take care of elderly and sick. Communities and families took care of their own for years without government intervention. But, I guess narrow minded people with zero imagination can not see past what their government tells them that they need. Get a clue, buy a vowel, or get yourself educated. you have added nothing to this discussion.

Keel- I have health insurance and disability insurance. Anybody who can write a check can get this. You don;t need a government to provide it for you.

Eric- not everyone posting about eliminating SS is "young" I have paid in to the SS system for over 25 years...and I would walk away from every dime they have taxed me and my employers if only they would stop taxing me from here on out.

I would love to opt out. I would walk away from the benefits due me in exchange for never being taxed by SS again. I would lose money on the deal, but my children, and my childrens children would never be beholden to some government. I teach my children responsibility...not to ask their government to take care of them.

Then what are you going to do with all the people who paid into Social Security all their lives, and never made enough to be able to put money aside for their retirement? Let them starve to death in the streets? Some people on here sound pretty heartless. Obviously you have no concept of how many people have only their Social Security check between themselves and starvation. Their contributions to Social Security over the years equate to a forced savings account that they can draw on when they can no longer work. Would you rather they had nothing?

For those advocating private accounts, there is no law that says you can't invest in a private account in addition to your Social Security. The only real problem for Social Security is the use of Social Security funds for other programs it was not intended for. The answer is to stop doing that.

Heartlight: Don't be stupid, all SS reforms that have ever been seriously proposed included a grandfathering in period. Usually the proposed reform would affect people under the age of 40 once the measure was passed. Educate yourself.

Mitchell

Don Smith-973482

There's a reason why we have Social Security and Unemployment. It's because businesses are built on the backs of people who do not profit from their success. It's been apparent for a very long time and government took these steps to protect its citizens who'd been left completely at thier (non-existent) mercy.

It's the same reason we have Healthcare and Medicare now. It's the same reason we have federal management of food, so we don't have downer cattle and diseases in the food supply. The same reason we were SUPPOSED to have FEMA and Minerals and Metal Management that had been knocked-down and rendered innefective by the Republicans

The right wants to do away with every safety valve that keeps us healthy and happy and it's the worst thing that could ever happen to us. They Spout, "FREEDOM" but Americans will NEVER be free in their tiny white world.

The reason we have Welfare, Medicaid, Social Security is because the Democratic Party needs those to prove they are not the racists they are.

Take there attack about amending the 14th amendment. That Amendment was specifically created to provide safety from Democrats.

1964 Civil Rights Act, Democrats were against it.

Jimmy Carter figured out the best offense was to keep his constituency down. That is when democrats became the so-caalled "peoples party".

Nothing but racists.

This is not even about eliminating Social Security it is about providing an OPTION to control your own money.....this obviously has B.O. terrified enough to misrepresent it as an "attempt to destroy Social Security".

Apparently the thought of the Social Security coffers not being full enough to raid for his personal agenda does not sit well with him. Or is it simply the loss of control over the people?? after all he is the one who took away the choice of having health insurance from the people.

between reagan and the two bushes they took 1.5 trillion dollars and didn't pay it back

You're a real jerk, demitrix

The reasonas were as I stated and YOU have to make crap up to deny it

Typical butthead crap

And what Don Smith, you have made up the Republican party as boogeymen and lying to suport what you think is right. Republican Congress under Jimmy Carter, Republican Congress under reagan...lies and lies. You have done nothing but lie.

Every post and every thread you have lied. prove me wrong.

prove that Repubs controlled congress under Carter.

Please prove me wrong that the 14th Amendment was not to keep Democrats from killing people.

you have made stuff up, I posted the truth. If not prove me wrong and prove I am a butthead.

Not trying to prove anything to you morons. Only telling you why I can't stand you liars and cheaters

Don Smith-973482

Not trying to prove anything to you morons. Only telling you why I can't stand you liars and cheaters

Liar and cheater, yet I have proven repeatedly you are the one lying.

Amazing.

Don Smith....What a clever, reasoned argument....You must have convinced millions..

So I guess you are not one of the middle class who can't afford to barely eat much less risk everything on stock markets. In addition, what are you going to do with the millions of elderly who are poverty stricken and on the streets who by the way all have worked. You don't get it.

And what are you wingnuts proposing to do with the millions of Americans that have paid into SS for their whole life? As I thought..NOTHING!!!....THis is stupid posturing by the Gop..With no plan to back up the 'no solutions' blather! Throw it out there to scare or fear monger and pray no one calls them on it!

Without conscience!

Reagan...what the ....are you talking about?? Your charges are so weird that they make no sense. The conservatives want to shore up and save SS and demand that people who paid in get their money returned. They also want to prevent government from continually robbing the money. It is the liberals who have no plan claiming that nothing is wrong with SS....The public feels that continuing the disaster as is will guarantee that their money is lost. They also think that the governments solution of raising the eligibility age will also guarantee that many will die before they get any of their money back....Continuing the lefts theory of nothing is wrong is not a solution....it is the problem....

Can't get rid of SS now. Too many people have put into it and too many Democrats have borrowed from it without paying back. Same with Medicare, the government takes money out of it after we are forced to pay into it. Odumbo took $550 billion from Medicare and then just gave it to Medicaid. Everyone who worked put into Medicare. Why did the Democrats, Republicans didn't sign on to Odumbo Care, allow it to happen? Why didn't Odumbo take money away from Congress's pension fund and give it to Medicaid if they were so concerned about the poor? Why touch our plans and they will not touch their plans. In fact who voted for their benefits? They did. Why not put it up to the vote of the taxpayer what benefits they should and should not get. We can't vote on our benefits, why are they allowed to vote on theirs?

what do the peple do that have paid into it hmmmmm those living off what they put in not what is given to them . They paid for it except the SSI which the Dem decided to give to people that never work for it or paid into it. funny they give our money away but keep all there's I say take there pention to pay back SS.

I don't understand all of you asking what those people should do who paid into it and are living off of it....Hmm, let me think about this, well from the very first time it was instituted it was made clear that it was to SUPPLEMENT retirement...not be the sole means for one to retire. I have sad news for you people, if you didn't save up for retirement in this day and age then you've got a long ways to go before you can consider yourself retired. I agree with all the others...PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY IS DEAD IN AMERICA. Seriously, listen to some of you. The stock market is to blame for your financial losses? Yeah right! It's your stupid fault for investing unwisely. No one twisted your arm and said, hey you HAVE to invest in these stocks or else... But guess what, the Government is twisting my arm. It's telling me that I have to be taxed this money or else. It's telling me that I will be taxed it but I'm not going to be guaranteed it especially according to this article. I want to be able to opt out as well. I think all taxpayers should be allowed this option.

T-Rex then who's going to pay for it when all the people who don't have retirement funds have to go on welfare??? Wouldn't you rather they pay into Social Security and get their own money back when they retire than they go to the WELFARE office?

