PDA

View Full Version : Greenspan/Social Security, Should we be worried?



nAz
03-01-2004, 10:36 PM
"In testimony before the House Budget Committee, Greenspan said the current deficit situation, with a projected record red ink of $521 billion this year, will worsen dramatically once the baby boom generation starts becoming eligible for Social Security benefits in just four years."

I notice not to many people including the News channels have talked about this growing problem, makes me wonder if people think if they ignore it, it will just go away.

Full story (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4371103/)

Wally_in_Cincy
03-02-2004, 07:36 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nAz:</font><hr>
Should we be worried?<hr /></blockquote>

Naaaah.

You don't need to worry about your benefits being cut. SS is a political "third rail" that the politicos won't touch.

If you want to you can worry about the deficit but I wouldn't. Maybe the next Prez will be a "real" Republican who has the cojones to cut spending.

eg8r
03-02-2004, 07:40 AM
I am not sure just how much "new" news (deficit) this is. Sure they are putting a number next to it, but that is subject to change every second.

I have heard my whole life there would be no social security around when it is my turn to take advantage, so I guess I just don't care a whole lot about it anymore either (I actually would like to eliminate it, too many people lean on the government as a crutch for their bad decisions).

Since this was brought up, why doesn't the House Budget Committee mention all the increase tax revenue when all these people start cashing in on their retirement? Don't you think this will offset at least some of the deficit issues brought on because of the faulty SS system?

As far as the deficit is concerned, one way to turn that around is to eliminate special interest pandering and reduce the size of government.

eg8r

eg8r
03-02-2004, 07:42 AM
[ QUOTE ]
If you want to you can worry about the deficit but I wouldn't. Maybe the next Prez will be a "real" Republican who has the cojones to cut spending. <hr /></blockquote> Exactly. See this proves Bush is Democratic on one hand and Republican on the other. Depends on who he is talking to. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Troy
03-02-2004, 08:48 AM
How about the Feds eliminating the double taxation on SS money. I was taxed once when I actually earned the money and I'm being taxed again now when I actually receive the money.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> I am not sure just how much "new" news (deficit) this is. Sure they are putting a number next to it, but that is subject to change every second.

I have heard my whole life there would be no social security around when it is my turn to take advantage, so I guess I just don't care a whole lot about it anymore either (I actually would like to eliminate it, too many people lean on the government as a crutch for their bad decisions).

Since this was brought up, why doesn't the House Budget Committee mention all the increase tax revenue when all these people start cashing in on their retirement? Don't you think this will offset at least some of the deficit issues brought on because of the faulty SS system?

As far as the deficit is concerned, one way to turn that around is to eliminate special interest pandering and reduce the size of government.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Rich R.
03-02-2004, 08:56 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> Maybe the next Prez will be a "real" Republican who has the cojones to cut spending. <hr /></blockquote>
The Republicans have cut spending. They have cut spending in every social program, to benefit our people. Or maybe I shouldn't say that have cut those budgets, but they haven't increased them to keep up with inflation, which is the same as a cut. Unfortunately, in the mean time, they continue to increase military spending.

What we need to do, is stop bailing out the rest of the world, at our expense. How much has Iraq cost us and how much more will it cost us, not only in money, but in lives? How much is Haiti going to cost us?

Take all that military money and you will cover Social Security and a lot of other social and environmental programs, which will benefit the U.S. population.

eg8r
03-02-2004, 09:05 AM
[ QUOTE ]
How about the Feds eliminating the double taxation on SS money. I was taxed once when I actually earned the money and I'm being taxed again now when I actually receive the money.
<hr /></blockquote> I would like to eliminate it period, and never be taxed on it. I think another tax on that same money is the low interest earned over time. Why should the American people be forced to invest their retirement in a program the grows at such a slow rate? I know my version of the answer is because the government enjoys that dependence, which is exactly why government has continued to grow.

eg8r

eg8r
03-02-2004, 09:22 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The Republicans have cut spending. They have cut spending in every social program, to benefit our people. Or maybe I shouldn't say that have cut those budgets, but they haven't increased them to keep up with inflation, which is the same as a cut. <hr /></blockquote> This is absolutely wrong. Not increasing is in no way a cut (If you are earning %25/hour and you don't get a raise, does you boss suddenly change your pay to $22/hour?). Where in our Constitution does it state it is the Government's job to increase spending on social programs? Bush, has definitely shown he has no interest in cutting spending. Even this year he has approved an extra 1% INCREASE on top of the already built-in increases for this year (built-in for inflation if for no other reason). There was not a single program he cut spending (which is a shame). I think our money could be spent much better than sending it to the National Endowment for the Arts.

[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately, in the mean time, they continue to increase military spending.
<hr /></blockquote> Thank God for military spending. Seems this quote could resemble Kerry for a minute. If this type of thinking actually passed through, we might not have been as successful in Iraq (both times) and Afghanistan. Almost every major program Kerry looked to cut, was utilized in Afghanistan and Iraq. If I remember correctly the only major program he did not try and shoot down was the Stealth and that was only because it was before his time.

[ QUOTE ]
What we need to do, is stop bailing out the rest of the world, at our expense. How much has Iraq cost us and how much more will it cost us, not only in money, but in lives? How much is Haiti going to cost us?
<hr /></blockquote> I agree totally. Why couldn't the money given to Iraq been a loan instead of a gift? Once they are on their feet they will have no problem paying the money back.

[ QUOTE ]
Take all that military money and you will cover Social Security and a lot of other social and environmental programs, which will benefit the U.S. population. <hr /></blockquote> Well, I thought you were on a roll, and then this quote. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif If we were to go by this logic, what will happen come the next 9/11 (surely no one believes it will never happen again)? Will our "global warming" team of scientists jump out there and defend us. What about the Save a tree foundation (completely made up, with the basis that it is not far off from what is out there), how will they help us. I firmly believe the military is the main priority IF it is being stacked against "environmental" issues. Military does help out one social program...If these people really need a job, they can leave unemployment and welfare and enlist in the military. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Food, shelter, medical/health benefits, and top it off with a paycheck. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
03-02-2004, 09:28 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Troy:</font><hr> How about the Feds eliminating the double taxation on SS money. I was taxed once when I actually earned the money and I'm being taxed again now when I actually receive the money.

<hr /></blockquote>

That was part of Bill Clinton's "Focus on the economy like a laser beam" theory. How taxing SS can help the economy is beyond me. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Well at least this admin has gone a long way to eliminating the death tax. Talk about double taxation. Holy cow /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Wally~~will die broke but still doesn't like the death tax

Wally_in_Cincy
03-02-2004, 09:33 AM
The most important function of the Federal govt, constitutionally speaking, is defense of the country. I don't think the Constitution says anything about social programs.

Despite that I really don't have a problem with providing aid to folks who are incapable of fending for themselves, but if this was actually done by churches and charities instead of the gov't the cost would be about a third of what it is now and all concerned would be better off.

Wally_in_Cincy
03-02-2004, 09:35 AM
If Kerry had gotten his way we would be incapable of invading Haiti LOL

Mr Ingrate
03-02-2004, 10:21 AM
I realize as a Canadian I'm probably way off base commenting about Social Security, however, you knowledgeable people out there can correct my misconceptions.

I do understand the lofty principal behind the plan, to ensure that all Americans had a retirement fund for their "Golden Years." I'm not sure I quite understand the rest.

It was assumed that current wage earners would generate sufficient funds for the government to pay the current retirees benefits.

Instead of investing any SS surplus and allowing the fund to grow, the surplus was treated a windfall which went into general revenues and was immediately spent.

Don't you love the words governments use? "Revenue" instead of taxation (the government doesn't earn a damn thing) and "Surplus" instead of over-taxation.

In any case, it appears that the American people are depending on the very people that decimated social security to save it.

Like I say, I probably don't understand Social Security even though I paid into it for a number of years. In fact, I plan to apply for early benefits as soon as the act allows. A bird in the hand is better than what'll be left with Bush.

Troy
03-02-2004, 10:27 AM
Remind me again just how successful the foray into Iraq and Afghanistan really was.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>Thank God for military spending..... If this type of thinking actually passed through, we might not have been as successful in Iraq (both times) and Afghanistan.
eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Wally_in_Cincy
03-02-2004, 10:35 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Mr Ingrate:</font><hr>
It was assumed that current wage earners would generate sufficient funds for the government to pay the current retirees benefits.

<font color="blue">This was a legitimate assumption when the birth rate was higher. Additionally when SS first started it was basically for widows and orphans and the benefits were miniscule. Not nearly enough to buy a Winnebago and travel the country /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif </font color>

Instead of investing any SS surplus and allowing the fund to grow, the surplus was treated a windfall which went into general revenues and was immediately spent.

