Entitlement disaster looming!

[OnceWasLost]

More proof that government is not the solution. This is what happens, when social programs are started, and the long term effects can be devastating. here is the link and an excerpt;

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20010728/site/newsweek/?from=rss

Consider the outlook. From 2005 to 2030, the 65-and-over population will nearly double to 71 million; its share of the population will rise to 20 percent from 12 percent. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid—programs that serve older people—already exceed 40 percent of the $2.7 trillion federal budget. By 2030, their share could hit 75 percent of the present budget, projects the Congressional Budget Office.

All this, and yet some still want a more socialist form of government.:doh

[HisAlways]

If I remember correctly, this president TRIED to do something about the social security storm coming......Congress didn't seem to see the problem.

[WhitemoonG]

Bush wanted to transition the program so that people would have the CHOICE
of directing their money taken out of earnings each year by law, and placing it in various investments of the person's CHOICE, and not the social security general fund, where the government plays Ponzi scheme games with it. (No lockbox!) And, it was to be OPTIONAL, namely those who might be fearful of what choices and direction to stipulate for THEIR MONEY, it could be kept status quo for such individual if they wished.


A similar concept of Privatizing the government required deduction from annual earnings was done in, interestingly, Chile, several years ago. Result? On average, those directing their money into private investments of their choosing, as opposed to letting the government handle it, after I think it was 10-15 years, had on average 400% more retirement money ready for them, than those who in essence just got the government social security check equivalent.


The problem as I saw it, to Bush, and those favoring this idea, was predominantly Senate Democrats, who, despite not being in the majority at the time, were numerous enough to roadblock any legislation in this regard, due to the Senate's unique rules.

Basically, whether said directly or obliquely by them, the idea of people having any control over their money that previously was under government control, was considered anathema, unthinkable, or a "risky scheme." (GORE)

[OnceWasLost]

Privatization will never be achieved. No matter how many times it works elsewhere, and how many pilot programs succeed here, it will be seen as playing the stock market. It is so dishonest for politicians to frame the debate in those terms, yet their constituents will not hold them accountable given their ignorance of the issue.

The other reason it will not change is, it makes too much sense. Truth is kryptonite to a liberal, they find themselves unable to function in it's presence.

[Issachar]

SS was doomed from it's get-go. The idea was "ok", but gov't being what it is; a voracious consumer of funds, it found it's way into the SS fund and there is no more a fund sitting somewhere being wisely invested so that retirees can withdraw from it. Most SS payments now are just added onto the national debt. In the beginning, there was something like 12-15 workers working for every retired person. Now it's something like 3, soon to be 2. Abortion for the past 36ish years contributes to the dilema.

I'm 55 and do not expect to draw anything from it. IF there is something, I'll consider it a plus.

Bush's plan was at least a step, though it came to nothing, but it wasn't all that great either. It wasn't like you could take what would otherwise go to SS and invest it anyway you chose. There were to be gov't controls over it still and it could only be a percentage of what you pay into SS.

Bush has promised that, under his proposal, workers would eventually be able to divert 4 percent of their income subject to payroll taxes to private accounts, which could then be invested in stocks and bonds. A 46-year-old earning the maximum income subject to Social Security taxation -- currently $90,000 -- could theoretically salt away $3,600 a year.

But the plan would be phased in slowly, starting in 2009 with an initial annual cap of $1,000 and rising by $100 a year. It would take an additional 26 years for someone at the taxable maximum to save the promised 4 percent. By then, Remenar would be 76 and long since retired. And in the short time period available to middle-aged workers, investment gains would have to exceed inflation by 3 percent for the accounts to make more money than the traditional Social Security system would provide.

"If there are no other incentives than this, we probably wouldn't take part in it, because the numbers don't make a whole lot of sense for us personally," said Sue Smorodin, 45, a homemaker in St. Louis.

Republican Michael Cardwell, a land-use planner in Washington state, did the math. He would retire with $11,000 in his account, plus maybe $900 more in investment gains if all went well on the stock market.

"Wow," Cardwell, 50, said with a laugh. "I may get one additional paycheck, thank you very much." Nonetheless, he said he will support the president.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35231-2005Mar14.html

Issachar

[jethro]

This is a crisis you could see coming decades ago, and it'll be at a breaking point before long.

Even trying to address SS insolvency has been a too-controversial subject - it will probably have to be means-tested to the point of being a retirement program for the very poor only.

-jethro

[mercyandgrace]

Subject: History Lesson


Just in case some of you didn't know this. It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. Be sure and show it to your kids. They need a little history lesson on what's what.

Our Social Security

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be
Completely voluntary,

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

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

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,

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees
would never be taxed as income.
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" -- you may be interested in the following:

-------------------------------------------------------------

Which Political Party took Social Security from the
independent "Trust Fund" and put it into the
General Fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically
Controlled House and Senate.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
"tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the US

---------------------------------------------------- ---------------

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving
annuity payments to non-American-citizen immigrants?

AND THE FAVORITE:

A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,
began to receive Social Security payments! The
Democratic Party gave these payments to them,
even though they never paid a dime into it!

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats
turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your
Social Security away!

And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens believe it!

[Issachar]

According to the gov't site for SS, this is not totally accurate. Some not at all.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html

Issachar

[OnceWasLost]

According to the gov't site for SS, this is not totally accurate. Some not at all.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html

Issachar

Thanks for posting that Issachar.

It is funny though in their defense of the program, it still looks like a pathetic program that has become so large it cannot be sustained. It can't even be salvaged short of massive taxation or privatization.

Yet another feel good program that played on people's emotion and compassion, only to end up as a sad bondage for the recipients and suppliers. :tsk

[kagnew]

More proof that government is not the solution. This is what happens, when social programs are started, and the long term effects can be devastating. here is the link and an excerpt;

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20010728/site/newsweek/?from=rss



All this, and yet some still want a more socialist form of government.:doh

Just wait until Hillary and Bill get back in the White House. There will be absolutely no end to the social programs. Definately from the womb to the tomb.