erynthered Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 I would suspect this will happen. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 This is one that has no good answer. Everyone knows the problem is that the Baby Boomers are getting old. Right now, there are less people young in the work force proportionately to contribute vs the amount receiving. Privatization of at least a portion of the funding would yield a higher return to the individual-extending the life of the program for the same benefit result, but would also strip part of the revenues required to pay out the current entitlements. Something is going to have happen, as without massive doses of capital, SS will die a slow and painful death. Probably about the time I need it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Hey, I thought Clinton took care of that over his 8 years. Bill promised! Did I miss something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichFan Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 It will happen under Bush, how far it goes is up to the Dems. If the Dems are willing to make some tough decisions in a bipartisan effort, a lot can be done with the grudging understanding of Americans. If the Dems try to make it a wedge issue, something will still get done but not enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheRocks Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 I would suspect this will happen. Thoughts? 100197[/snapback] oh thats it....bring up an important issue and rain on my parade! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 This is one that has no good answer. Everyone knows the problem is that the Baby Boomers are getting old. Right now, there are less people young in the work force proportionately to contribute vs the amount receiving. Privatization of at least a portion of the funding would yield a higher return to the individual-extending the life of the program for the same benefit result, but would also strip part of the revenues required to pay out the current entitlements. Something is going to have happen, as without massive doses of capital, SS will die a slow and painful death. Probably about the time I need it. 100214[/snapback] Those darned Ponzi schemes never work. It's a big problem and the longer it gets pushed to the side the bigger it will get (in that sense much like the ME). I hate to over-generalize, but I'd bet if one scintilla of benefit was taken from the baby boom generation they would go collectively apoplectic. I would be shocked but heartened if their me me me attitude waned at all with age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 I would suspect this will happen. Thoughts? 100197[/snapback] I don't see any 'fix' short of raising the retirement age to reflect the reality that we are living longer and staying healthy/working longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 I would suspect this will happen. Thoughts? 100197[/snapback] The thrid rail. Bush might tackle it. If he's got any balls, he'll keep his promise to older peeps, and then get out of the business of trying to save for people who can't save. Back to reality. All he'll do is reaise the age of retirement to 68 or something, putting a band aid on the problem. Privatization is a farce. First, it's not "privitization," although that's the term Republicans who have forgotten what private property use. Losers. What it is, is taking government stolen funds allocated for SS (the ones that haven't already been borrowed against - right George, you theiving pinhead), and investing those gov't funds in the market. This leads to a HUGE problem: how the hell do you let the government take on this invenstment? Do they buy Merck? Halliburton? What happens if they do it wrong? Would you trust the Fed to do it right? And even if you let people invest some amount of SS on their own, what if they do something stupid- guess who catches them when they fall? Uncle Sam. And you're back to square one of paying for people who can't save. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 The thrid rail. Bush might tackle it. If he's got any balls, he'll keep his promise to older peeps, and then get out of the business of trying to save for people who can't save. Back to reality. All he'll do is reaise the age of retirement to 68 or something, putting a band aid on the problem. Privatization is a farce. First, it's not "privitization," although that's the term Republicans who have forgotten what private property use. Losers. What it is, is taking government stolen funds allocated for SS (the ones that haven't already been borrowed against - right George, you theiving pinhead), and investing those gov't funds in the market. This leads to a HUGE problem: how the hell do you let the government take on this invenstment? Do they buy Merck? Halliburton? What happens if they do it wrong? Would you trust the Fed to do it right? And even if you let people invest some amount of SS on their own, what if they do something stupid- guess who catches them when they fall? Uncle Sam. And you're back to square one of paying for people who can't save. 100287[/snapback] Investment is way out of my lane here so I'm talking out of school. Isn't the return on Government bonds higher than what SS is currently earning? And, I thought the concept was to allow taxpayers to divert a portion of the SS tax