English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I personally think that he overstated the severity of the problem.

By the way.......The reason the plan was shot down is that the numbers he was using were misleading. He talked about "an 11 trillion dollar SSI deficit". The problem was that the number was reached by stretching the math into the year INFINITY (yes, that is true. you can research this yourself).

2006-07-03 08:42:46 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

no, you can't stretch the math out to infinity. if that was the case, then think about it: 11 trillion over 110 trillion years is only a dollar a year.....see how that's misleading

2006-07-03 08:50:02 · update #1

17 answers

The rich elite want more of your money and there is an awful lot in the soc. sec. folders. If the ordinary Joe got his hands on some of that (for retirement investment) a lot of shenanigans would take place and the poor slobs would end up with smaller or, even worse, no pensions. The pension could be seen by watching the millions of dollars yachts on the warm harbors.

2006-07-03 08:50:38 · answer #1 · answered by gshewman 3 · 1 4

Kubrikan, obviously you ask these misleading and stupid questions in the hope of getting a rise out of people. But I enjoy passing my time answering them, so here you go:

According to GAO (you do know what that is right, and it is bipartisan), the program is estimated to go bankrupt as soon as the years 2020-2030. Considering that I will be retiring around that time, that hardly sounds like infinity. So the problem is not being overstated.

What is really shocking is that YOU find any problem with allowing each individual American to keep some of the money forcibly being taken out of our paycheck in our own PERSONAL account, instead of being put into the general account, where it has and is quickly spent. You do now that all of the money that we and our parents have put into the SS account does not exist, right? You do know there is no black box, right? Please tell me you are not such a BIG moron.

Mel, that was the most illogical, nonsensical idiocy I have read the past 30 minutes. Good lord, read woman.

2006-07-03 15:49:39 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

well I dont know his plan but I know a way to solve it.....which the only real way to solve it the Republicans will never go for cause they love the rich. Anyway they take out 15 percent of your check and then you can start earning income at 65 or wehatever....this does not work....cause people who make more than 82,000 a year do not have to pay social security. because the government thinks they can handle there own. any way there are a lot of holes in the system that was just a example...now the only way to fix this is for that EVERYONE to pay 15 percent no matter what they make ....so that person making 82000 bucks a year or not will still have to invest....and therefore he would obviously get a bigger ss check.....doiing it this way would float the system and be 100% stable.

2006-07-03 15:50:44 · answer #3 · answered by the PimP ChimP 3 · 0 0

I am 26 years old... I am making other plans for social security. That being said I think:
1. something needs to be changed in the current situation
2. the elderly poor and those unable to work need a government entitlement program in order to better all of society

Bush isn't necessarily on the wrong track with social security. I think this is maybe not as important as health care though since we at least have some time to solve it.

Not a great answer I know but it's just my opinion.

2006-07-03 15:48:37 · answer #4 · answered by bigred1612 2 · 0 0

The goal is to have SS for an infinite amount of years, thats why its stretched into infinity. They cant say, "until in the year 2100 the deficit is such and such" because so long as there are retired americans collecting social security a plan and budget needs to be assumed.

It is a huge problem. As it is, iam still not convinced iam going to have social security to look forward to in my old age. I cant afford to set aside into my retirement fund and live off of minimum wage, how can anyone else?

2006-07-03 15:47:35 · answer #5 · answered by amosunknown 7 · 0 0

Everyone wants to criticize the plan, but noone else has one. At least he had the guts to say that "the empirer has no clothes". SSI was a ponzi scheme from the word go. It will not continue to work in it's present form. Of course you'll never admit it because it came down, like the 10 commandments from one of the holy trinity of liberalism.

2006-07-03 19:44:37 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Here's some information about social security you may not know. Did you know that there is a cap on the amount of earnings that can be taxed for social security? This year, I believe it stops at around $100,000. What that means is that people who earn over that amount, stop paying social security taxes. Now, social security is deducted from everyone's wages from dollar one. So, if you make $50,000, you pay ss on all your earnings. But your boss, who makes $150,000, only pays ss on 3/4 of his/her earnings. Does that seem fair to you? Why not just raise the cap on ss earnings to something like $200,000? It would bring in millions to the system and I believe that people earning between $100,000 and $200,000 can afford it and think of how patriotic they can feel by solving this looming crisis.

2006-07-03 17:43:14 · answer #7 · answered by irenaadler 3 · 0 0

I keep hearing supporters (in my area) saying they liked it because they could do a better job of investing their money than Uncle Sam.

They didn't seem to be aware that they'd have to hope that everyone would do a better job. Since the money would go right back into the same social kitty for all of us to draw from, just as we do now.

Let's say I did such a lousy job of investing my money that I actually lost money, I'd be rewarded by getting to share in the kitty you did a great job of adding to and you'd be penalized for doing a great job because you'd have to draw from the same kitty I had detracted from.

My personal thought is that until we have a plan in place to successfully and permanently end the raiding of that fund for other purposes, any proposed solution or fix is moot.

2006-07-03 15:53:56 · answer #8 · answered by Mel 4 · 0 0

I agree 110%. There is nothing wrong with the social security progam the way it is. If things keep going the way they are by 2030 (I thinnk) we will only be paying7% to SC instead of the 4 we are paying now. Bush was wrong on this one. Of course how often is he right?

2006-07-03 16:42:46 · answer #9 · answered by bumpocooper 5 · 0 0

well, I remember seeing all the democrats saying "crisis? what crisis?" (also the name of a Supertramp album). Then I saw a tape of Clinton in 1998 saying there was a looming crisis in soc sec... I'd like to put a portion of my money into the market and make more than 1 or 2 %.

2006-07-03 15:48:16 · answer #10 · answered by heypbk2 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers