You are asking for a thoughtful answer from a Democrat. You are abmitious.
Here are the problems with Social Security.
1. It was set up when there were 40 people putting in to 1 taking out. That number is 3 to 1 now.
2. The money was never put aside.
3. The system is a pyramid scheme. If I set up one like this, I would go to jail.
There was 1 time in our history where Galveston County, Texas opted out. They installed what conservatives want. The results, 2-3 times the return of Social Security. Make it voluntary for those who want out. Those that do not will either come along later or get what they deserve.
2006-09-23 13:15:21
·
answer #1
·
answered by Chainsaw 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
First, leaving Social Security as it is will not fix the system. Democratics and Republicans know the system is bound to fail as the ratio of people paying vs those receiving funds will soon be 2-1. Democratics are mostly responsible for the condition of the system starting with Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" programs. Congress is responsible for the funds and the "raiding" of the money to pay for programs. Just remember that from the mid 50s until 1994, the Democrats controlled the House of Representatives. All federal spending bills originate in the House.
Actually, if the money had been invested in the stock market the fund would probably be worth billions. Ask your broker what $10,000 invested in the stock market in 1975 would be worth today.
No political party wants to undertake the needed changes to the system because the mature voters in this country are the most likely to go to the polls and vote. So each party is afraid of the wrath of the 'silvered haired voters' and their organizations like the AARP.
You can be sure that Social Security will not be left as it is because about 2050, the funds will be exhausted and solely dependent of money from the treasury to support the receivers. You also need to research the original concept of the system and look at the changes authorized by Congress through the decades. People that never contributed to the fund have received lots for money from Social Security, originally, only contributors for 40 quarters could receive funds upon retirement.
And speaking of retirement, when the fund was started and you could receive funds at 65, the average American wasn't living to 78 for men and about 83 for women, no one expected the significant increase in longevity that is reality today.
So, regardless of which political party you favor, Social Security will be changed in the near future because the IOUs Congress placed in the fund allow a direct link to the US Treasury and there aren't enough people working to support the people getting money.
2006-09-23 20:34:17
·
answer #2
·
answered by jack w 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, social security will get up to $10 trillion in debt and medicare will get up to $30 trillion in debt before 2040. Since this money was spent (put into the general budget in the form of zero interest loans) and will come out of the national budget, interest will be paid on the debt.
2006-09-23 20:38:35
·
answer #3
·
answered by gregory_dittman 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Do you really want to trust the fix of Social Security to a repuglican who have been against it from the very start and would still like to see it fail. Want to fix S.S. it is easy, take the pension away from congress and put them on S.S. it will be an instant fix.
2006-09-23 20:13:19
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Democrats want to fix it as well, but not privatize it. Get your facts straight. Stop talking in extremes.
2006-09-23 20:11:00
·
answer #5
·
answered by Joe D 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
of course not...in clinton's last state of the union address he said...ss needs to be fixed...there is a problem with ss.....liberals do you know about the "thrift savings account of the fed. government"???this is what the president proposes...but the libs cannot have this...why??? because it empowers the people
2006-09-23 20:24:09
·
answer #6
·
answered by bushfan88 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
Yes. Why should something be fixed if it's not broken?
Just because Bush says it's broken doesn't mean that it is!
2006-09-23 20:21:02
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