America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 19 years ago by Herr Rabbit. 16 replies replies.
Social Security to Become Insolvent by 2018
usahog Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/10/123617.shtml
Friday, Sept. 10, 2004 12:32 a.m. EDT
Social Security to Become Insolvent by 2018

With Social Security’s unfunded liability three times the current national debt - a staggering $12.7 trillion - it is estimated that the system will become insolvent in 2018.

President Bush has proposed reforming Social Security by creating personal retirement accounts in order to resolve the program’s looming financial instability.

John Kerry has ruled out privatizing Social Security or cutting benefits.

This leaves few attractive alternatives according to Dorcas R. Hardy the former commissioner of Social Security and now a co-chairman of the Alliance for Retirement Prosperity.

Following Kerry's lead would end up raising payroll taxes to pay for revenue shortfalls by a whopping 20 percent - a level Hardy warns ould likely stifle economic growth, he wrote in the Washington Times.

According to Hardy Kerry's class warfare strategy of reducing benefits by 80 percent for those who earn more than $200,000 would lessen program liabilities by a mere 5 percent.

The President argues that personal retirement accounts would allow workers to build nest eggs and earn much greater rates of return than Social Security currently provides.

Hardy says that such personal accounts would allow workers to receive around 60 percent more in benefits than is presently offered by Social Security.

President Bush's plan would allow workers to pass on this retirement nest egg to "whomever they wish" after their death.

Under the present system the President warns it would be impossible for Social Security to survive as it is without raising taxes.

Wrote Hardy "By creating a system of personal accounts that workers can voluntary opt into, the federal government can ensure that full Social Security benefits will be provided to younger workers, without another round of payroll tax increases or benefit reductions.

He quotes Kerry as telling the Democratic National Convention "as president, I will not privatize Social Security. I will not cut benefits."

Having claimed the system will only need "minor changes," Hardy said that Kerry "seems to have boxed himself into a corner from which it will prove hard to emerge.

Since he also has ruled out extending the retirement age during the same debate, the Democratic presidential candidate has little room left to maneuver to save a system that simply cannot survive."

Since Kerry has adamantly opposed personal retirement accounts, opposed benefit cuts and refuses to raise the retirement age, "he has only has a few options left, such as increasing payroll taxes to nearly 20 percent, increasing the national debt, which is at odds with his goal of cutting the deficit in half in four years while at the same time providing universal health care, increasing educational spending, funding alternative energy research, etc.

"Mr. Kerry has yet to provide any ideas or leadership regarding one of America's most popular and important programs," Hardy concludes.

"Inaction on Social Security today is irresponsible as the system moves closer and closer to insolvency. Mr. Kerry needs a new vision rather than resigning himself to a status quo that simply does not work."

SteveS Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 01-13-2002
Posts: 8,751
If the system had been set up right in the beginning, this wouldn't be possible ... all that would've been required would've been for the government to follow the same rules/regulations they would expect a private company to follow ...

Had that been the case, the system would be not only paying it's own way, but also generating a revenue stream for the government.

As it is, the SS system is pure, plain and simple, no more than a huge, government run Ponzi Scheme ... if a private enterprise were being run similarly, they'd be in big-time violation of the law and those behind the scheme would be tossed in jail ...
Cavallo Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 01-05-2004
Posts: 2,796
lol hog, do you use any sources besides newsmax? folks have been saying "in 20 years..." since the 80's, my friend!
usahog Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
Yep Cav, I catch allot of sourses... newsmax being just one of them... www.Drudgereport.com, another one WWW.CNBC.com, Yahoo news, Fox news, CSpan, Rush Rimball, G Gordon Liddy, Military.com, many many more..

but what does that have to do with this article??

Hog
SteveS Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 01-13-2002
Posts: 8,751
It's been recognized for at least 40 years that there would be a solvency issue with the SS system and that the onset of the problem would be sometime after 2010 with some estimates as far out as 2027 ...

The central problem with the system is that there IS NO trust fund ... oh, I know, they CALL it the Social Security Trust Fund, but there are no $$$ being held in trust ... the money is being spent as quickly as it comes in, and NOT just on benefits to seniors ...

SO, once there are more people receiving benefits than there are paying in, the pyramid will be turned onto it's point ... and it will collapse ... it IS that simple and it is totally unavoidable unless something drastic is done to fix it and is done soon.

BUT politicians of both parties have been unwilling to bite the bullet and do anything more than talk about fixing it because they fear voter response ...

SO ... we've shilly-shallied for more than a generation and have very little time left to act and the bullet that needs biting is less palatable by the day ...
sketcha Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 03-26-2003
Posts: 3,238
Said in your best monotone, slow, stiff, boring voice...

"Lock box."

Didn't Al Gore wish to return SS into a trust fund with his "lock box" idea? Or was that something else?


SteveS is exactly right. I'd pretty much rather just let it die. The govt. has already f**ked it up. I'm 33 and I'm not planning on seeing it, nor is anyone in my family besides the ones that already get it. My old man's about to get his and he deserves it. The Govt. already f**ked him good, but that's another story.

Either way, it shouldn't be used as a retirement plan. I'm working on my own.
Charlie Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 06-16-2002
Posts: 39,751
I thought Al Gore invented Social Security!

Charlie
Herr Rabbit Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 07-13-2004
Posts: 104
Once the politicians discovered they could buy votes with taxpayer money, it was Katie bar the door. SS has become a great big piggy bank to hand out the gifts from those who earned it to those who needed to be bought. Beneficiaries still don't contribute what they get in return. All the predications the program was built on are obsolete.

Governemnt can never meet all the needs of the people, it will go bankrupt. The pool of money is finite, but need is forever. Every generation of politician realizes it will be somebody else's problem and they'll be dead when th eparty ends. In the mean time, they will have lived a great life sucking off the Public teat.

Now, the bill is due, but will the Public accept the pain without punishing the politician? This debate is the easy way to spot real integrity from demagoguery.

If you think healthcare is expensive now, just wait till it's "free".
Herr Rabbit Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 07-13-2004
Posts: 104
Side note. A few years back some dumbass and his wife contributed something like $500,000 to "their" SS account. When they retired, they expected more back. When they didn't get it, they sued.

The Supreme court decision was that the fund is general, there is no set "account" for any citizen. They got what they would have anyway.
sketcha Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 03-26-2003
Posts: 3,238
LMAO @ Charlie!!!

Rabbit,

Oops. Those folks coulda' benefited from a financial planner.
CWFoster Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 12-12-2003
Posts: 5,414
I love the Demonrats carping about the Republicans being "fiscally irresponsible". Prior to 1994, the Congress was Democrat-cotrolled for 40 YEARS! They raided the SS Trust fund at will, and replaced the money with IUOU's that only ran up the National Debt even worse! And before you pillory me as a partisan, I see the Republican Congressmen are no better!
EI Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 06-29-2002
Posts: 5,069
Hog You have to understand that Cav is a self proclaimed liberal and he beleives nothing unless Dan Rather or the Washington Post gives it their seal of approval.
He has dismissed credible sources before with the same rethoric.
As I have said before just because you don't like the source doesn't disprove the content
Herr Rabbit Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 07-13-2004
Posts: 104
Frankly, the Republicans of today are the Democrats of the '60s. They are happy to buy votes with other people's money. You can blame the educaion system for turning out generations that actually believe there is something for nothing. Everybody needs to pay taxes so they have a stake in the financial doings of these Bozos(no offense to Bozo).

The Democrats, finding their old turf overtaken by Republicans, now hang with the Loony Left as its all there is. (Howard Dean, call your office).

A political revolution is brewing, especially when our kids finally figure out who's supposed to pay for all this.
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
i'll be 86 then, and the question is will i be out in the cold, homeless, and drinking cheap wine.
SteveS Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 01-13-2002
Posts: 8,751
average overnight low temp in the winter where you live is 46 deg ... it could be worse
bloody spaniard Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
Mr. Rabbit--BEAUTIFULLY said!

You have to pan the forum to find a nugget like this one. Everything else is usually fool's gold.

(vanishing) blood
Herr Rabbit Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 07-13-2004
Posts: 104
If you think healthcare is expensive now, just wait till its "free".
Users browsing this topic
Guest