What's the deal with Bush's plan on Social Security?

  • Thread starter s0nny80y
  • 50 comments
  • 1,427 views
S

s0nny80y

406
Bush wants to privatize 10% of our social security because baby-boomers retiring in three years will put a huge strain on the nations current deficit. Privatizing has a benefit in that Congress doesn't need to raise taxes to lower the defecit. The downside is that there will be cuts on middle-class wage benefits. Privatizing our accounts is expected to provide a larger return but the stock market has its down's too.

It's more of a gamble (Bush's plan) than a sure thing (now).


The deficit wouldn't be so large if it wasn't for the huge deficit we have now;
25-budgetdeficit.gif

souce: USATODAY.com

I'm pretty sure it'll bounce back because looking at the figures after the Persian Gulf war, it came back up. But when the "occupation" in Iraq will end, nobody knows.

At least the privatizing thing would be left to us as a choice so no biggie if it passes or not.

The things you can do during your last term of presidency... :rolleyes:
 
Social Security will go bankrupt, it is not a "sure" thing.

I'm choosing privatization.
 
s0nny80y
The things you can do during your last term of presidency... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
:lol: Now, now. From what I've heard, it's an question of "when" the S.S. will go bankrupt, so it's important for us to look into the privatization option IMO.
 
Now, now. From what I've heard, it's an question of "when" the S.S. will go bankrupt, so it's important for us to look into the privatization option IMO.
Click to expand...

True. I hope it's (S.S.=bankrupt) not soon and that there will be more concrete proposals in approaching this situation. Now do we wait and see or go "preemptive" because with his tour going on, it's as if bankruptcy is imminent. Is it?
 
It's more of a gamble (Bush's plan) than a sure thing (now).
Click to expand...

Including the stock market crash the stock market has returned a nice percentage of gains since it started. But Bush's plan isn't a gamble. The reason?

The money not taken by the government - the money put into private accounts is...

wait for it...

YOUR MONEY

In otherwords you get to keep it. If you want to you can just leave it in the bank, you don't have to invest it in the market (that bears repeating)

YOU DON'T HAVE TO INVEST IT IN THE MARKET!!!!

That means that Bush's plan is actually less of a gamble. The real gamble is whether social security will be around in 20 years. Here's the sure fire way to maintain your principle.
-----------------------------
The government doesn't take my money.
I put it under my mattress. Tthat way I still have it all when I retire.
-----------------------------

Here's the sure fire way to lose your principle.
-----------------------------
The government doesn't take my money.
I take my money to Vegas.
-----------------------------

Here's an almost sure fire way to lose your principle.
-----------------------------
The government takes my money.
The government promises me that money in the future even though everyone that knows anything about economics says that the SS system is going BANKRUPT .
-----------------------------


Here's the smart thing to do with your principle.
-----------------------------
The gov't doesn't take my money.
I invest it (not speculate, invest) in the market.
Now I have my money plus tons of interest when I retire.
-----------------------------
 
I hope they privatize the entire social security system -- not just 10%. Why let the government control your wealth? You should be responsible for your own money.

Only I could say something like that. :sly:

EDIT: And like danoff said, you don't have to use the stock market to invest. There are plenty of other ways to invest (money market, CDs, bonds, funds, savings accounts etc.). I choose the stock market, though. :sly:
 
I hope they privatize the entire social security system -- not just 10%. Why let the government control your wealth? You should be responsible for your own money.
Click to expand...

👍
 
So let me get this straight. the governments been controlling Social Security since it came into effect. The government like everything else it touches eventually screwed it up . so now they want to give it back to the people they took it from in the first place . because they suddenly decided they were wrong OR because they screwed things up so bad they feel by giving it back they can say they are not at fault when it fails ?
I think we need to think long and hard about what we are going to do about Social Security. I distrust the motives for turning it over to the private sector at this time and by this particular administration . Maybe after they dig themselves out of the finacial hole they put us into. Once they prove they can controll thier own pocketbook better than a crack whore on a losing streak , I will take financial advise from them.
 
ledhed
So let me get this straight. the governments been controlling Social Security since it came into effect. The government like everything else it touches eventually screwed it up . so now they want to give it back to the people they took it from in the first place . because they suddenly decided they were wrong OR because they screwed things up so bad they feel by giving it back they can say they are not at fault when it fails ?
I think we need to think long and hard about what we are going to do about Social Security. I distrust the motives for turning it over to the private sector at this time and by this particular administration . Maybe after they dig themselves out of the finacial hole they put us into.
Click to expand...

When Social Security first came about it was during the Great Depression -- a time when people needed help. Now that we have a system in place to prevent that sort of thing from happening again, we no longer need Social Security. The government didn't "screw up" Social Secuirty. It was a noble idea that became unstable due to the unforseeable population explosion during the 1950's onward.

What motives could this administration possibly have? I'm not sure I understand?

ledhed
Once they prove they can controll thier own pocketbook better than a crack whore on a losing streak , I will take financial advise from them.
Click to expand...

Technically if Social Security is privatized, you won't be taking financial advise fromt he government -- you will be in control of your own money. Think of all the money you'd save if social security tax were turned into acutal dollars in your pocket. :dopey:

By the way, I like that comparison between government spending and a crack whore on a losing streak! :lol:
 
I'm impressed here. I mean it's obvious that now IS the best timing for that sort of urgent change. Transitional costs alone makes it perfect, stop getting money for it while the bulk of baby boomers are going to retire. Sounds like a great plan! 👍 Gotta love those deficits.

Nice analogy ledhed!

about the Titanic... from factcheck too:

The Congressional Budget Office is even less pessimistic about the system's finances, predicting it won't go "in the red" with benefits exceeding taxes until 2020, two years later than the actuary predicts. CBO also projects that the Trust Fund will last an additional 10 years, drying up in 2052. At that point CBO forecasts that the system can pay 78 percent of what beneficiaries are owed under current law.
Click to expand...
 
im for the total privatization of Social Security. i think people should be able to deal with there own money

you pay a decent part of your paycheck every week and what do you get? barely enough money to survive on when you retire.

if you took what you paid to the government for social security, and put it in a very conservative, basic mutual fund, you would yeild over 3 times more than what you get from the government

plus, the social security money you pay is not yours. if you die, the govt will not send your family a check for what you have paid them so far. no, they keep it.

as for Bush's plan, i applaud his effort to recognize and fix the problem, however, theres still some stuff in there they need to work out. i myself, am for the total privatization of it.

im glad there are many conservative/libertarian posts in this thread!
 
carkmouch
if you took what you paid to the government for social security, and put it in a very conservative, basic mutual fund, you would yeild over 3 times more than what you get from the government

plus, the social security money you pay is not yours. if you die, the govt will not send your family a check for what you have paid them so far. no, they keep it.
Click to expand...

If these are both true for the average American, how the hell could Social Security be on the verge of bankrupcy?

Btw, I guess you're not a parent of Wesley? :sly:
 
If these are both true for the average American, how the hell could Social Security be on the verge of bankrupcy?
Click to expand...

Because they don't invest social security money, they spend it immediately. If everyone invested their money they would get a major return in the long run. It would eliminate the problem.

The problem is we're trying to pay for people's retirment as we go rather than taking advantage of investment opportunities and letting the money grow.

Social security is about as economically stupid a measure to solve ths problem as can exist.
 
danoff
Because they don't invest social security money, they spend it immediately. If everyone invested their money they would get a major return in the long run. It would eliminate the problem.

The problem is we're trying to pay for people's retirment as we go rather than taking advantage of investment opportunities and letting the money grow.

Social security is about as economically stupid a measure to solve ths problem as can exist.
Click to expand...