<font color="blue">The problem is....where do you invest it? If they put it in the bank how would they choose which banks get the business. If you invest it in stocks who decides which ones? Therefore the law states that it has to be invested in US Treasury bonds.

I can't remember which admin decided to lump the SS money in with the general fund. Nixon or LBJ maybe. But I agree it was a bad idea. All it did was disguise the true defecit. </font color>

Don't you love the words governments use? "Revenue" instead of taxation (the government doesn't earn a damn thing) and "Surplus" instead of over-taxation.

<font color="blue">I cracked up at what Clinton said once.</font color> <font color="red">We could cut taxes but the people might spend the money on the "wrong things" LOL </font color>

In any case, it appears that the American people are depending on the very people that decimated social security to save it.

<font color="blue"> /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif sucks doesn't it. </font color>

Like I say, I probably don't understand Social Security even though I paid into it for a number of years. In fact, I plan to apply for early benefits as soon as the act allows. A bird in the hand is better than what'll be left with Bush.

<font color="blue">I don't think you can blame SS problems on Bush. Actually he wants to partially privatize it, which could be its salvation. </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

Wally_in_Cincy
03-02-2004, 10:37 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Troy:</font><hr> Remind me again just how successful the foray into Iraq and Afghanistan really was.

[ <hr /></blockquote>

50 million people freed from the yoke of torture and oppression. It's a good start.

JMO

eg8r
03-02-2004, 10:38 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Remind me again just how successful the foray into Iraq and Afghanistan really was.
<hr /></blockquote> Were you not paying attention? Or just asleep at the wheel? The military rolled right on through.

Maybe you are confusing the military with International policy.

eg8r

Rich R.
03-02-2004, 11:19 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> Despite that I really don't have a problem with providing aid to folks who are incapable of fending for themselves, but if this was actually done by churches and charities instead of the gov't the cost would be about a third of what it is now and all concerned would be better off. <hr /></blockquote>
Although I don't intend to get into a running discussion on this thread, I have to speak up on this point.

I believe, if you looked into it, you will find that most charities have operating budgets consisting of between 8% and 20% of their total income.
You will also find that the Social Security operating budget is less than 2%. It doesn't seem like a bad deal to me. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

And don't be fooled by people who say they would be better off investing their own money, rather than contributing to Social Security. Considering all the benefits available to you from Social Security, which is nothing more than an insurance policy, I challenge anyone to find an insurance company to meet or better those benefits at the same cost. It can't be done.

Also, if you are fortunate enough to retire, of if you have the need to go on disability, you will receive, in benefits, every penny you paid in, within the first couple of years, yet you continue to recieve your benefits. Personal investments don't work that way. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Sid_Vicious
03-02-2004, 08:31 PM
"I don't think you can blame SS problems on Bush. Actually he wants to partially privatize it, which could be its salvation."

If privatizing it means letting a private organization maintain, invest and most importantly SHELTER the fund from BS, non-SS spending, then I'm for it. If it means that hairbrained idea of allowing people to invest a portion into the stock market, privately, then I(at my age of leading me to SOONER than later needing SS)need all of the younger people paying in just as I did all of my life, or else the shortage(money in the bucket) for the boomers(ME) will be even less, will be cash not available for the mass boomer exit routine.

Capital letters here: "JUST RETURN THE SS FUND TO A SHELTERED, NON GENERAL FUND ITEM, AND QUIT USING IT FOR NON-SS USES!" As long as any administration can spend on it, they will. I don't see the real problem with this logic...sid

nAz
03-02-2004, 10:43 PM
I won't blame bUSH, Well actually yes i will blame him, if he does not try to remedy the situation.
Next time this year i will be blaming Kerry /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Wally_in_Cincy
03-03-2004, 07:44 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Sid_Vicious:</font><hr> ... "JUST RETURN THE SS FUND TO A SHELTERED, NON GENERAL FUND ITEM, AND QUIT USING IT FOR NON-SS USES!" ... <hr /></blockquote>

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr>
<font color="blue">....the law states that it has to be invested in US Treasury bonds. </font color> <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote>

Wally_in_Cincy
03-03-2004, 07:46 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nAz:</font><hr> I won't blame bUSH, Well actually yes i will blame him, if he does not try to remedy the situation.
Next time this year i will be blaming Kerry /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif <hr /></blockquote>

Kerry, recently confirmed as the most liberal Senator, will not be elected.

Oops. I said that about Clinton too /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif