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

I ask here because it is a political question and because I really think there are a number of people here who have good ideas.

I know why there's a problem but how do we correct it?

Any ideas?

2007-09-29 05:15:22 · 23 answers · asked by Kelly B 4 in Politics & Government Politics

PNAC: I truly hope people will stop attacking the ALL factor of anything said.
Not ALL Democrats feel as their elected leaders do as I'm sure the Republican party masses don't always agree with their leaders decisions always either!!
Like with amnesty!

Anyway it doesn't take a economics professor to see that things need changing in the S.S. Dept..

Aside: Does anyone know when how the government borrowing from S.S. first started? Under whose administration? Was this happening since the beginning?

2007-09-29 05:29:45 · update #1

23 answers

First :: I diffidently remember that Lyndon B. Johnson and the Politicians " BORROWING THE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT ARE(were) IN THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACCOUNT" to finance the WAR in NAM !!!
That "BORROWED " money was NEVER REPLACED !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THE "INTEREST" ON THAT MONEY HAS NEVER BEEN PAID, as we Americans were told !!!!! "The Borrowed money will be returned, at the end of this terrible war, along with all of the interest, as this is an investment in our countries security" !!!!
THOSE ARE QUOTES FROM L.B.J., ON NATIONAL T.V., telling the American public, "that everything is in order".
BUUUU LLLLLLLL SSSSS HHHHH IIIIIII********* !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THis is where the $ went, which was o.k., for the designated purpose , BUT TO SQUANDER THE REPAYMENTS & INTEREST MONEY ON "PRIORITIES FOR THE GOOD OF ALL" (pork barrel projects) AND the politicians DOGS NAMED "ALL" is just about enough to put EX-LAX out of business!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have had a nice day so far, but I CAN get on my soap box, and "TELL IT LIKE IT IS, but I WOULD BE SUSPENDED, AGAIN" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
'nuff said.

2007-09-29 10:05:17 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

First you're able to desire to get human beings to appreciate that there is a concern and that interior 4 years social secure practices is going to have a adverse funds pass. (extra funds being paid in reward that coming in, from payroll taxes). there is not any genuine earnings to the "believe" fund because of the fact it does not exist as funds basically as government IOU's. you are able to call those government bonds or what ever you like yet they're not something extra advantageous than IOU's. So despite if on the accounting e book Social secure practices is in the black the money to pay the advantages is basically not there. the answer is to stop investment social secure practices from payroll deducts and fund it out of the final sales. get rid of earnings tax and the IRS, undertake the honest tax. Then a minimum of for a whilst the social secure practices disaster may well be solved. in the long-term the government needs to get out of the business enterprise on insuring individals against disability and retirement those are guy or woman responsiblities and not government's.

2016-10-20 07:32:55 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

A few things can help fix the problem with Social Security:

1. A balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

2. A law forbidding Congress from using Social Security money for anything other than Social Security.

3. Raising the retirement age to 70.

4. Only allow those to collect on it who have a demonstrated need for it.

2007-09-29 09:38:19 · answer #3 · answered by BOOM 7 · 0 0

Raise the cap. I think once you make about $90k a year you pay the same amount as someone who makes $1m a year. It was a Conservative trick put in place to ensure SS would NOT have enough money so they could have a reason to privatize it someday.

EDIT::: It's really something that people believe SS is strictly a retirement fund. SS is an insurance policy the country buys against its own economy.

2007-09-29 16:27:42 · answer #4 · answered by Incognito 5 · 2 0

If you don't pay into it, you don't get it. Far to many people receiving it that have no business getting the checks. Social security was never intended to be a sole source of income when people retire. It was meant to be a supplement to savings or a retirement fund of sorts. It has been miss-used and abused for years. Maybe we should go back to the original intent and see how it works.

2007-09-29 05:39:13 · answer #5 · answered by doctdon 7 · 0 0

Social Security is meant to help retired people live an independant life. It is a supplement to other savings as they won't make as much money in retirement or have as much money on hand as when working. It was never intended to be to help some kid through college or some disabled person. Unforunately Social Security has been used for things other than its original purpose. Ronald Reagan opened it up to the general fund so it could be raided. Raided it was by Republicans who would love nothing more to see it gone entirely regardless of the purpose of helping retirees to maintain a quality of life.

2007-09-29 05:37:56 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Heres the real truth everyone will hate it but the correct answer is delete it. We added a trillion to the debt ceiling how long do you reasonably think this can continue? We just added a trillion like its nothing whatsoever. A trillion is a number that you cannot form a concept of. Its simply too large. The human brain doesnt comprehend this scale.

2007-09-29 05:25:25 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Just allow the government to keep spending it on its own workers and everything will be fine .

As a beneficiary of this program I am thrilled at how it will soon run out after it has milked the people for all its worth .

SO few people will actually collect anything that its a wonder why we have it in the first place .

Those who are truly in need of the benefits will not collect near what they paid in before they die and those who do not need it will collect long into their 70's and early 80's .

With the average life expectancy of home owners , married people , and white collar workers , making up 85% of those collecting social security it leaves you to wonder how many of the people it was designed to protect actually collect this benefit .

2007-09-29 05:23:26 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 3

The best solution would be to allow the younger generation to Opt-Out of the system, because they will never see any benefits. Any new system to replace it would need to have a running total and cash out provisions, and it would prevent the congress from raiding the fund like they like to do so much.

Then to pay for the shortfall, shrink the federal bureaucracy - eliminate the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Education, the IRS, the Federal Reserve, and any other useless federal bureaucracy. The next step is for the government to stop engaging in foreign wars, stop giving foreign aid (let the private citizens do that), stop corporate subsidies, to restrict the federal government to the powers granted by the constitution, increase states rights, increase personal freedom and personal responsibility, and vote for Ron Paul in 2008. :)

2007-09-29 05:33:18 · answer #9 · answered by Darin H 2 · 0 3

Stop giving the excess contributions of the baby boomers into general tax revenue - which will have to be paid back to fund their benefits.
They paid for their benefits already - it just was used to cut taxes for millionaires and corporations instead of kept for their benefits.
Its obvious the boomers can never retire.

2007-09-29 05:51:49 · answer #10 · answered by oohhbother 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers