I think that it is unfair that I am paying into Social Security and may NEVER see it when I retire in 40 years!! I would like it to be an option to the people that will not reitre anytime soon. I don't mind helping those in need but I am in need too and the government doesn't help me out when I am financially constrained.
2006-06-13 03:29:09 · 7 answers · asked by Tara 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
No. By then it will all have been shuffled off to the stock market, invested and lost. You can blame the current Republican administration for that..
2006-06-13 03:34:39 · answer #1 · answered by Joe 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I have done extensive research on Social Security so that i could write a thesis paper on it. Until 2027 the combined Old Age Survivors and Disabilities Insurance (OASDI), will still have a greater income than their output. After that, until about 2070, the SSA will be able to pay out about 75% of what is the current benefits. I would still have an alternate retirement plan though, like an IRA or a 401(k) plan.
2006-06-13 03:37:45 · answer #2 · answered by G 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
you're meant to place money right into a 401K or an IRA, particularly than residing on social protection. young ones immediately have a important sort of recommendations that many senior electorate did no longer have for their futures. in case you dont like the militarization of the U.S. you're able to desire to circulate to a diverse united states of america. The dollar isn't death. The dollar is the international's reserve forex, all oil offered on the international marketplace is in U.S. money because of the fact it is so good. it is purely been devalued with the intention to export greater products to Asia and Europe making our stuff greater least costly for them to purchase. What information do you have that different countries do no longer choose to purchase money? China owns one thousand billion of our money. the reason the financial disaster of 2008 additionally occurred in different countries became because of the fact those governments have been so heavily invested in U.S. shares and bonds. those issues at the instant are not new. you're purely starting to be attentive to them. the international is changing and you be attentive to greater approximately what is going on via internet and social media and pervasive communication.
2016-12-08 20:07:44 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. It is scheduled to pay out more than it takes in by 2017 - in 11 years. All those IOUs in the 'lockbox' will either be torn up, or will be paid by increased taxes on us, so we can pay ourselves back for the money congress spent.
It was sad that Congress was too chickenshit to make the necessary reforms to Socialist Security so that people would own their own retirement and then government could get out of the retirement business then unconstitutionally jumped into (thanks, FDR, you feckless bastard). Bush proposed very good reforms, and the reelection whores in congress covered their own butts, and hung the people out to dry, yet again.
This welfare statism needs to stop. It is unconstitutional and it is the evil of socialism. Let's get back to the limited government that was our birthright.
2006-06-13 03:47:06 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I dont think so......Social Security isn't being funded ..or it's underfunded at the least, and gets cuts from the Government on top of that ...so it's in poor shape and not loooking good.
2006-06-13 03:39:32 · answer #5 · answered by Blondie* 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no
2006-06-13 03:32:33 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
am afraid not .
2006-06-13 03:35:47 · answer #7 · answered by idontkno 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