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.
Don't forget, they only have to pretend to be looking for work in order to qualify. That could mean turning down interviews and applying for jobs that they will never get.
How do you require welfare folks to work in an economy where U-6 is 15 percent? Specifically, how do you require them to work when millions of Americans can't find jobs?
Is there a government program that provides jobs specifically to welfare recipients? If there is, millions of unemployed folks will be powerful sore.
Just wondering if you realize that part of the reason so many are unemployed is b/c they refuse to take jobs that are "lower" than they "deserve." It's easier to sit on welfare/UE than go flip burgers, apparently.
The government the last few decades has been stealing all the contributions from SS into the general fund.
MAYBE if SS is privatized we can stop the theft of SS contributions by our government.
What do you folks think of that?
I wouldn't mind if SS was where it is now IF THE GOVERNMENT DIDN'T MAKE A THEFT OF IT.
So then a corporation (probably multiple) could make more billions off of our livelihoods another way? And because they care so much about people.
If Bush had his way back in 2005, there'd be no social security today. It would have disappeared into the Wall St ledgers in September of 2008.
That's absurd. Only five percent of contributions
could be invested in one of three safe instruments.
Over time the funds privately invested would
outperform Social Security.
It is too late to do much about SS other than raise the retirement age(never happen), raise tax limit, (most likely), and go after fraud. (government to inept to solve this problem)
That's absurd. Only five percent of contributions
could be invested in one of three safe instruments.
Over time the funds privately invested would
outperform Social Security.
What would those "safe" instruments be seeing that nothing has been "safe" from the financial markets as any pension fund manager will tell you.
How would individual accounts work? The accounts would be modeled on the Thrift Savings Plan -- a 401-k type program that is already available to government employees -- and centrally administered by the government.
Workers would have a choice of five broadly diversified index funds and a lifecycle fund, in which the portfolio grows more conservative as the investor nears retirement.
"We will make sure there are good options to protect your investments from sudden market swings on the eve of your retirement," the president said in his speech. Specifically, when a worker turns 47 the account will automatically be invested in the lifecycle fund unless the worker and his or her spouse sign a waiver opting out.
In terms of fees, the Social Security Administration estimates the administrative cost per account will be 0.3 percentage points.
Money in the accounts could not be taken out or borrowed before retirement. At retirement, it's likely workers would have to annuitize a portion and only take out a lump sum if doing so would not result in the worker moving below the poverty line. Any unused portion of the account could be left to heirs.
Long term investment has always paid off in this country.
The gov't can replace what it steals? You mean with more taxpayer money?
He doesn't understand that they can't tax us to get that $3+ trillion swiftly to pay off what they owe us.
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.