Proud day to be Republican

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I agree

Only problem is the future is not that far away!! The System was doing fine until Bush took over, but then I am sure you will disagree. I guess we can agree to disagree.

take care,

Sesei Abner I.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I agree

Then why has it been a campaign issue in every election since (at least) 1964?

Both Democrats and Republicans have made it an issue in their respective campaigns since then.

I would be more than happy to quote you lines from campaign brochures, dating back to 1964, about the insolvency of SS from both parties if you'd like.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I agree

So you are saying that when Bush took office Social Security wasn't solvent until 2040? Apart from that, his new privitization plan is scary, less oversight, auditing, etc. Sounds kind of like the conditions under which the Enron scandal happened.

Going back to my original point, seniors are not very happy about having a statement at the bottom of their social Security statements informing them their benefits will be reduced in the future, they will remember this when they go vote next time.

Just a few thoughts,

Have a good weekend

I am in the middle of some home remodeling, Yuck!!!!

Respectfully, Sensei Abner I.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I agree

I am simply saying it has been a campaign issue for more than 30 years with the same claims made today.

 

IPosted by Abner

First, here is what is said about reductions (from www.ssa.gov)

"If Social Security is not changed, payroll taxes will have to be increased, the benefits of today's younger workers will have to be cut, or massive transfers from general revenues will be required. Social Security's Chief Actuary states, "If benefits were reduced to meet the shortfall in revenue for the combined program, the reduction would need to be 27 percent starting with the exhaustion of the Trust Fund in 2042 and would rise to 32 percent for 2078. Alternatively, if additional revenue were provided beginning in 2042, revenue equivalent to a payroll tax rate increase of about 3.1 percentage points (from 12.4 percent under current law to about 15.5 percent) would be needed for the year. The additional revenue needed for 2043 would be equivalent to a payroll tax rate increase of about 4.5 percentage points for the year. Thereafter, the amount of additional revenue needed would gradually rise, reaching an amount equivalent to an increase in the payroll tax rate of about 5.9 percentage points for 2078 (or about 50 percent higher than today's rate). "

Sounds like it is solvent until 2042 (Abner your original benchmark for a sound system).

According to the same site, we are currently putting more money into the trust than is being taken out. According to the same web site:

"Presently, Social Security collects more in taxes than it pays in benefits. The excess is borrowed by the U.S. Treasury, which in turn issues special-issue Treasury bonds to Social Security. These bonds totaled $1.5 trillion at the beginning of 2004, and Social Security receives more than $80 billion annually in interest from them. However, Social Security is still basically a "pay-as-you-go" system as the $1.5 trillion is a small percent of benefit obligations."

Now, Just how did Bush break the system.

 

I forgot to make my point.

The elderly collecting under SS today have nothing to fear. The money is there, benefits are not being cut, and nobody is talking about "investing" any of the money they currently receive.

Why do we continue to perpetuate the politics of fear. Why do some want to scare old people with lies and exaggerations?

The problem (as you can see in my post above) is for younger workers. We must begin with a resolution plan today

Let's have a vote:
Do we continue with the same system which will ultimately result in cutting benefits and raising payroll deductions?

For those against the GWB privitization plan, what is the alternative? (other than tax the rich more)

 

Thanks, fellow GSST'er for the clarification!

 

I understand that the more immediate problem is Medicare - and politicians of the two major parties parties do not want to talk about it.