deduction to a private account that they were responsible for, similar to a 401K? Everyone has borrowed from the SS fund. This isn't an original Bush idea. I don't know if it's even really happening. As I posted though, there is no answer that I'm aware of unless SS receives massive doses of additional capital. Besides taxes, how does the revenue get generated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Investment is way out of my lane here so I'm talking out of school. Isn't the return on Government bonds higher than what SS is currently earning? And, I thought the concept was to allow taxpayers to divert a portion of the SS tax deduction to a private account that they were responsible for, similar to a 401K? Everyone has borrowed from the SS fund. This isn't an original Bush idea. I don't know if it's even really happening. As I posted though, there is no answer that I'm aware of unless SS receives massive doses of additional capital. Besides taxes, how does the revenue get generated? 100301[/snapback] Borrowing isn't happening. Stealing is. Stuff that is borrowed is eventually returned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Investment is way out of my lane here so I'm talking out of school. Isn't the return on Government bonds higher than what SS is currently earning? And, I thought the concept was to allow taxpayers to divert a portion of the SS tax deduction to a private account that they were responsible for, similar to a 401K? Everyone has borrowed from the SS fund. This isn't an original Bush idea. I don't know if it's even really happening. As I posted though, there is no answer that I'm aware of unless SS receives massive doses of additional capital. Besides taxes, how does the revenue get generated? 100301[/snapback] Pillage and plunder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 The thrid rail. Bush might tackle it. If he's got any balls, he'll keep his promise to older peeps, and then get out of the business of trying to save for people who can't save. Back to reality. All he'll do is reaise the age of retirement to 68 or something, putting a band aid on the problem. Privatization is a farce. First, it's not "privitization," although that's the term Republicans who have forgotten what private property use. Losers. What it is, is taking government stolen funds allocated for SS (the ones that haven't already been borrowed against - right George, you theiving pinhead), and investing those gov't funds in the market. This leads to a HUGE problem: how the hell do you let the government take on this invenstment? Do they buy Merck? Halliburton? What happens if they do it wrong? Would you trust the Fed to do it right? And even if you let people invest some amount of SS on their own, what if they do something stupid- guess who catches them when they fall? Uncle Sam. And you're back to square one of paying for people who can't save. 100287[/snapback] Privatization is just an idea. Give credit to those who risk even bringing up the subject. It won't happen - current recipients correctly recognize it as a diminishment of their honey pot. And I can only imagine how a general population drunk on credit cards could manage the investment, plus, it would be such a massive transfer of people's money (extracted under pain of prosecution) to the money business, how could they, the money interests, not push the government around? And woe to the incumbent who disturbs SS - let alone a challenger. You will be out in the former and never get in in the latter. The Dem's under Clinton said that the GOP were kiling the elderly, but did squat to make a change. If they did, they'de be gone. When SS was initiated, there were people who said that that it would make people dependent upon the government, and millinea of people keeping their families together and taking care of the older generation would be shattered.. They were right - today's recipients abandoned their elderly, paid peanuts, yet reap cashews. Current earners demand the same. I see no solution. Much of Europe, with their socialist systems, predict bankruptcy because of this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Borrowing isn't happening. Stealing is. Stuff that is borrowed is eventually returned. 100315[/snapback] Thanks for your insightful !@#$ing answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Thanks for your insightful !@#$ing answer. 100415[/snapback] You're very welcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Probably the only time we will ever advance some reform of Social Security will be a second term president because he/she will not have to worry about re-election. It is certainly due for some changes. It is a massively popular program so they will have to tread slowly. But, when it was passed 60+ years ago the life expectancy was about 65--the same age as when the benefits kicked in. Can you imagine if the benefit age was increased to 75 nowadays? Not a chance of happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Privatization is just an idea.... I see no solution. Much of Europe, with their socialist systems, predict bankruptcy because of this issue. 100324[/snapback] That's why SS is the third rail. I think I stole that analogy from the West Wing, but I could be wrong. Either way, it's appropriate. Any politician who touches SS dies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts