McCain and Social Security

[tw1nsmom]

If you put into it, you should get benefits from it. Why should there be a line drawn? It's their money as much any other person that paid into it regardless of prior income level.

In the perfect world, yes, they should get that money. But the whole system is about to become bankrupt. We do have to shake things up a little bit.

Previously I did say government employees. I did mean higher paid federal employees and really I'm just thinking as I go. There has to be some solution. My main point is that we need to make sure our seniors who need social security are protected. Most economist will say that privatizing social security will bankrupt it for our current seniors and minors in need.

Mine may not be the right answer, but if McCain wants to reform social security he needs to come up with something besides a revamped Bush plan that main stream economists have determined to be detrimental.

 

[purplepaint]

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2008/07/14/daily79.html

He does receive SSI, but he paid it in. It's his money.

But can't you see it is not fair!!! Why should he have more money than you and I We really should put caps on everyones income so things are FAIR!!!

 

[SeeVee]

What about children's benefits if a parent dies? How will privatization cover disabilities?

We need that "lock box" that Gore talked about. Bush has done nothing and McCain will do the same.

If it is privatized, with restrictions that prevent risky investments, then wealth can be passed on to children. As it is, when a parent of adult children dies, that money is gone and the family gets nuttin'.

WJC used SS fund to pretend that the budget was balanced when there was actually a deficit.

 

[mickeysgal]

WJC used SS fund to pretend that the budget was balanced when there was actually a deficit.

WJC?

 

[SeeVee]

Yes, but if the system is broke, and without it some seniors are going to starve, wouldn't a less radical approach to beginning reform be to eliminate benefits for people who are pulling in say...over $500,000 a year? Also, I would definitely like to make it against the rules for any of our legislatures, or really any government employee working full time to also draw social security until they retire.

Again, this was never meant to be an investment program. It's a social program to make sure our seniors don't starve.

Are you prepared to do without so that others can have your money?

 

[creativeamanda]

If it is privatized, with restrictions that prevent risky investments, then wealth can be passed on to children. As it is, when a parent of adult children dies, that money is gone and the family gets nuttin'.

WJC used SS fund to pretend that the budget was balanced when there was actually a deficit.

Exactly. As I said, my mom died at 54. Her severely disabled husband (my father) did not get enough from Social Security to pay for the flowers on her coffin. She had a cancer insurance and life insurance policy. They barely paid funeral expenses and her hospital and credit card debt. She worked 17 years at a textile plant and 20 years as a secretary paying money in every week. Her husband could not get back the money she paid in, but yet people get more money in SS benefits than they paid in in the first place. It's wrong.

 

[creativeamanda]

WJC?

William Jefferson Clinton

 

[SeeVee]

WJC?

William Jefferson Clinton

 

[Chicago526]

I think the first step is to raise the retirement age for younger workers (not those a few years from retirement). With the average life span increasing, it make sense to push the retirement age up. Obviously people can retire at any age they want, they just can't collect SS until they are older. I'm 32 now, my full retirement age is 67. I could live with that increaseing to 70. If I want to reitre earlier it's up to me to plan and save to do so.

After we see how changing the retirement age changes things, we can then talk about increasing the income cap on SS taxes, I think it's at $107k right now, or something like that. A person making 200k a year only pays SS tax on the first $107k of income. I'd like the cap either raised or taken off totally, depending on how much is needed to full fund SS.

I'd like the lock box idea, Congress should not be allowed to "borrow" from the SS fund for other expenditures.

I do not like means testing, I think those that paid in should get something back. I do not like privitization, just look at what the markets are doing now. There are always drops and crashes, the idea behind SS is to have a 100% guaranteed supliment to a persons retirement savings as a cushion against down markets, if we privitize, that defeats the purpose. I do not like the idea of raising the SS tax percentage, 12% between the company and the worker aught to be enough, though I'd consider it as a last resort if we can't fix it any other way.

 

[mickeysgal]

William Jefferson Clinton

Ah, thank you.

 

[RUDisney]

If you put into it, you should get benefits from it. Why should there be a line drawn? It's their money as much any other person that paid into it regardless of prior income level.

The line should be drawn at illegals getting ANYTHING for free in this country. If you didn't cross the border legally, you should get nothing. Period.

On a positive note, Lou Barletta is ahead in the polls over Paul Kanjorski for Congress in PA. Lou took a stand against illegals in the town which he is mayor, Hazleton, PA. He made it illegal for anyone to rent to an illegal or to employ an illegal. The ACLU, of course, is fighting for the "rights" of people who broke the law to get here, so the law is still in the court system.

 

[disney1990]

Wow, let's take everybody's Social Security money and put it into the Stock Market -- NOT.

 

[corndog]

Considering that current Social Security taxes are what pay the benefits to current senior citizens, and also considering what has happened in the economy and on the stock market, how can he be holding onto this idea? Is he completely out of touch?

Perhaps the difference between the two of you is that he does not suffer from myopia?

 

[corndog]

Personally, I am pro-choice on social security. How can somebody be against an individual's right to choose?

 

[tw1nsmom]

Perhaps the difference between the two of you is that he does not suffer from myopia?

Wow! That felt a little like a personal attack, but lets talk about it.

If McCain is voted in as President he can be in office at most for 8 years. In the next 8 years the population of people who are drawing social security is going to grow to the point that even with the current revenue from working younger adults will be barely able to cover the benefits of those receiving checks. Actually, there may not be enough funds at all. This won't be the time to enact any legislation that will draw money away from funding the current benefit recipients. Also, with the current economic crisis (and trust me, we are in one regardless of what McCain says), nobody should be saying that investing retirement funds in the stock market is a good idea.

McCain is the one who's being short sighted. He's looking only as far as the November elections. His economic plan is not tenable. Were it to be enacted he would be putting the wellbeing of many seniors at risk.

 

[corndog]

Also, with the current economic crisis (and trust me, we are in one regardless of what McCain says), nobody should be saying that investing retirement funds in the stock market is a good idea.

Investing retirement funds in the stock market is a great idea! That is unless you base your entire outlook on the stock market, the country's economy, and the world economy on a 30 hour period. There's a word for that type of irrational behavior. What is it? Hmmm. I can't recall, but I know I've see it around here somewhere. I'll have to go look!

 

[tw1nsmom]

Investing retirement funds in the stock market is a great idea! That is unless you base your entire outlook on the stock market, the country's economy, and the world economy on a 30 hour period. There's a word for that type of irrational behavior. What is it? Hmmm. I can't recall, but I know I've see it around here somewhere. I'll have to go look!

If you think the only upheaval in the stock market has been in a 30 hour period you may want to look really really close in the mirror to see about that myopia you were talking about. The economy has been in turmoil for the last 8 years. The people I spoke of in previous post who lost their retirement investments didn't have it happen in the last 30 hours. It happened to more than one person over the 8 year period. They invested their funds into a retirement investment account with reputable brokers. The accounts tanked with so many businesses declaring bankruptcy and/or being sold of in parts that they ended up with nothing.