Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think there's a typo in there somewhere. It's insignificant, but even with those changes we would still not be able to pay promised benefits?
Well at least it's accurately viewed and labeled.
The cost of health care, IMO, is partly a result of yet another commonly held but false belief. The belief that "insurance" is supposed to pay for routine costs, which really is antithetical to the concept of insurance itself.
Competition is not necessary when actual costs are hidden behind "insurance" as they are now.
I think with a focus on catastrophic coverage (actual insurance) combined with free market competition for routine care would do us a world of good. This would be my instinctual approach for myself, but in an industry dominated by insurance companies, paying the vastly inflated costs for routine care out of pocket is practically impossible.
But I am not an expert on health care nor have I researched it as much as SS.
I don't think there was a typo. Even if we cut military, SS, raise FICA, raise retirement age we would still not be able to pay out promised benefits. Medicare was added in the 60's or 70's and has covered more and more as the program progressed.
The closest a politician has ever come to touching medicare was Paul Ryan and he was demonized in the process even after exempting soon to be retirees. I don't necessarily support him, but the voucher program at least limited what the gov was spending.
Bull crap. Nothing is as clear-cut as you make it out to be, and your own personal anecdote doesn't mean everyone would have the same luck you've had.
It has nothing to do with luck. Stop blaming others for your own poor choices and failings.
Unless there is a series of extreme set backs everyone should have more than $30,000 when they retire by simply making reasonable choices.
If it is true that a whopping 75% of people near retirement have less than $30K in retirement accounts than that is a sign that our culture has poor priorities. Buy crap you don't need on credit.
A person making minimum wage investing a mere 1% from age 20 to 65 would have gotten over $100,000 by retirement age while under performing the market.
What has changed in the past 50 years regarding SS has been posted a good 5 times on this thread alone in pretty pictures that anyone can understand.
Translation: Shut up and pay your taxes.
I guess we should just "accept" the national debt, and everything else that threatens us economically.
"Translation: Shut up and pay your taxes." No, that is NOT what I meant but now after your juvenile response, yes, shut up and grow up.
MOST posters have kept politics out of this discussion except you who keep lambasting conservatives as if they are the only ones getting check from Social Security.
Remember it was W. Bush who tried to find a solution in fixing SS and the dems REFUSED to even attend the meetings. So be careful what insults you want to throw around. The fingers may end up pointing right back you and your buddies in the dem party.
If yo really want to complain do some research and find out WHO decided to take the money paid into SS and use it for regular operations.
Find out WHO started taxing SS. You might not like the answers.
And your generation voted for these people. But I'm not here to play the blame game.
The fact is that we are where we are now. But rather than try to ensure the best for future generations, you clam up and demand that we bear the burden.
I'm not blaming you personally and saying you should bear all of the burden, but the idea that we should shut up and take it isn't gona fly with me, sorry.
Means test it and raise the age.
I don't think ANTONE of authority has said, "but the idea that we should shut up and take it isn't gona fly with me, sorry."
I believe there are many thing that can be done to makes SS solvent. The last time a party tried to address the issue the other party wouldn't even come to the discussion.
I don't think ANTONE of authority has said, "but the idea that we should shut up and take it isn't gona fly with me, sorry."
I believe there are many thing that can be done to makes SS solvent. The last time a party tried to address the issue the other party wouldn't even come to the discussion.
I actually wish that Candidate Obama could talk to President Obama about Social Security.
We truly need to elect someone brave enough to make the tough choices, someone like Candidate Obama instead of this joke President Obama, because as Candidate Obama says, the longer we wait to fix Social Security, the more painful the fix will be.
I actually wish that Candidate Obama could talk to President Obama about Social Security.
We truly need to elect someone brave enough to make the tough choices, someone like Candidate Obama instead of this joke President Obama, because as Candidate Obama says, the longer we wait to fix Social Security, the more painful the fix will be.
Look to Congress, not the President. The president can't do anything without congress. Bush proposed privatizing SS and people started to say that it was just to line Wall Street pockets.
Well, I hope boomers can take on a 25% cut in SS. No, I'm not pulling the number out of thin air. Too much?
I can pretty much guarantee I've had a LOT more taken out of my paycheck than you have. And chances are, there will be precious little for me as well when and IF I'm ever able to retire. Depends on how many times they will raise the retirement age. We'll be LUCKY if 25% is all that SS is reduced.
The government has had their hands in MY paycheck for years.
Look to Congress, not the President. The president can't do anything without congress. Bush proposed privatizing SS and people started to say that it was just to line Wall Street pockets.
Obama had 2 years with his party holding on to strong majorities and did nothing.
Clinton also briefly mentioned privatizing.
You are correct that there has been a long line of inaction on both parties, but Obama is where the buck stops today and he is brave enough to speak of fixing it in a campaign speech, but will apparently kick the can down the road for the 2016 winner.
I can pretty much guarantee I've had a LOT more taken out of my paycheck than you have. And chances are, there will be precious little for me as well when and IF I'm ever able to retire. Depends on how many times they will raise the retirement age. We'll be LUCKY if 25% is all that SS is reduced.
The government has had their hands in MY paycheck for years.
Why should you get off scot free, precious?
CNN is reporting that it will be typical to get back less than what you paid in. What a great system...a lifetime of contributions with the odds that you will get negative returns!!!
I can pretty much guarantee I've had a LOT more taken out of my paycheck than you have. And chances are, there will be precious little for me as well when and IF I'm ever able to retire. Depends on how many times they will raise the retirement age. We'll be LUCKY if 25% is all that SS is reduced.
The government has had their hands in MY paycheck for years.
Why should you get off scot free, precious?
When did I say I was an exception? I think society had a duty to provide welfare for those less fortunate. I even stated as much earlier. A 25-30% cut and an additional FICA tax hike keeps the program solvent as far as I can tell. I don't think anyone should be selfish or foolish enough to treat SS as a retirement program though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lycos679
If you plan to retire in the next 75 years you aren't likely to receive anything at all unless the taxes are raised and benefits are cut. As much as I dislike the program I do think there needs to be a public safety net for societal failures though. Having this program allows people to be more willing to take entrepreneurial risks, which is a good thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lycos679
That's all it is, welfare. But, but, but, this is different because we paid for others before us to be on welfare....
Can't criticize medicare either.
Well, that's exactly what it is and all it was supposed to be. Somewhere along the line things changed though. People stopped thinking about it as an insurance program and started thinking about it as a retirement fund.
That's what they do now. The argument is that they paid for other people to be on welfare and they are entitled to the same. How is that any different than people that say "my mom was on welfare and I'm entitled to the same"?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
