did know our social security system is the biggest Ponzi scheme ever..

[Dancing Fire]

230781>it is only legal b/c our government is running the scheme,anybody else would be thrown in jail by now.

as more and more baby boomers starts to collect S.S soon..... the government couldn''t rob enough Peter to pay Paul. we should privatize S.S.

 

[strmrdr]

duh!
When it was originally set up less than one in 10 would live to collect it.

Privatize it and do what?
There is already too much money in the stock market and not enough value.
Throwing more money into it would make the rich richer until it corrected and messed over everyone.

 

[Skippy123]

Date: 5/22/2008 3:04:36 AM
Author: strmrdr
duh!
When it was originally set up less than one in 10 would live to collect it.

Privatize it and do what?
There is already too much money in the stock market and not enough value.
Throwing more money into it would make the rich richer until it corrected and messed over everyone.

Ditto, especially with what is going on now w/the market.

 

[Dancing Fire]

how about having a choice of investing 50% of your money ?

 

[Madam Bijoux]

Privatizing Social Security would be an open invitation to every con artist and crooked "financial counselor" in the world. Too many people don''t understand the stock market or other sophisticated investments and won''t understand what they would be getting into. As long as Social Security is run by the gov''t, workers will be guaranteed some money.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 5/22/2008 11:20:16 AM
Author: Madam Bijoux
Privatizing Social Security would be an open invitation to every con artist and crooked ''financial counselor'' in the world. Too many people don''t understand the stock market or other sophisticated investments and won''t understand what they would be getting into. As long as Social Security is run by the gov''t, workers will be guaranteed some money.

yeah guaranteed....to go bankrupt soon. i told my daughters (ages 20 & 21) not to expect any SS money when they retire.

 

[Madam Bijoux]

The gov''t will never go bankrupt and can never allow retirees to be penniless. They''ll just print more money. The Social Security trust fund would be in good shape if the gov''t hadn''t borrowed from it so often in the past.

 

[movie zombie]

Date: 5/22/2008 11:20:16 AM
Author: Madam Bijoux
Privatizing Social Security would be an open invitation to every con artist and crooked ''financial counselor'' in the world. Too many people don''t understand the stock market or other sophisticated investments and won''t understand what they would be getting into. As long as Social Security is run by the gov''t, workers will be guaranteed some money.

i''m with you, Madam! and think of all the new fees those bankers, counselors, etc. will dream up to reduce your earnings.

movie zombie

ps social security is an insurance system.

 

[movie zombie]

Date: 5/22/2008 12:29:59 PM
Author: Madam Bijoux
The gov''t will never go bankrupt and can never allow retirees to be penniless. They''ll just print more money. The Social Security trust fund would be in good shape if the gov''t hadn''t borrowed from it so often in the past.

and again with you, Madam! the government bankrupted the system....first you have to believe it is and it isn''t.......by taking $ and using it for other purposes and not paying it back. then the accounting system was used to bolster the budget when it shouldn''t have been.

movie zombie

 

[surfgirl]

Sadly, while your OP comment might have merit, I also dont trust a large portion of America to actually invest in their future, and then what happens? Will we have to bail those people out like we''re having to bail out those who lived above their means in the housing crisis? That''s the main issue. You cant say "tough for you if you didn''t invest" because that would be a lot of people out on the street in their retirement years. So unless you have a plan for making sure everyone invest, I dont see that as the answer either. But if you DO have a plan for that, I''d love to hear it!

 

[NewEnglandLady]

why not just get rid of social insurance and to back to individual responsibility? Not that it would ever happen, but if there were a new undiscovered land where people who were sick and tired of being taxed out the wazoo could go and claim their independence once again, I''d be on the first ship. The American Revolution, Take 2?

 

[Miranda]

Date: 5/22/2008 1:07:01 PM
Author: NewEnglandLady
why not just get rid of social insurance and to back to individual responsibility? Not that it would ever happen, but if there were a new undiscovered land where people who were sick and tired of being taxed out the wazoo could go and claim their independence once again, I''d be on the first ship. The American Revolution, Take 2?

Ditto NEL!!!!!! Unfortunately, so many Americans do not feel the way we do and are looking at the government as their savior. Nobody wants personal responsibility anymore. Folks run around making excuses and looking for somebody to bail them out instead of doing what''s right. I am just not a believer in Big Government.

Not to open a big can of worms, but, whenever I think of government managing too much of our lives I think of government sponsored health care. Sounds great in theory, but, cummon, who wants the people responsible for THE DMV and so many other under-productive government agencies running health care? The answer lies in personal responsibility. Not looking for the government to save us.

 

[chiefneil]

Worst case with SS is about 75% of the benefits currently promised, so it''s not quite so bad as some people think. What frustrates me is that the politicians have known for decades that a crisis is looming, but there''s no political will to fix the problem, and the longer you wait the harder it gets to fix. Like an ocean liner when you see an iceberg on the horizon - a small change now is barely noticeable. But wait until it''s right in front of you and it''s disaster.

What''s actually way worse than SS is medicare/medicaid. That''s a much bigger problem than SS.

 

[Madam Bijoux]

Personal responsibility is fine, but there will always be people whose curcumstances prevent them from saving any money. People with several children or people who have low incomes might not be able to save anything. People who get laid off their jobs and can''t find work will have to live on their savings after the unemployment compensation runs out. A major illness can bankrupt a person. There has to be a safety net.

 

[Miranda]

I think that is true Madam B. We should have a safety net. And that''s all it should be. So many people just look to the gov''t. support as a way of life - or a way out of life depending on how you look at it. The system is just plain over used. And I just don''t like the way the government manages social programs. I feel like most of them could run much better by a private entity. Gosh, I wish I could remember the exact amounts off the top of my head, but, a study I saw followed a dollar through the gov''t. for welfare spending. Then it followed a dollar through the worst and best charities. The amount getting to the recipient through the worst charity was still a whole lot more than the gov''t. If the bottom line is helping people when they really need it, I just think there is a better way. Maybe I see the US through rose colored glasses, but, I really believe the people here are good and want to help. I think if Americans had more of their own money to donate we would have better programs that would be better equipped to help those who really need it.

 

[NewEnglandLady]

Date: 5/22/2008 1:32:18 PM
Author: Madam Bijoux
Personal responsibility is fine, but there will always be people whose curcumstances prevent them from saving any money. People with several children or people who have low incomes might not be able to save anything. People who get laid off their jobs and can't find work will have to live on their savings after the unemployment compensation runs out. A major illness can bankrupt a person. There has to be a safety net.

I understand that. I donate to charities. But I resent having the freedom over my own property taken away.

I grew up extremely poor and I spent many years in and out of the hospital having multiple surgeries for something that was neither my or my family's fault, so I understand "bad luck". We couldn't afford to go to the grocery store--we didn't even always have enough money to feed the animals that fed us. Luxuries like watching TV were unheard of--even our gifts were hand made. We were poor, but we never expected any charity. We accepted a standard of living that most people wouldn't and I think that's why people get so frustrated over this. People feel entitled to a particular standard of living, even if they cannot provide it for themselves. In my opinion, you are only entitled to what you provide for yourself.

I'm not against helping those in need, but let it be my choice. Wasn't this country founded on freedom?

ETA: Not that I'm against all taxes...just those that overstep the Constitutional bounds

 

[movie zombie]

Date: 5/22/2008 1:32:18 PM
Author: Madam Bijoux
Personal responsibility is fine, but there will always be people whose curcumstances prevent them from saving any money. People with several children or people who have low incomes might not be able to save anything. People who get laid off their jobs and can''t find work will have to live on their savings after the unemployment compensation runs out. A major illness can bankrupt a person. There has to be a safety net.

and once again in agreement.

SS is an INSURANCE PROGRAM! we all pay into it no matter our backgrounds. it is NOT an entitlement program. therefore, we workers are providing for ourselves each and every day that we go to work. and each and everyone no matter our backgrounds gets to get our benefits. if you don''t work, no SS. SS was never meant to be everything one needed to live on. we were to set aside further $........... why anyone thinks SS is anything other than an insurance program is beyond me. perhaps because the government runs it?!