So by privately investing, let's say the same amount of money as it is now for every American, all of the sudden the system will magically turn away from losses to profit? Social Security has oscillated between deficit and surplus through the years in relation to demographics, mainly the age and life expectancy of the population, and aside from the money needed to actually start the program, there was always a base fund, so what is keeping the money to be invested and make interests? Please don't tell me the money is just there sitting in vaults - or going in Wesley Mouch's pockets.

The only advantages of your system is the freedom of making better (or worse) investment choices than the goverment actually does, not that we're not paying "as we go". What you get by chickening out of the current program instead of addressing the issues in it, is that you'll have spent a crapload of money to start it, and it'll cost you even more to ditch it, seeing as it looks like the worst possible time to shut it down.

Beside, as I understand it, Social Security is there to ensure living above poverty when you retire or lose your ability to work. For those who really have the means for investing, there are other retirement plans.

Out of curiosity, what is the current taxation related to Social Security in the US? Is it based on salary, or fixed?
 
A few months ago in Calculus we were looking at exponential functions, particularily functions where compound interest is calculated. After a few days we looked at Roth IRAs. It's amazing what $200 every month can amass to. I think that's a nice alternative to Social Security. If people who are in college would recognize this, maybe we won't need Social Security.
 
the_cobbinator
A few months ago in Calculus we were looking at exponential functions, particularily functions where compound interest is calculated. After a few days we looked at Roth IRAs. It's amazing what $200 every month can amass to. I think that's a nice alternative to Social Security. If people who are in college would recognize this, maybe we won't need Social Security.
Click to expand...

I'm in college, and I recognize it -- but you already knew that based on my name/avatar/signature/biography/quote etc. :sly:
 
carkmouch
if you took what you paid to the government for social security, and put it in a very conservative, basic mutual fund, you would yeild over 3 times more than what you get from the government
Click to expand...
That does sound good........
carkmouch
plus, the social security money you pay is not yours. if you die, the govt will not send your family a check for what you have paid them so far. no, they keep it.
Click to expand...
I think your spouse and/or dependents do get money from Social Security in the case of your death. I don't remember the details or exactly how much, but I do remember reading about it in a letter from them.
 
if you took what you paid to the government for social security, and put it in a very conservative, basic mutual fund, you would yeild over 3 times more than what you get from the government
a6m5
That does sound good........
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Not that I would know anything about that... :sly:

I think your spouse and/or dependents do get money from Social Security in the case of your death. I don't remember the details or exactly how much, but I do remember reading about it in a letter from them.
Click to expand...

Government death benefits total apporoximately $250, if you qualify.

That's why we have "beneficiaries"!!! :rolleyes:
 
MrktMkr1986
Not that I would know anything about that... :sly:
Click to expand...
I bet you're pretty close to drooling right about now, just thinking of the possibilities of the S.S. privatization. :D
MrktMkr1986
Government death benefits total apporoximately $250, if you qualify.
Click to expand...
No, not that. I think the letter explained, how much your spouse will get per month, reflecting how much S.S. Tax I was paying. I'll try to find that letter. I can't remember the detail of the letter too well, because I(like lots other people) try not to depend on S.S.(i.e. by pretending they don't exist).
 
a6m5
I bet you're pretty close to drooling right about now, just thinking of the possibilities of the S.S. privatization. :D
Click to expand...

I am. See:

:drool: :drool: :drool:​

:dopey: :sly:​

No, not that. I think the letter explained, how much your spouse will get per month, reflecting how much S.S. Tax I was paying. I'll try to find that letter. I can't remember the detail of the letter too well, because I(like lots other people) try not to depend on S.S.(i.e. by pretending they don't exist).
Click to expand...

Oh OK, I get it. :)
 

Similar threads

YSSMAN
21,500 More US Troops Headed to Iraq
2 3
Replies
63
Views
3K
niky
niky
milefile
George Bush's Resume
Replies
26
Views
1K
skylineGTR_guy
skylineGTR_guy
Sauc3
The reasons why Bush's government is corrupt
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
Solid Fro
Solid Fro

Latest Posts

Back