Correct big time!

SS is based on your highest earnings. Make it the average over the last ten. This would stop many people from padding the last year before retiring to up their SS payments.

Change to keep contributing no matter what the top of your pay is. Most wealthy use the SS monies as pin money or pocket money anyway and they don't usually need it to live on!

Privatization is heavily supported by the institutions that would take and USE the money. They stand to make $$$$$ (not enough space for $) by these dollars going into their accounts. If you think for one minute that monies placed into individual retirement accounts is going to be held for you and not USED, you better think again. Yes, theoretically, it is yours, but if it's not in your hands, then whose is it? At the very least, (and this is not a solution or even an answer), we get to vote for the people who might be handling our money. When the last time you got any choice of who was running BP, AIG, Freddie Mac, Country Wide, or even your local bank, etc, etc.?

The problem is with the right. It always has been.

Gary, I get "some" of your math......Again, the wealthy are blamed for every financial problem occuring in the last 40 years. I work just as hard (more likely harder) than you do to earn my HOURLY wage. To trust the government to actually properly manage ANY money I give them (federal income tax, SS) is foolhardy and dangerous. This is proven by the fact that almost 60% of SS claims are denied...Why? There's no funding to support them! The government we trust (so foolishly) has re-appropriated those funds for other projects. Call me a "bagger", "right-wing nutcase"; whatever you like. It still comes down to personal choice of on what and where you spend or save your money. A Wall Street brokerage firm has a lot more to lose by mismanaging your money; there are a hell of a lot of closed up investment houses who got the pink slip from their investors. Who will the government answer to when they lose our money? No one......This administration has already proven that they are DEAF to their constituents (ObamaCare, Afghanistan, gay marriage) and they will surely walk out of office a hell of a lot wealthier than when they walked in. Let each man provide for his own destiny, and let each man decide how much he is willing to help those less fortunate....Flat Tax and no more Social Security!!

don smith your comments are biased and hateful, they carry no thought or facts, your opinion of the "right" is well noted but carry no weight in fact or history. the problm with social security is simple, the government (repubs & dems) has brought this program to the brink of bankruptcy by continuously raiding the account. this money that they take out of our paychecks goes directly into the general fund and is being used for many other programs not associated with SS itself. the answer could be that the government continues to pay those already on SS until their demise without taking new people into the program. this of course means the government has to honor all the IOU's. anyone that is not already in the program gets every dime they paid in with interest returned to them to set up their own retirement accounts such as an ira, that money HAS to stay in those accounts or pay huge penalties for early removal. what then happens is the people on SS are taken care of, those that are close to retirement have the money from all the years paid in with interest to retire on and the younger generation starts their own interest earning retirement accounts that can't be touched. theres the safety net, the only difference would be that the government can't spend YOUR money on whatever program they want to and waste decades of peoples earnings. this program is nothing more then a slush fund for whatever the current administration wants to use it for, that applies to both party's not just obama. if they had not been raiding these monies for decades SS would be well in the black.

i dont see anything wrong with companies benefiting. if they invest the money wisely we all do well. and if they screw it up they and and us go down. that is capitalism. people wouldn't put all of their money in one stock. and hopefully it wouldnt end up in the hands of a bernie maddoff. but overall i think people that have had money in the market for many years are better off than those who havent. yes it has sucked horribly the last 10 years but that is no reason to just run away and hide.

The GOP is Not trying to Destroy Social Security! They just want Wall Street to be able to Tap into All of That Money!!!! Do you Know How Much Money they Could make off of it!!!! WOW

It is easy to follow the GOP's Motivation it is ALWAYS About Making the Rich Richer.

MEDIA

I've watched politics for forty years and only LAST YEAR did I become a Democrat. A middle-of-the-road democrat.

But I have watched you whiny liars and cheats and fear-mongers for long enough. I'm sick-to-death of your crap.

You've threatened this country and I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH YOU PUNKS. You lousy buttheads are NOT taking my country down.

Lol 40 years. You are truly an idiot an a liar.

Remember when the Republicans sunk the Titanic?

I heard they hit Leonardo DiCapprio in the head with a sock full o0f tax payer quarters before they did it.

Jimmy Carter was the greatest President ever since he had a super-majority of Republicans.

IDIOT

Don Smith-973482

MEDIA

I've watched politics for forty years and only LAST YEAR did I become a Democrat. A middle-of-the-road democrat.

But I have watched you whiny liars and cheats and fear-mongers for long enough. I'm sick-to-death of your crap.

You've threatened this country and I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH YOU PUNKS. You lousy buttheads are NOT taking my country down.

Remember when the Republican party killed Ol' Yeller.

I was truly saddened when I found out Darth Vader was a Conservative.

Oh by the way, did you make a comment people should take seriously?

Did it have any truth in it Don Smith?

Ron Avery - When did the Republicans have 60 votes in the senate? Thats what it will a willing president. Not since the 1920's. i.e. Presidents can ask for whatever they want, but will not get what they want unless thier own party totally controls the Senate.

Seems to me that Obama is a democrat. What that means is a Veto will stop Republicans from changing anything he doesn't want changed until Jan 2013 because overriding a presidential Veto takes 2/3's vote by both House and Senate.

America is paying dearly for it's succumbing to the anti-Republican news organizations.

Executive orders don't work, because Laws passed by Congress super-cede any presidential directives.

I remember watching the Republicans kill America.

Screw you, Pud

Lie some more Don Smith, blame others for your failings.

It is easy to follow the GOP's Motivation it is ALWAYS About Making the Rich Richer.

Steve, don't kid yourself. The Democrats motivation is always about making themselves richer. Hence Michelle Obama's lavish vacation on the tax payer's dime and Nancy Pelosi's private jet use funded by the tax payers. There is little nobility on either side of the political spectrum but the Democrats are the biggest hipocrits of them all as they're often the first to raise taxes and the first to dodge them. At least the GOP's motivation, as you have stated it, makes someone else richer which in turn put a little more money in everyone else's pocket through lower taxes and private sector job creation.

Just more crap on top of crap. What kind of twisted logic is this?

The ONLY hypocrits I've ever seen are republicans. And they're nothing but hypocrits who put us in the toilet and haven't lifted a finger to help. FOR YEARS

I want em all gone

31dot You are correct. If SS had been privatized when Bush wanted to do it, there would be hundreds of thousands who would be devastated financially today with the financial crash. SS is an insurance program that we all pay premiums into. We who are still working are funding those who are currently receiving benefits. It was never meant to be an individual's pension fund and never will be such. It is functioning as it should except for the Republathugs raiding the principal in the trust account. Remember that it was Al Gore who wanted to pass legislation to prohibit any administration from ever touching the principal again. If the GOP ever gets back in power, that will be their first attack on the citizens of this country. Of course, if you are wealthy you wouldn't care because the bankers and investment houses will be sucking up fees managing all those individual accounts and keeping the poor and middle class down. Note all other civilized nations provide for their elderly. Only here the self-centered and selfish so-called conservatives would throw the old and weak into the gutter.

Sorry, LIAR.

LBJ began the raid of SS to pay for Vietnam, and he was hardly a Republican.

Look it up, and while you're at it, stop with the partisan bullcrap. It's so gdamn boring and tiresome, and you have to lie to make it work.

Both parties suck, wake up.

Roxie, I have to wonder, do you understand mathematics at all? Please tell me how GWB's plan of privitization of 2%(yea that is two percent) would have devastated everyone today? All of you liberal lemmings are so used to the handout idea of the govt taking care of you.

It is totally incredulous how most of you can't think for yourselves. Liberalism is nothing more than a modern form of slavery. It's just that you don't recognize it because you're under it's veil. Because if liberalism worked, it would work itself out of existence. But as you can see, and prominent black people like Bill Cosby understand, that liberalism hasn't done a DAMN THING to help the black community in this nation, for one example. All it's done is secure a mindset of needing to keep voting for the same people. Amazing how Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton always seem to show up wearing their rich fancy suits when a 'crisis' occurs but never beforehand trying to avert it.

You've become brainwashed to think that our nation will fall apart if someone else doesn't provide for you. Another comment on here nailed it perfectly...we have lost PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY as an important life skill in this nation. That's why for example we get absolutely dumbass people buying coffee and putting it between their legs and getting burned and thinking that McD's should pay for their troubles. Or the story of a guy getting hit with a broken bat at a baseball game and wanting to sue everybody who's had anything to do with it. It's human nature to want something for nothing. And for a long time, children learned to take responsibility for their actions and stop acting 'like a child' by getting their asses cracked or their mouths washed out but now we have all the 'experts' telling us how that's all bad for kids. I got my ass cracked many times when I was a kid and I have ABSOLUTELY NO adverse problems from it. In fact, I am glad it happened because I NEEDED it to learn.

Nobody needs to learn anything these days according to the liberals because THEY will take care of everything for you. All they need to do is convince you of this perceived truth and you will put all of your faith in them and keep voting for them. But as others have pointed out, the top liberals in congress are as rich or even richer than the top conservatives. But nobody seems to care how much money Barney Frank or Chris Dodd made off of the situation that sparked the sub-prime housing crisis. It's always the conservatives that get blamed when there's any kind of corruption. Well, wake the F@#K up idiots!!!

WHAT AN INCREDIBLE FREEKIN LIAR

Johnson established Medicare and Medicaid, THEN he added a way to fund it AND Social Security.

It was the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS during the Carter Administration who over-rode a presidential veto and took the funds, replacing the money with bonds and IOUs

It's right-wing morons that crap all over the truth and say 'we have to learn'. WHAT LYING HYPOCRITS!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Act_of_1965

And speaking of history there, 31dot. Why don't you do some research yourself into the causes of the 1929 crash before you go making unsupported conclusions?

There was a thing called 'buying on margin' that is not allowed anymore. It was basically where stockbrokers could use ious to buy stocks with the hopes that they would sell for a profit and then they could repay the iou. Obviously, this was a horrible practice. And once things started going a little sour, everybody tried to SELL their shares and get out but since an incredible amount of the stocks were bought on margin, there was no money to pay for them in the middle of the whole process. But as bad as that was, if people had just left the stuff alone and not tried to sell, I believe there would not have been a depression at all.

But the "kick when you're down" so to speak came when the Federal Reserve subsequently RAISED interest rates, tightening up credit. This was a horrible mistake but of course hindsight is 20/20. I will always remember when I learned the history of this event in school(which I wonder how much truth is even conveyed in our history classes anymore), the analogy that the author gave regarding this event. He said "it was like cutting off the oxygen supply to a choking person". And when you think about it, it makes sense. All of a sudden, everybody has their money tied up in worthless securities because of margin buying and now all of a sudden, credit has become very tight to borrow new funds. So now people stop spending and what do you think happens when that occurs? The nose dive came pretty quickly after that.

One of the few things in FDR's New Deal that I do agree with was the creation of the SEC, which of course makes sure there are no "buying on margin" brokers out there anymore. So there is very little chance that the stock market could have an effect like it did in 1929. I mean, did life as you know come to a stop in 1987 on Black Friday? The market goes up and down. The only time

Carter had a DEMOCRAT-CONTROLLED CONGRESS all through his presidency!!!!!!!

Don Smith- do you care to elaborate on A WAY Lyndon Johnson found a way to fund Medicare/Medicais and Social Security/ Hmmmm......I can...HE RAISED THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX RATES!!! Thats right...we the common folk.....( 75,000 a year too much money to make for your liberal tastes?) are footing the bill for EVERYONE!! Eliminate the IRS, go to a flat tax rate (hey the Russians are doing this and they are kicking a lot of financial behind right now...interesting, no?) and everybody pays their share. How is it that folks who earn a living wage but don't pay ANY income tax (See Earned income credit) and get 3-4 thousand gifted to them from the IRS even though they paid 0 dollars in income tax? Everybody pays, the tax receipts go up (more money in the pool for you liberals), and there you have the money to HELP support, not COMPLETELY support, the WORKING poor.

i take it roxilen the south you were either a child or not born when clinton was in office and the big surplus we had was social securtiy money not a surplus of tax money it was in papers and sure if youn look on internet you can find proof if you really want the truth. he dipped hard into ss and even with what we leftover he put 25% of it back and spent the rest. i was working myself and was very upset with him and congres for letting it happen. and i can't believe so many bought into the lie, with all the coverage on it even aarp did a article on it. evey admin has gotten into it not just repub please don't let party lines blind you

you guys do realize that we had a democrat congress from the 50's all the way through to the 90's when newt gingrich finally broke through. it was a little bit more conservative of a democrat party but it was the democrats.

