Can social security be saved in the short term and what is the best way to do it?

Question

It can be done and the system could actually make money while doing it, I proved it can anybody else.

Answer 1

Please define "short term". And please show us your proof. Nobody should take any anonymous person's word for that.

Based on current receipts, outlays and projections, the SSA will start paying our more than it takes in, in a little over a decade. As the aging population reaches benefit receiving age, the proportion of benefit receivers to taxpayers increases rapidly.

The only thing in Al Gore's "lockbox" [a lie only a moron would have believed] is a bunch of IOUs from the federal government. You see, all those decades where there was excess SS receipts, the congress took that money and spent it, and wrote an IOU. Guess who gets to pay those IOUs? We do - in the form of higher taxes.

It is a scam, a terrible scam. First, because you have no right to receive anything. Tomorrow, congress could vote to just stop giving you SS money, and if signed into law, you will not get anything. This is because SS is just a tax. And the payouts are only by government largesse.

And don't forget that the Democrats, when they ran Congress and when Clinton was president, made SS income fully taxable. That way, the government can recycle the money back to themselves for a second year in a row. Greedy pigs.

But we're all waiting with bated breath to see this proposal of yours. Lay on, MacDuff!

Answer 2

I don't think it should be saved personally. Each individual should be responsible for securing their future. If they are not capable of doing so what's wrong with letting them suffer the consequences? Educate the people and let them live their own life is my motto. Taking money from people's pay to give them later shouldn't be the governments job. It's an offense to me actually. It's like the government says hey man, you are too stupid, I don't wanna hear your whining later when you have squandered all the money you had all of your life and end up having none when you get old. So since you are so stupid, I will take your money and hold it for you. We the government should protect them the morons from themselves.

Answer 3

Considering that Republicans have been dipping into it for years and spending record amounts, I doubt it.

NOTE TO: show_em_your...
During much of the Clinton Adminstration, the there was a republican majority running the country, and according to conservative Pundits, Clinton had no power, ergo, the blame still falls on republicans. Social security takes 7.65% out of every paycheck, and the employer has to put in 7.65% to match it. I would not mind having that to invest today..., but when I was young, I would have lost it all...

Answer 4

I concur with Begoner.
My personal opinion...Social Security is not a math equation. It is a political disaster of greed and power. The desire to oppress the well deserved. Yes, the middle class is quickly losing its luster to relax in retirement and adult children are eager to push there elderly parents into state/private run nursing homes.
The elderly are 20th Century Corporate America, without these hardworking people with conviction, Corporate Trillionaire America would not be existent. Social Security and all benefits should be paid fully (should not be a need for secondary insurance-paid for by recipient).

Answer 5

First off to Tony's answer, all adminstrations have used ss, how do you think Clinton balanced the budget. Well lets see 12% of your income goes to social security and your employer also contributes 12% thats 24% of your gross income going to Social Security retirement. Now if you were allowed to invest this into IRAs or something sound wouldnt you have money to retire on. Think about it.

Answer 6

There is nothing wrong with it as it currently stands. It's just conservative hype about how it is failing because they seek to take profits away from the ordinary, middle- or lower-class citizens and to put them into the hands of large corporations. Here's a quote from a New York Times article:

"there is a long-run financing problem. But it's a problem of modest size. The [CBO] report finds that extending the life of the trust fund into the 22nd century, with no change in benefits, would require additional revenues equal to only 0.54 percent of G.D.P. That's less than 3 percent of federal spending — less than we're currently spending in Iraq. And it's only about one-quarter of the revenue lost each year because of President Bush's tax cuts — roughly equal to the fraction of those cuts that goes to people with incomes over $500,000 a year. Given these numbers, it's not at all hard to come up with fiscal packages that would secure the retirement program, with no major changes, for generations to come."

That quote is from: "Inventing a Crisis" New York Times, Dec. 7, 2004). The whole thing is just a conservative attempt to trick people into supporting things that are in their economic detriment to support, like tax cuts.

Answer 7

maybea you need to work for the Govt and help save mine
ready to retire in 12 years

Answer 8

the republican hate social security,one thing is raise rhe cap higher,keep congress out of it