SS is NOT a safety net!


movie zombie

 

[brazen_irish_hussy]

Is it messed up? Yes. Should we scrap it and go private? no. I work with people''s life savings and insurance policies every day and these people are clueless. They are the ones who thought ahead enough and had enough disposable income to invest or get life insurance, and they still have no idea how it works. Privatizing it means less money for almost every one and a lot more for the brokers.

I don''t mind paying into the system. I used to volenteer for a homeless shelter and those women weren''t there because they were deadbeats, they were there because they had been abused, had kids, had mental problems. I won''t use sociel security, but I don''t mind paying it knowing it may help people who are down on their luck and need a boost. Oftentimes, it isn''t even a person''s fault. Do you know the number one cause of bancrupcies among the middle class is? Medical bills. They may have worked their whole only to be wipped out in a matter of months. These were not slackers, they were just unlucky.

As for health care, the US is the only major country that has private hospitals, at about 13% of our health care. Those also have the highest mortality rates, illness rates, etc of hospitals. You won''t find any among the top hospitals in the country but you will find a bunch at the bottom. There is one in my city, they hire their own dispatch center to try and get more injured to come to them and a while ago there was a big scandal when a healthy middle-aged man went to the hospital with a broken leg and they managed to give him an infection that killed him. Or what about that place in Nevada that used the same needles again and again and put over 40,000 of people at risk for Hepititis? That was privately owned as well. The system is messed up, but privatizing would make it that much worse.

 

[Miranda]

Date: 5/22/2008 2:03:25 PM
Author: NewEnglandLady

Date: 5/22/2008 1:32:18 PM
Author: Madam Bijoux
Personal responsibility is fine, but there will always be people whose curcumstances prevent them from saving any money. People with several children or people who have low incomes might not be able to save anything. People who get laid off their jobs and can''t find work will have to live on their savings after the unemployment compensation runs out. A major illness can bankrupt a person. There has to be a safety net.

I understand that. I donate to charities. But I resent having the freedom over my own property taken away.

I grew up extremely poor and I spent many years in and out of the hospital having multiple surgeries for something that was neither my or my family''s fault, so I understand ''bad luck''. We couldn''t afford to go to the grocery store--we didn''t even always have enough money to feed the animals that fed us. Luxuries like watching TV were unheard of--even our gifts were hand made. We were poor, but we never expected any charity. We accepted a standard of living that most people wouldn''t and I think that''s why people get so frustrated over this. People feel entitled to a particular standard of living, even if they cannot provide it for themselves. In my opinion, you are only entitled to what you provide for yourself.

I''m not against helping those in need, but let it be my choice. Wasn''t this country founded on freedom?

Oh NEL...We''re soul mates! Have you seen Braveheart? If so do you remember the part at the end where Mel Gibson is having his guts ripped out with a hook and he screams out, "FREEDOM"? That''s what DH yells out to me when I''m on a tangent about freedom (usually due to too much coffee)! I know that''s my signal to calm down.

Personal property is where it begins and ends as an American. Take it away and what have we got?

I was not sick as a child like NEL, but, I was certainly not born with a silver spoon in my mouth. Early in our marriage we were dirt poor (well below the poverty line), very young, and had two kids. Without gov''t. help we managed to put DH through school and sacrifice so that I could stay home with the kids. We''ve come a long way in the last decade +, but, it''s only been because of hard work and dedication. And we had bouts of unemployment and hard times. I''m not tooting my own horn, but, I think we are brainwashed to believe that this does not happen and that we all need or are entitled to somebody else taking care of us.

*Sorry for the slight threadjack DF. Too much coffee and a topic relating to the gov''t. can get my blood pumping!*

 

[NewEnglandLady]

Date: 5/22/2008 2:21:13 PM
Author: movie zombie

Date: 5/22/2008 1:32:18 PM
Author: Madam Bijoux
Personal responsibility is fine, but there will always be people whose curcumstances prevent them from saving any money. People with several children or people who have low incomes might not be able to save anything. People who get laid off their jobs and can''t find work will have to live on their savings after the unemployment compensation runs out. A major illness can bankrupt a person. There has to be a safety net.

and once again in agreement.

