News Bush looks to reform Social Security

[member 5645]

Bush looks to reform Social Security...

http://reuters.myway.com/article/20...2_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-BUSH-SOCIAL-SECURITY-DC.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush said on Thursday he planned to start work immediately on reforming America's ailing Social Security retirement system and predicted a long slog ahead.

"We will start on Social Security now. We will start bringing together those in Congress who agree with my assessment that we need to work together," he said in his first news conference after the bitterly contested presidential election.

Bush said reforming Social Security would be a priority during his second term and he predicted it would be very tough and costly.

"But the cost of doing nothing ... is much greater than the cost of reforming the system today," he added.

Bush said he had talked to members of his staff on Thursday and they were planning strategy on how to "move agendas forward" and to do this effectively.

The future of Social Security and the financial strains it faces when 77 million baby boomers begin to retire was a major issue in this year's presidential elections.

Bush had proposed setting aside a portion of Social Security taxes to create individual accounts that workers could invest in stocks and bonds.

Opponents to private accounts say the move will increase the financial strains on Social Security and argue that recent stock market scandals underscore the need to protect the basic benefit of Social Security.

How many of you are aware that originally SS was meant to be temporary and allowed for states/counties to vote themselves out of the federal system??
In the late 70's, when SS looked like it would be bankrupt, a few of Texas counties did just that. They then started holding talks with other states and counties to teach them how they too could opt out.
Lawmakers in washington rushed into stop this from taking place. They removed the opt out clause, but were forced to leave the original three counties to their own devices, due to a grandfather clause.

It's a shame we have learned that the current system is the ONLY right way.

 

[franznietzsche]

The original purpose was (IIRC) for war widows in the post-WWII era, before women moved heavily into the workforce. It was never meant to become the massive social program it is now.

 

[selfAdjoint]

The original purpose was (IIRC) for war widows in the post-WWII era, before women moved heavily into the workforce. It was never meant to become the massive social program it is now.

This is not right. It was introduced during the great depression of the thirties.

 

[BobG]

selfAdjoint is right. And the restraint in the program was the fact that it kicked in at 65, which was the average life expectancy back then. It was just never envisioned that it would become such an economic burden.

 

[tumor]

So what the administration plans to do with social security ? remove it completelly ? (and go to hell old geezers) or partially privitize it ?

 

[Desert Child]

Hi All,
My first time responding to the forum. I seem to remember Reagan wanted to raid Soc Sec back in the 70's as there was a substantial amount of funds in the program, sanity prevailed and it remained safe until the mid 80's. At this time justifacation was found for the Federal Gov. to BORROW the money and in 20 years to pay it back. Now we should be getting close to when that money is to come due. People I have asked about it seem to remember something about it but out of sight and out of mind,it has been hard to find information about this.

Does anyone remember this?

And as for privatizing the program, look what has happened on wall street, enron, and labor pension plans the last few years. At least the beuracracy is still accountable to 'we the people', congress, and the supreme court. Oops I forgot they have been replaced by the ellite, the CEO's, and policy makers paid for by lobbyist, sponsored by corporations.

 

[GENIERE]

So what the administration plans to do with social security ? remove it completelly ? (and go to hell old geezers) or partially privitize it ?

None of the above. You will be allowed the OPTION of having part of YOUR money invested as YOU see fit (some restrictions). Retired people (me) or people who opt out will simply get the normal small return on their investment (I've probably been robbed of 100's of thousands). You really have to be dumb to oppose this. Privatization is only mouthed by the dems as a scare tactic; the President has no intention of privatizing it.

Implementing it will probably require a temporary SS tax increase for about 5 years to offset the loss of revenue that will occur, followed by a smaller tax for another few years. For you youngsters, it will be well worth it.
...

 

[GENIERE]

Hi All,
My first time responding to the forum...QUOTE]

Wellcome to another ill-informed poster.

 

[russ_watters]

Hi All,
My first time responding to the forum...QUOTE]

Wellcome to another ill-informed poster.

Cool it - there is no need for that.

Desert Child, Social Security has only been self-sustaining in the sense that it has always borrowed money from people who aren't even born yet, assuming enough people would be born to pay those who are retired/will retire in the next 20 years. Now that the US population is leveling off, the real debt that has always existed is becoming unsustainable.

Geniere, you're retired? As a cynical 28 year-old, I'm impressed to hear that opinion from someone already getting SS.

 

[tumor]

Implementing it will probably require a temporary SS tax increase for about 5 years to offset the loss of revenue that will occur, followed by a smaller tax for another few years. For you youngsters, it will be well worth it.
...

Tax increase?! But that is simply evil to the republicans.I guess GWBush does not have to worry about loosing his job(like his father did), he is reelected and can increase taxes thru the roof.

 

[Desert Child]

russ_waters
Thank you for your gracious kindness, I do try hard to treat others with diverse opinions with respect and dignity so it is appreciated to get that back in return. Also, it was a question that I was hoping to get answered, one that I have had for many years as I remember the congressional debates on issue of social security.

The way I have learned to see social security was that it was an insurance to protect the working class people from employment that had no retirement benefits or protections as was common during the depression. It never occurred to me that it would be a 401 k plan with benefits going to my adult children, only a safety net that would keep me in my home with a modest sustainable income.

My big concern is that what ever investment I make for my future retirement needs to be simple and sound, just enough for my mortgage, property taxes, and bills. Protected from corrupted people who want to take the little that I have worked hard for and add it to their massive financial portfolio. The next four years are sure to be interesting.