As much as I would LOVE to see Fair Tax passed into law, I'm afraid the elected criminals would never allow it. They like taxes the current way - one giant shell game, and we always lose.

those of you that assume if bush had succeeded in privatizing SS that everyone would be ruined today due to the recession are simply mistaken. i have a fair amount of money tied into mutual funds that were never touched by the recession, they continued to pay dividends, and from the advice of my stock broker have since rolled half of that money over into foreign bonds due to their high interest rates as US bonds are now too risky to buy. thats a sad state of affairs if you ask me. and it's not like i'm rich, i started out with a 10 grand inheritance just over 15 years ago and was smart enough to invest it and never touch it. it is now almost 10 times what i invested. but the point being most retirement accounts are invested through mutual funds and they continue to fair well so the idea that they would have lost it all is preposterous. its so funny that people assume they know what they are talking about and convince themselves they are correct without actually knowing the facts, they make their assumptions based on party lines and present those assumptions as fact, this is true regardless of party affiliation. as long as the government can keep us divided along party lines they will always win and we will always lose. stop playing the blame game and see the reality for what it is, ALL politicians are self serving greedy individuals that worry only for themselves not for the citizens of this country. as long as people tow the party line and let those political parties think for you it will never change. vote em all out, reduce government salaries, adopt term limits and get back to the principles of the constitution. forget about the 2 party system mentality and think about a single government regardless of party affiliation that works to preserve and protect the citizens and constitution of this once great country. take the government back from ALL the crooks, liars, and thieves. get rid of the golden parachute retirements they have, force them to use the same systems we as americans are forced to use ie: social security and health care. then lets see how fast they fix the problems. it's not up to them it's up to us, the american people to force these changes rather then being led around by the same government thats screwing each and every one of us every day. it all STARTS at the voting booth. it's time the american people speak up and say we are not going to take this crap from the government anymore and we don't care what party you belong to as you work for us not your party. Our government is so used to the status quo that they don't even realize they are now the problem not the solution.

Don Smith-973482

WHAT AN INCREDIBLE FREEKIN LIAR

Johnson established Medicare and Medicaid, THEN he added a way to fund it AND Social Security.

It was the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS during the Carter Administration who over-rode a presidential veto and took the funds, replacing the money with bonds and IOUs

It's right-wing morons that crap all over the truth and say 'we have to learn'. WHAT LYING HYPOCRITS!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Act_of_1965

Actually you are the idiot. Jimmy Carter Enjoyed a Super Majority. Republicans never controlled both Houses until 1994. The Republicans never had enough to over ride a Veto.

The second super majority ever was controlled by Preisident Obama.

In the Last 40 years Republicans have only had majority 6-10 years (depends if you count blue dogs during reagan).

So Don Smith I am going to have to say you are an idiot, for not realizing that.

Drop freeking dead. It was the Republicans and you know it. JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER BAD THING THIS COUNTRY HAS DONE

The idiots in this country are all on the right

Lol you are sad.

nothing but lies, and cannot handle the truth.

Yeah Don - Johnson funded it SS, medicare, and medicaid real good, so good it was headed for bankruptcy that all three required a tax increase of 16% 14 years later. Medicare and Medicaid reall cost is 8 times greater than forecast. Medicare and Medicaid have required multiple attempts to control cost that CUT better treatments for people. The politicians cut what medicare and medicaid for patients to below actual expense causind doctors to quit accepting medicare or medicaid patients, retire, or CHEAT!

The largest part of funding was to borrow from the SS, by a creditor that has yet to prove it can even make a balanced Federal Budget in over 50 years!

AND NO Clinton had no Balanced OVERALL Budget According to the US TREASURY. The US Treasury is the one that keeps the US Government checkbook and pays the Bills. Government Debt INCREASED in 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002.

what's your point db

You're throwing numbers around like they mean something, but they don't. It's just more useless drivel coming from the right

Point is - since you can't figure it out - do not trust White House or Congressional numbers. They guild the lilly to get re-elected or pass pet spending.

actually, i remember that Bush proposed to privatizing only a small percentage of SS, not the whole thing. maybe google it to see if you can find the info on Bush's proposal.

Back to Clinton time, when he declared that government got how much surplus, it's actually not entirely true, because government borrowed from SS trust fund and used it to pay other debts or expense. The way they calculated the government budgets was to exclude the debts paid by SS money, so that it gives an illusion of balanced or surplus of budgets. Once we include SS into the consideration, then our government never had balanced any budgets and we're always in debts, except the current deficits becomes ever larger.

I do remember that time, there's a talk about keeping SS funds locked and untouchable, but either party dared to do that, for fear of no longer available money to borrow against. It's time now that we demand SS trust fund to be set aside for SS use only. Unless this happens, people will wonder whether there's any money left to get benefits when they retire.

Don...

You need an ice pack, a valium, and some new reading material.

The 'right' does not have an exclusive contract for dispensing "drivel"...as you quite capably have proven.

My coffee suits me fine.

Take your own damned drugs

Well said! I agree.

So goes the way of Rome!

I'm simply stunned by this fact, we have printed more dollars in the last two years than all the dollars printed in our nations 234 years history. Here are few sobering charts to add to your post.

US monetary base - This chart starts in 1918 and passes through the great depression, WWII and all else.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/AMBNS?cid=124

Reserve Bank Credit
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/RSBKCRNS?cid=342

Excess Reserves of Depository Institutions
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/EXCRESNS?rid=19

Currency in Circulation
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/WCURCIR?cid=32215

This is the Money multiplier, the velocity of money is dying.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MULT?cid=25

Yeah, yeah...more fear mongering. Social security isn't going broke, in fact they have 2.5 trillion in trust. Insolvency isn't for 27 more years. People are going to live longer, raise the retirement age.

VegasRage, you got it right. The government is monetizing our debt. In other words, they are buying up OUR NATIONS OWN DEBT with paper money. Anyone with half a brain knows this leads to inflation and is pretty much the same thing as stealing from you, the citizens, by making your money less valuable.

It seems all you need to do these days to get into the most powerful office in the world is to take some public speaking courses in college, learn to follow a teleprompter, learn to pause, smile, etc. at the right moments, lie with a straight face, be smooth in your speach and look like you know what you are talking about. Do this and you have a good chance of being able to get elected as the President of the United States. Forget about learning anything else kids, our president has proven this is the easiest way to make it to the top.

Eric, why is the truth always "fear mongering" with you left wing moonbats?

Because, Prag, it's not the truth.

ERIC-913730 your an idiot the object isnt to work till the day we die. the object is to work till you can be comfortable enough to enjoy life. if you up the age for those of us who have very stessfull jobs due to the publics stupidity and inability to handle problems will die before we can retire. thats not fair. people need to start taking care of them selve and grow up and be adults. they need to ask the government to stay out of there live cause unlike you there are people in the US that can take very good care of themselves and dont need the governments help. im not rich im not highly educated but i know i am perfectly capable of takeing care of myself and dont need the help of the governement and there spending of my kids kids future. this must stop and people better wake up and realize that the government is not out for your best interest only theres. that evident by the polls showing that they dont even hear the majority of americans.

Bodyshop, if you know how to work and your good at it, you'll have enough money to retire on and enjoy life. I'm not talking about those people.

I'm talking to someone that doesn't make enough, hasn't made enough, etc. They need that money when they are old to live on. Enjoyment in life is something you can pursue its not "guaranteed".

Social security shouldn't stop, for the sake of your kids. Republicans are short sighted in trying to do away with social security.

"if you up the age for those of us who have very stessfull jobs due to the publics stupidity and inability to handle problems will die before we can retire. thats not fair. people need to start taking care of them selve and grow up and be adults".

Agreed, if the job is so stressful you are going to die from the stress; grow up, be an adult, and take care of yourself. Take care of yourself by finding another job! Anybody who's job is that stressful and for so that many years until retirement is an idoit for not taking care of THEMSELVES by finding a less stressful job.

• Workers making $17,000 a year are expected to receive about 50 percent more per month on our alternative plan than on Social Security - $1,036 instead of $683. [See the Figure.]
• Workers making $26,000 a year will make almost double Social Security's return - $1,500 instead of $853.
• Workers making $51,000 a year will get $3,103 instead of $1,368.
• Workers making $75,000 or more will nearly triple Social Security - $4,540 instead of $1,645.
• Galveston County's survivorship benefits pay four times a worker's annual salary - a minimum of $75,000 to a maximum $215,000 - versus Social Security, which forces widows to wait until age 60 to qualify for benefits, or provides 75 percent of a worker's salary for school-age children.

In Galveston, if the worker dies before retirement, the survivors receive not only the full survivorship but get generous accidental death benefits, too. Galveston County's disability benefit also pays more: 60 percent of an individual's salary, better than Social Security's.

Two government studies of the Galveston Plan - by the Government Accountability Office and the Social Security Administration - claim that low-wage workers do better under Social Security. However, these studies assumed a low 4 percent return, which is the minimum rate of return on annuities guaranteed by the insurance companies. The actual returns have been substantially higher.

Guidance for Today's Reformers. Congress could consider making participation in any privatization plan voluntary at first. We made our plan voluntary in the beginning and 70 percent joined. It later became mandatory, and now there is full participation. Also, if some workers remain uncertain about investing a portion of their contributions, the plan could include a guarantee that low-income earners receive the same funds they would get with total participation in Social Security.

$2.5 trillion in trust? Whooptie freakin' doo! The unfunded liabilities are what, $100+ Trillion?

The NY Times reported Mar 24 that this year we will pay out more than we take in. Sooooo, we are bleeding out what little is left (assuming you are correct and that $2.5 trillion isn't just IOU's from our greedy, thieving, lying, corrupt politicians) even now, and you think that some fuzzy math will be able to tell what is going to be available 27 years from now?

ARE YOU REALLY THAT GULLIBLE?

The idiot-in-chief told us that unemployment would not go above 8% if we passed his $800 BILLION bailout, and only a few months later he said "wow, it's a bigger problem than I thought"...

Anyone who believes the government is more trustworthy than their own sense deserves to live in the street.

government forthe people, our last president proved all you said. He did all you suggest President Obama is doing. Unfunded tax cuts, unfunded wars, unfunded 'donut holes' suggesting we invest our social securety money in private accounts..good thing to do. My 401K lost huge ammounts of money. These past two years finally made up for the losses I had during the President Bush era.

Eric-913730

Yeah, yeah...more fear mongering. Social security isn't going broke, in fact they have 2.5 trillion in trust. Insolvency isn't for 27 more years. People are going to live longer, raise the retirement age.

Umm you do realize that the fund has been doled out as bonds to cover other programs. A lie is that Social Seucrity has 2.5 trillion. It is closer to 1.2 trillion with outstanding bonds.

Just like the current "job Simulus" it will be paid later.

Correct - Our government didn't invest the money - unless you consider their borrowing as investing in our government.

That value of deposits is just like the "rich" people's wealth - its all on paper. It's only worth something if you sell all of it without causing the value to drop to others. In the market's that's called dumping, and when dumping occurs the value falls drastically.

You mean the money the government TOOK from me without my consent and promise to give back when I get older? The money they have stolen and replaced with IOU's? If you want to rely on the lying government for your future , well, good luck with that.

31dot, do you think there is anything left in Social Security today other then IOUs. It's one of the reasons why we are running a deeper deficit every year. When the baby boomers are all retired, the demand on Social Secuirty will be so great, there's not enough ink to sign the IOUs.

Look at it another way, the Government does "control" you when they can pass any taxes they want and you have to pay or be fined/go to jail...sound familiar? HCR bill...Obama says the mandate is not a tax...then justice dept says it is a tax...boom, more of your money spent without your control. When they need more money for more goodies to give away or more Government programs /jobs ...guess they'll pass more taxes.

Once again social security is not going broke...it needs minor adjustments that's all.

Republicans say its going broke so that people look at privatization. Nice try at spin.

Eric -

It would not have needed adjustment if the fund had not been raided over the years. All that is there now id IOUs. I, personally, have been paying into it and Medicare for 30 years, but I know that I probably will not see a dime of that money back. The program will be defunct before then.

You'll see your money Tammy, there is 2.5 trillion in the trust. It just needs minor adjustments. It's not going broke.

The "going broke" is a way for republicans to scare americans into looking at privatization which is a bad idea.

Eric,

All that is there are government IOU's; There is NO savings account that says "Social Security", that earns interest or dividends. The money was stolen by DEMOCRATS for wild spending programs to buy themselves votes and Porkulus programs in their districts and states. The program WILL run out of money, the Democrats know it, but prefer to lie and try to get political mileage out claiming that the people that want to fix it so that YOU get a retirement check are going to end it and dump old people out on the street; They've used this same old tired lying rant for years. Watch next they will trot out some "victims" and old ladies to cry and tell how they will starve and have to live on the street and all the usual Democrat false theater ( they should get an Oscar for the acts). The absolute TRUTH is that the Social Security System IS going broke and will be broke without some major changes. If the democrats were to stop lying, they would admit that is the truth. Even the various government budget offices will tell you the system is running out of money.

I wondered how long it would be until the jerk in the white house trotted out the usual lies, but then he's been lying since day one in office.

Keep repeating it, $2.5 trillion gets spent in 10 months in DC - we are bleeding the fund this year with more outgo than income. No one can predict the future, but I can predict one thing.

Democrats and Republicans in DC will continue to lie, steal, mislead, and overspend until we stop them from doing so. There is an 80 year history of income taxation for us to look at, and the truth is, no amount of taxes is enough, they will always spend more than they bring in, they will overstate income and understate expenses, and we will pay their bills, their air fare, their expenses, their liquor, food and party expenses, and we will pay for their fat retirement.

Now exactly how does that square with how our nation was founded? It doesn't.

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

- Thomas Jefferson

Eric,

You act as if you think that the $2.5 trillion trust fund is real money. It's not. It is of no economic value. The trust fund is nothing more than a bunch of IOU's the government wrote to itself. To make good on those IOU's the government will have to tax it or borrow it or reduce spending elsewhere.