SS is an INSURANCE PROGRAM! we all pay into it no matter our backgrounds. it is NOT an entitlement program. therefore, we workers are providing for ourselves each and every day that we go to work. and each and everyone no matter our backgrounds gets to get our benefits. if you don''t work, no SS. SS was never meant to be everything one needed to live on. we were to set aside further $........... why anyone thinks SS is anything other than an insurance program is beyond me. perhaps because the government runs it?!

SS is NOT a safety net!


movie zombie

The Social Security Act was passed as a tax because a social insurance program is strictly unconstitutional. When the Act was challenged as being uncontitutional, the Supreme Court upheld that it was a "general tax" under Section I, Article 8 of the constitution which gives the governement taxing power (obviously they have no "insurance" power). I wouldn''t argue that in practice it is an insurance program, but technically that only makes it even more unconstitutional.

 

[Dancing Fire]

haven't read all the post yet,well do after lunch.

MB & MZ.....i'm surprise that the two of you have so much faith in our gov't to handle money.

 

[NewEnglandLady]

Date: 5/22/2008 2:33:22 PM
Author: Miranda

Date: 5/22/2008 2:03:25 PM
Author: NewEnglandLady

Date: 5/22/2008 1:32:18 PM
Author: Madam Bijoux
Personal responsibility is fine, but there will always be people whose curcumstances prevent them from saving any money. People with several children or people who have low incomes might not be able to save anything. People who get laid off their jobs and can't find work will have to live on their savings after the unemployment compensation runs out. A major illness can bankrupt a person. There has to be a safety net.

I understand that. I donate to charities. But I resent having the freedom over my own property taken away.

I grew up extremely poor and I spent many years in and out of the hospital having multiple surgeries for something that was neither my or my family's fault, so I understand 'bad luck'. We couldn't afford to go to the grocery store--we didn't even always have enough money to feed the animals that fed us. Luxuries like watching TV were unheard of--even our gifts were hand made. We were poor, but we never expected any charity. We accepted a standard of living that most people wouldn't and I think that's why people get so frustrated over this. People feel entitled to a particular standard of living, even if they cannot provide it for themselves. In my opinion, you are only entitled to what you provide for yourself.

I'm not against helping those in need, but let it be my choice. Wasn't this country founded on freedom?

Oh NEL...We're soul mates! Have you seen Braveheart? If so do you remember the part at the end where Mel Gibson is having his guts ripped out with a hook and he screams out, 'FREEDOM'? That's what DH yells out to me when I'm on a tangent about freedom (usually due to too much coffee)! I know that's my signal to calm down.

Personal property is where it begins and ends as an American. Take it away and what have we got?

I was not sick as a child like NEL, but, I was certainly not born with a silver spoon in my mouth. Early in our marriage we were dirt poor (well below the poverty line), very young, and had two kids. Without gov't. help we managed to put DH through school and sacrifice so that I could stay home with the kids. We've come a long way in the last decade +, but, it's only been because of hard work and dedication. And we had bouts of unemployment and hard times. I'm not tooting my own horn, but, I think we are brainwashed to believe that this does not happen and that we all need or are entitled to somebody else taking care of us.

*Sorry for the slight threadjack DF. Too much coffee and a topic relating to the gov't. can get my blood pumping!*

Not to further the threadjack, but Braveheart is one of my favorite movies. I don't discuss politics often at all because it only gets me into trouble (the way I feel is a lonely place to be), but it's something close to my heart and something I feel strongly about. When I meet people who feel the same way, however few and far between, it always feels like putting on a pair of warm fuzzy slippers--comfy and at home. To be honest, I don't even mind when people strongly disagree--I appreciate it when people feel passion and have a strong urge to read about issues and come to their own conclusions, even if they are different from mine. At least they care.

Being poor is hard. And draining. My parents are retiring in 2 short years, I'm so happy for them. They are such an inspiration to me--they didn't always make 5 figures COMBINED, but they worked hard and saved every penny they could. DH and I live very modestly as well and put ourselves through college (a huge financial hurdle). DH was only 14 when he went to college and had to borrow money from his parents, but he paid it back by the time he graduated. I was able to get privately-funded scholarships. Anyway, we are now focused on retirement (still a long way away) and it's not always easy...but as we see people around us living beyond their means, we know that down the road we'll be in a better position, evne if it's hard now.

Anyway, I just enjoy reading people's opinions...again, I love when people care.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 5/22/2008 12:36:12 PM
Author: SanDiegoLady
I don''t expect to see any SS money when I come ''of age''.. The PD here doens''t pay in to social security, they invest in other ways for their retirement. The system is a joke.

same with my U.S. postal worker friends,they have to pay in to SS. that''s the way it should be for everybody

 

[diamondfan]

To me, if you pay in all your working years you should be able to count on it.

I am not for big gov''t in most things, but think at the end of the day, there will be people who have not planned well and need help. As people are living longer and healthier lives it is a reality we have to face. As unpleasant as it may be. I would hate to pay to support someone who was totally frivolous and lived beyond their means and now has nothing put away, but what are we supposed to do as a nation?
Not everyone has a save for a rainy day mentality unfortunately, and that leaves us in a lurch!

 

[Miranda]

Date: 5/22/2008 2:59:29 PM
Author: NewEnglandLady

Date: 5/22/2008 2:33:22 PM
Author: Miranda

Date: 5/22/2008 2:03:25 PM
Author: NewEnglandLady

Date: 5/22/2008 1:32:18 PM
Author: Madam Bijoux
Personal responsibility is fine, but there will always be people whose curcumstances prevent them from saving any money. People with several children or people who have low incomes might not be able to save anything. People who get laid off their jobs and can''t find work will have to live on their savings after the unemployment compensation runs out. A major illness can bankrupt a person. There has to be a safety net.

I understand that. I donate to charities. But I resent having the freedom over my own property taken away.

I grew up extremely poor and I spent many years in and out of the hospital having multiple surgeries for something that was neither my or my family''s fault, so I understand ''bad luck''. We couldn''t afford to go to the grocery store--we didn''t even always have enough money to feed the animals that fed us. Luxuries like watching TV were unheard of--even our gifts were hand made. We were poor, but we never expected any charity. We accepted a standard of living that most people wouldn''t and I think that''s why people get so frustrated over this. People feel entitled to a particular standard of living, even if they cannot provide it for themselves. In my opinion, you are only entitled to what you provide for yourself.

I''m not against helping those in need, but let it be my choice. Wasn''t this country founded on freedom?

Oh NEL...We''re soul mates! Have you seen Braveheart? If so do you remember the part at the end where Mel Gibson is having his guts ripped out with a hook and he screams out, ''FREEDOM''? That''s what DH yells out to me when I''m on a tangent about freedom (usually due to too much coffee)! I know that''s my signal to calm down.

Personal property is where it begins and ends as an American. Take it away and what have we got?

I was not sick as a child like NEL, but, I was certainly not born with a silver spoon in my mouth. Early in our marriage we were dirt poor (well below the poverty line), very young, and had two kids. Without gov''t. help we managed to put DH through school and sacrifice so that I could stay home with the kids. We''ve come a long way in the last decade +, but, it''s only been because of hard work and dedication. And we had bouts of unemployment and hard times. I''m not tooting my own horn, but, I think we are brainwashed to believe that this does not happen and that we all need or are entitled to somebody else taking care of us.

*Sorry for the slight threadjack DF. Too much coffee and a topic relating to the gov''t. can get my blood pumping!*

Not to further the threadjack, but Braveheart is one of my favorite movies. I don''t discuss politics often at all because it only gets me into trouble (the way I feel is a lonely place to be), but it''s something close to my heart and something I feel strongly about. When I meet people who feel the same way, however few and far between, it always feels like putting on a pair of warm fuzzy slippers--comfy and at home. To be honest, I don''t even mind when people strongly disagree--I appreciate it when people feel passion and have a strong urge to read about issues and come to their own conclusions, even if they are different from mine. At least they care.

Being poor is hard. And draining. My parents are retiring in 2 short years, I''m so happy for them. They are such an inspiration to me--they didn''t always make 5 figures COMBINED, but they worked hard and saved every penny they could. DH and I live very modestly as well and put ourselves through college (a huge financial hurdle). DH was only 14 when he went to college and had to borrow money from his parents, but he paid it back by the time he graduated. I was able to get privately-funded scholarships. Anyway, we are now focused on retirement (still a long way away) and it''s not always easy...but as we see people around us living beyond their means, we know that down the road we''ll be in a better position, evne if it''s hard now.

Anyway, I just enjoy reading people''s opinions...again, I love when people care.

Ditto again NEL! I love Braveheart...And Tombstone. Two of my all time faves. Jaws falls in the top 5.

I really really try not to talk politics here as I love PS so much and it''s my ''happy'' place. I, too, love it when people disagree with me. Having the right to disagree and speak out for or against the gov''t. is the essence of Americanism. I love to hear other opinions as well.

Congrats to your parents on their soon to be retirement!

 

[icekid]

hehe, I am not going to add much but still wanted to say I am with you NEL and Miranda!

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 5/22/2008 1:32:18 PM
Author: Madam Bijoux
Personal responsibility is fine, but there will always be people whose curcumstances prevent them from saving any money. People with several children or people who have low incomes might not be able to save anything. People who get laid off their jobs and can''t find work will have to live on their savings after the unemployment compensation runs out. A major illness can bankrupt a person. There has to be a safety net.

then...they shouldn''t of have so many children unless they could afford to support them.

 

[brazen_irish_hussy]

Date: 5/22/2008 3:06:11 PM
Author: diamondfan
To me, if you pay in all your working years you should be able to count on it.

I am not for big gov''t in most things, but think at the end of the day, there will be people who have not planned well and need help. As people are living longer and healthier lives it is a reality we have to face. As unpleasant as it may be. I would hate to pay to support someone who was totally frivolous and lived beyond their means and now has nothing put away, but what are we supposed to do as a nation?
Not everyone has a save for a rainy day mentality unfortunately, and that leaves us in a lurch!

Not everyone who needs social security is a deadbeat or hopeless with money.
Do you realize that to maintain the standard of living you had while working takes roughly 70% of that income each year assuming there are no health problems, which is unlikely in old age.

With that in mind, take the case of my uncle. He is 62 and will be retiring at 65. He has worked helping people deal with alcohol addictions for a non-profit since he was in his 20s. His parents both lived into their late 90s so it is very possible he will be retired for 30 years. How is he supposed to support himself for that long? Is he irresponsable for not saving at least 70% of his annual income for more than half his working life so he doesn''t need SS?

I deal with scummy financial planners everyday who won''t need SS because they make questionable transactions for their clients to pad their commisions, should my uncle have been one of them rather than helping people so he wouldn''t need help in old age from the same people he devoted his life to?

He has no children and while my dad has always helped him out, there really isn''t anyone but the government to support him once he runs through his savings. Do those of you who don''t like SS give money to help people like my uncle? I suspect not. If you were in his position what would you do? It sounds great on paper, but real, good people get hurt when you take away social programs. I will probably never need SS, but I am glad to pay it out of my hard earned paychecks if it helps even a few good people who need it.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 5/22/2008 3:02:49 PM
Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 5/22/2008 12:36:12 PM
Author: SanDiegoLady
I don''t expect to see any SS money when I come ''of age''.. The PD here doens''t pay in to social security, they invest in other ways for their retirement. The system is a joke.

same with my U.S. postal worker friends,they have to pay in to SS. that''s the way it should be for everybody

it should read...."they don''t have to pay SS tax.

 

[strmrdr]

I am all for personal responsibility but sometimes people need a hand.
I did a few times the last 2 years and because I'm a guy there was pretty much 0 help from the government.
I wanted to get back to work and they said no help with my surgery while people live on welfare for generations that is not right. (the Doctor and hospital stepped up to help as well as some good friends)

Back to the topic at hand.. a good friend of mines dad and 110 people like him just from one company...
Worked 25 years + for a company, invested in a pension plan + 401k they are now out of a job and out of a pension and having to spend the 401k money because no one wants to hire them.
What as a society are we to do?
Yea social security needs to stick around, just remove the waste there is no reason it cant be 90% efficient instead of 15%.
That is what really pisses me off about it is the waste.