It's the same as if you withdrew $80k from your bank account, bought a Lexus, wrote yourself an IOU for $80k, stuck that IOU in your dresser drawer and then told your accountant that you still had the $80k because you had a IOU for it in your dresser.

reagan stole 350 billion from ssgeorge sr stole 300 billion georgee boy stole 800 billion thats 1.450 trillion that would help have the repuds pay that back,everytime a repud is in office we go in the hole then the demos work our way out it takes 4 years tnem the second we put it in the black.look at history that's one thing you can't change is history it's in black and white

ron avery

reagan stole 350 billion from ssgeorge sr stole 300 billion georgee boy stole 800 billion thats 1.450 trillion that would help have the repuds pay that back,everytime a repud is in office we go in the hole then the demos work our way out it takes 4 years tnem the second we put it in the black.look at history that's one thing you can't change is history it's in black and white

34 years out of 40 the Democrats have controlled Congress.

You realize that during the Bush Years he tapped Iraq when the Senate was 50/50.

Twice in history has a super majority existsed. Carter and Obama.

Guess what they both squandered it.

The only time in 50 years that we had a Surplus was with a Republican Congress.

Amazing.

Demitrix - there have been more super majorities than those two Super Majorities. The last 4 have been democrats.

Here's the History of Super Majorities and some highlights of tehir "accomplishments". The Republican Party actually came into being in 1857 after the Whig party fell apart.

1853 - 1859 - Democrats - The Union began to Crumble - actually held 58% of the senate until 1961

1861 - 1877 - Republicans - Longest Reigning Super Majority of all time. Won the Civil War and began reconstrution. Re-construction became a failure as the Republicans allowed Democrats to re-take southern states one by one and did little to stop the Democrats from instituting "Jim Crow" Laws.

1901 - 1911 - Republicans - Ushered in Teddy Roosevelt, the first progressive.

1921- 1923 - Republicans - There was a deep depression in 1921-22 - nothing was done other than an unrelated tax cut because the Federal war debts had been paid. The result was the roaring 20's - until government decided in 1928 to covertly stop borrowing for stock purchases. When the money supply dried up, the stocks dropped and everyone on wall street ran for cover.

1933 - 1943 - Democrats - Brought in by the "Great Depression" couldn't get us out of it either. Vast expansion of government including Social Security, Public works projects.

1959 - 1969 - Democrats - Civil Rights - but only 40 of the 66 Democrats voted for it, 28 republicans (80%) voted for it and got it past cloture. Brought us Johnson's "Great Society" Poverty actually grew after that was inflicted on us.

1977 - 1981 - Democrats - CRA, and the greatest expansion of Environmental Regulations. Steel industry, crippled, Oil industry decreased by 1/4th, Coal production dropped severely.

2009 - 2010 - Democrats - Largest Tax increases in history (to come), banking regulations that will delay recovery, A health care system that 58% of Americans don't want.

The only way to rid us of some of the latest super majority accomplishments is to give a super majority to another party that will correct the sitution or be voted out themselves. Right now the only hope would be Republicans like them or not. The most seats they could have is 60, and what they need to effect change in 2011-2013 is both houses 2/3's majorities plus.

Vegas...You are wrong on one point. The government left no IOUs. They have no intention of paying that money back....What the liberals will do is raise taxes, again and again and again. They will also increase the eligibility age to the point that most people will die before they get any money back...Face it, the money is gone and Obama is playing politics.

The money will be there, Americans want it to be there, and for the sake of the elderly it needs to be there.

And unicorns can fly. I'll be riding one to Arizona next week.

I'm glad to hear your back riding unicorns again.

There is 2.5 trillion in the trust, make some minor adjustments and fix the program.

@Eric-913730 "Americans want it to be there, and for the sake of the elderly it needs to be there." Wanting and needing don't have the power to defy the laws of physics, the trust fund is empty and not 20 or 30 years down the road, it's empty now. They are literally having to borrow this year to make Social Security payments because the reduced tax intake from high unemployment has put a squeeze on the money going out because the safe has been pillaged.

There's less than $2.5 trillion Eric, or do you not read?

$29 billion short this year - just a drop in the bucket. But wait a few months, that will also be found to be wrong, and guess what, the actual amount will most certainly be a bigger number.

Minor adjustments - that's funny.

Just like Medicare - estimated to cost $12 billion by 1990, but gosh golly gee whiz, by 1990 it cost $109 billion. So they only missed it by what, 800%?

Yeah, minor adjustments...

Social Security is a necessary program to provide an income "floor" for seniors. With a single vote the Congress can secure it for posterity: simply raise the amount of income SSI is collected on from the current $140,000 or so to $200,000. Fixed for75 years...just like that! Put a means test on benefits and it is fixed forever. This is in the best interest of the entire country.

No I will not want anyone to bail me out. I never expected SS to be my only source of income when i reach retirement. I have other investments for that. SS was never meant to be what you had left at the end IMO. I have been a saver and an investor for my whole life. I do have a plan in place and it is not SS.

I remember walking to the bank every Friday when i was in grade School to put my money in the Christmas Club and in the summer the Vacation Club. I would get 100.00 from each/in the early 60's that was a lot of money for a small kid to have to get presents for the family.

I have continued to save ever since. My daughter graduated from College a few years ago and neither she nor I have any debt from that. Her school was paid for and not by loans although she did get a couple of scholarships to school.

Carla, some people are disabled and can't work. What about them?

Why would I need or want a Dr?. I know you might find this strange but I have been able to take pretty good care of myself by working and being smart with my money. I certainly did not need the Dr to put my daughter through college.

Guess it is easier to mock someone than realize that not everyone depends on the govt or a Dr to take care of them If leeching is your idea of success, do not assume that others fall into your category

Carla, you didn't answer my question. Great you don't need a doctor, God forbid you ever do.

Some people need doctors all the time, take Dick Cheney. Doubt he would survive without a doctor right now.

Carla, some people are disabled and can't work. What about them?

First of all Eric my response was to the poster who said i would marry a Dr and leech off of them. I do not need to do this as I can take care of myself and am doing so.

Not that I usually throw this out there but it just so happens Eric that i am on my second round of chemo for cancer so please do not talk to me about when I may or may not need a Dr.

If someone is disabled that is a whole different subject that I did not address in my original post. I said I would have liked to have had control of my money/someone said I would want a bail out i said no I would not.

I am not sure how the point of disabled should be handled although for now it is done through SS but what will happen down the road I have no idea.

Why is it bad for everything to go broke ???

Do you listen to yourself, do you want a full blown depression?

What has Obama done that is socialism.....nice talking point...but the answer is nothing.

Obama lent money to car companies that are now hugely profitable. He saved jobs doing that.

eric...be a nice little boy and go back to your government job and government paid benefits......all paid for by the rest of us...

Ah, JA...nothing more to argue with as usual.

I have a job with a private corporation and own my own business...go back to your tea party.

Eric,

NO he didn't "LOAN" the money to GM, he bankrupted it, drove out the STOCKHOLDERS and BONDHOLDERS and then put taxpayer money in while GIVING a major portion of company ownership to the unions that had helped bankrupt the company in the first place, In a word, he STOLE the company and used it to pay off his cronies. That IS socialism as is his worthless "Health Care Reform" Scheme, a take over and control by the government of a significant sector of the American economy. DO open your eyes and quit parroting the mantra from the democrat talking point paper.

Well said Eric, Of Course HE is only going to Blame the Republicans, COME ON NOW, he has been in OFFICE with a LIBERALLY controlled CONGRESS for HOW LONG now, time to take RESPONSIBILITY for his own actions, hell I didnt like him but even CLINTON was a conservative spending democrat.

Colonialgirl - you are mistaken in your response to Eric. I don't know where your information on the auto companies comes from, but it is false. HCR is not a government takeover, it is a gift to the private insurance companies. You guys seem to get a lot of traction from your accusations of Socialism, but this administration is not socialist. Socialism is government control of corporations. This is corporate control of government, which is fascism, and liberals are trying to fight against the movement towards fascism.

Eric, do you ever get tired of listening to your asinine lies and half-truths? Are you paid to monitor these posts by the democratic party or the White House? Which one?

This thread went way off subject but Obama did not bankrupt the auto companies, the stocks became worthless. He loaned that most American industry money to give them time to restructure, which they did but the banks who got bailed out on GW Bush's watch didn't. Now they are paying back that loan, with interest. A new IPO will be in the offering this coming week. All those who bailed making the rest of the stocks worthless can then rebuy into it if they wish. Now a bit on point about social security. The jobs 'saved' in the auto industry, including all the supporting US industrial jobs that depend on the auto companies can continue to pay taxes. To blame the demise on the unions is despicable. What about the executives that approve the designs of cars no one wants? What about them being paid 300 or more times the average worker? Most of them get a 15% tax cut when they hit the social security tax ceiling! Wake up! Without unions, you would be working for Chinese or even North Korean wages. History taught us that lesson long ago.

rednawl the truth hurts now you'll get a bunch of mindless attacks they only get about 6 talking points per month so there limited after that they just insult i'll be glad when this party leaves this earth there on there way out now.the repuds are responsable for the illegals in this country wilson gov california as he was walking out the door he gave amnesty to3 million mexicans now the mexicans have turned into demos and it's time to give them the boot

good post, rednawt, and Ron's right

It's a Ponzi scheme at it's finest! Bernie Maddoff would be proud!

It's a solid program. If you use the line it gets raided, then fine, its raided by both parties. In reality there is 2.5 trillion in the social security trust and it will be operating for a very long time with minor fixes.

The republicans like saying its going broke as a way to sell privatization.

Do you read the statements that SS sends you every year????

Yes Carla, do you read yours?

Well if you read them did you miss the informational part about the SS fund and it's longevity? Your comment says that you did not read it.

Yep, read it. Has to do with my longevity not the longevity of the program. It won't stop being able to pay claims for 27 years. God knows in this polarized environment it might take 8 years to come to agreement on how to fix it.

Anyway you look at it, American's want it fixed...Republicans better be listening.

Actually Eric it is the longevity of the program not just your benefits. So please do not act like there are unlimited funds in there as that is not so. With the way the economy is they are also not collecting taxes as they normally do.

Of course it needs to be fixed and the Republicans know that but every time they broach the subject hysterics follow such as this they want to take your SS away. Until someone steps up and fixes this it is going to remain a drain and a problem.

The Social Security “Trust Fund” balance of $2-plus trillion is, except for very nominal amounts, nothing but a pile of IOUs from the rest of the government — which is otherwise (excluding its debt to the Trust Fund) over $10 trillion in debt.

.... is this funny, or something?

Well Mr. AIG, I lost 30% of my retirement in the recession. So much for giving it to wall street.

That is because you are not good with managing money Eric.

There are places to put your money that provides a positive return when the market is up or down.

Eric...Giving it to Wall St, Government running SS??? Exactly where are YOU in this picture? You blaming Wall St because some index lost money??

Government taxes and provides for you...or you give your money to Wall St. Why don't you take responsibility and manage this yourself? Annuities, diversified portfolio, insurance, CD...etc.

Eliminate Social Security, and skip the privatization talk. Manage your money and your finances yourself. Stop blaming government for mismanagement or Wall St and take responsibility. Ask the government to stop taxing us for SS and let us all each handle this ourselves. If memory serves this country was founded on freedom, liberty...and not a giant entitlement program that government taxes us for.

Some people are good at managing money and investments and some are not. Social Security is protection for those who are not. You can criticize people for being poor investors, but the fact is that not everyone is born with the same talents and abilities. Should we just consign those with less financial management abilities to the trash heap? Social Security provides a baseline for everyone. What you do in addition to that depends on your personal talents and abilities. Congratulations for being one of those born with financial ability, but I am not willing to just let those who are not, starve to death when they can no longer work.

I wonder if people take into consideration the fees one has to pay to invest.

The fees are small when compared to how much the government eats up.

When you take that into consideration it is much better to keep the government as far away from your money as possible.

The funds I have charge 0.5 - 0.7%.

Good USA, please let us all know so we can beat a path to their door. Now, do we fund another hour at school to learn all the ends and outs of investing? Or do we do that between our two to three jobs, raising our families and taking care of paying all the other bills we need to focus on? I do have a serious question. All the money that would be invested, wouldn't that inflate the values of the investment leaving so much money to be stole by the CEO's? To me, it seems like a no win situation.

It would be nice if schools spent more time on math, calculating interest, and explaining how the whole SS system works to students before they graduate. They would be better informed and know that the SS system is a bad deal when compared to a life time of constant saving and low risk investing. You can pay into SS, but it is smart to do some individual planning for one's future.

Absolutely USA, I agree with you. Problem is, so many people will only earn barely enough to keep the family fed, at least early on. Then there isn't many years left. But yes, everyone should save at least 10% of pre-tax income in some kind of retirement investment plan. But for those on the lower pay levels that wouldn't mean much.

Looks like the public likes it to me.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/08/12/poll-public-rejects-any-social-security-or-medicare-cuts-prefers-progressive-economic-solutions/

Poll: Public Rejects Any Social Security or Medicare Cuts, Prefers Progressive Economic Solutions

68 percent said they would oppose making major spending cuts in Social Security and Medicare to reduce the deficit, while 28 percent said they would favor cutting those programs. That included 61 percent of Republicans and 56 percent of independents.

Strong majorities support progressive solutions for addressing the federal deficit: 63 percent back lifting the Social Security cap on incomes higher than $107,000 a year; 64 percent would favor eliminating tax breaks for corporations that outsource jobs; 62 percent would support a tax on excessive Wall Street bank profits.

Strong majorities also oppose common conservative proposals for addressing the budget deficit: 65 percent oppose raising the Social Security retirement age to 70; 65 percent oppose replacing Medicare with a private sector voucher; 62 percent oppose a 3 percent federal sales tax; 60 percent oppose raising the Medicare age from 65 to 67.

Of course that is what an article from Fire Dog Lake would say.

Eric...do you actually ever listen to anybody, ever?

It doesn't invalidate the poll Carla.

Yes, JA, I listen to people that make sense.

Eric, you seem like a well-educated person...Have you done the math on this 2.5 trillion dollar trust that exists? I did some simple math bacuse I'm a simple, thoughtless, raving patriot...2.5 trillion dollars, divided by 50 million ( a low estimate of the number of retirees expected to appear over the next 5 years or so), comes out to about $5000 per person, to be spread out over the life of their retirement......Hmmmm.......can you say "cat food"?

Willy, you are forgetting that money is continually being added to the 2.5 trillion dollar trust by all the people who are still working. Granted, the amount is less now because fewer people are working, but the 2.5 trillion is not a static number.

At this time if you are receiving Social Security benefits and are not at full retirement age, you are allowed to make $14,200 per year in addition before they start reducing your Social Security benefit. The 12.4% Social Security contribution is still assessed on that additional income and is added to your total contribution and your benefits are adjusted to include that contribution. One solution might be to raise the amount that people can earn in addition to their Social Security benefit. (Perhaps removing the cap altogether.) That would bring more money into the trust fund. The rise in benefits would offset some of that increase, but the formula for benefit calculation would leave much of that money in the trust fund. (I contribute 12.4% into the fund and get a benefit increase of less than 1% of that income.)

There's plenty of reason to have confidence in Social Security, especially if we buy American, build American, stop the tax policies that reward businesses for shipping jobs overseas, and get a rational immigration policy so that we can build up our employment again. The truth is that BEFORE there was Social Security most Americans had NOTHING when they got too old to work. Do you want to have to ask your kids to feed you?

Then if that's the case we should be able to invest on our own in American companies. Why does the government have to do it for us?

And I agree with your positive attitude about growth!! Just differ in views on SS...I just feel we should have a choice, manage it ourselves or let the gov manage it. It's our money, we earned it, let us choose.

Things happen in life that you can't foresee, that is why social security is around. It's a very beneficial program for the elderly and needs to remain in place. Sometimes people are short sighted and don't plan well, social security is there for them.

AP78. "it is our money". No, once the government takes it, it is the governments money to spend however they want....They have proven that over and over....

It's political suicide to mess with social security...and government knows that.

They have commited suicide then by declaring no Cost of Living Allowance (C.O.L.A.) for last year 2009. We all have experienced our utilities going up through rate hikes and added Fedral taxes on telephone bills mine was $1.99 per month on my statement. It was also the very first year a C.O.L.A was not implemented since the inception of the program which the C.O.L.A is a lawful requirement. From http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/us/politics/03benefits.html Obama's excuse was: The forecasts, by the Obama administration and the Congressional Budget Office, indicate that Social Security beneficiaries will not receive any cost-of-living increase in 2010 or in 2011. The COLA is intended to preserve the purchasing power of Social Security, by increasing benefits to keep pace with consumer prices. In the last year, overall inflation has been low, largely because of the economic downturn and a decline in energy prices.

And it only gets worse!!!!

Amen and Amen

AP78 - we CAN invest on our own in American companies. There is nothing stopping anyone who wants to do that from doing it.

I want the government to stop paying for wars we don't need and corporate welfare. I want the government if the super rich wants to keep their tax cuts to close loopholes most of us don't have. I want the government to eliminate the social security tax ceiling and extend the tax to ALL income but lower the tax rate to 2 to 4%.

That's a lot of 'wants' for a congress to handle, but it sounds reasonable to me

Yeah we can invest "our money" into corporate america, overseas, real estate, etc etc....I am referring to "our money" that the government takes from us for SS. We aren't talking about every dime we have, stop twisting it!

Disability should never have been part of the SS program. It should have been an old age supplemental program only. Disability should have been separate. All the additional benefits(spending) should also have never been added....

JA, that makes no sense at all. Growing old and having disabilities goes together. What benefit is there in keeping them separate.

Eric the benefit would be that SS would not be broke and could pay for what it promised. Not all the added on stuff. There are other programs for the elderly medical, etc. Why rob SS in addition to those. You dont have to be elderly to get SS disability money. The non-elderly are receiving most of that....I didnt say to abandon them, I said to keep it separate. You understand nothing other than the socialist dogma of more and more government programs...

JA, together or separate, after reading the posts here its very clear that the Republican agenda is to get rid of:

social security

medicaid / medicare

Speak to that, and how you would handle the disabled, infirm, and the elderly in a compassionate way.

See, Eric has nothing but the democrat talking points paper ( also know as lies) to parrot from with no thought and little inkling of the truth, bet his claim of his "own business" is a lie too. There is absolutely NOTHING to indicate that the Republicans have an "agenda" to get rid of "social security" or "Medicare/medicaid". To claim that that it is "clear" that is the republican agenda is just spreading democrat lies and fear mongering by someone that is no longer able to think for himself and is willing to suck up any hype and lies that spring forth from Obama and the democrats. Pretty sad really. Must be the product of some good liberal socialists when he was going to school.

Colonial...What is really sad is that so many in government think just like Eric. We need to get rid of this bunch and never be represented by a socialist again.

JA, where would this "separate" money come from for disabilities?

colonial girl, a republican candidate for US senate recently suggested that social security should be abolished. other republican spokespeople bemoan the fact that the government redistributes wealth, which includes redistributnig if from their wallets to retired or diabled people. Some conservatives, who certainly won't be voting for democrats, complain that medicare/medicaid are socialism and should be abolished. the fear that republicans want to curtail these programs is not without reason. The fear is overblown, but not totally without reason. Most partisan dogma of either flavor is crap.

colonialgirl-1384027

See, Eric has nothing but the democrat talking points paper ( also know as lies) to parrot from with no thought and little inkling of the truth, bet his claim of his "own business" is a lie too. There is absolutely NOTHING to indicate that the Republicans have an "agenda" to get rid of "social security" or "Medicare/medicaid".

Not to mention you and all other republicans having nothing but republican talking points paper. What makes all of you so much better, smarter, stronger?

Eric, I have read many of your points and I want to say thank you.

Heartlight...Where does welfare come from? Where does government housing money come from? Where does all the money come from that the government gives away?...They didnt keep the SS money intact for a single purpose and they added more and more give-a-way programs to it to the point that no one knows how much they are handing out....These are welfare programs and should be treated as such. Why should only the people who pay into SS finance the SS welfare programs.? How is it fair that gov workers who dont support SS do not have to pay for these welfare programs? It has been very convenient for the government to just add more and more of those obligations to SS without having to fund them. It has been much too easy for the government to keep raiding SS and keep raising the rates...

Read my lips, 4 consecutive quarters of economic growth. That is what Obama has done for America.

I can't believe what comes out of Republican mouths.

Eric...yes, if he continues doing this for America, we will soon be broke. Will the country last longer than Obama? I am not sure.