There are a lot of people who want to solve the social security solvency problem by raising taxes. The federal government has never put away the social security money, they have spent it. How will giving more money to an entity that has proven it cannot manage what it has a solution for anything?
2007-11-22 13:12:58 · 21 answers · asked by Chainsaw 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Its the usual way the libs solve problems....if something fails, then we just need MORE of it....and when that fail, even more...they are way too arrogant to admit that their policies fail...and if you don't believe like they do, then you're just "not very smart" in their world....its amazing to see and why it is so dangerous for them to be in total power....
2007-11-22 13:19:49 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Unfortunately, there is no easy solution for this one. Simply put, every time the government needs money, it dips into the social security trust fund and replaces it with an IOU.
Sadly, raising taxes to replenish this fund is insufficient. All they will do is take more money back out and replace it with even more IOU's.
If you want to solve the social security dilemma, then they have to stop spending money elsewhere and bring the fund back to solvency. Otherwise, the system will remain technically bankrupt for another 20 years until it finally expires for lack of cash at the end of the day.
Call it a Ponzi scheme.
2007-11-22 13:18:39 · answer #2 · answered by krollohare2 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Pouring money into Social Security is the simplest way to solve the insolvency problem. I think the Social Security Administration should be revamped to serve as an administrator for private investments in personal IRA's. This would allow Americans to retire with much more wealth than the current system. We've been robbed for so long and I'm ashamed that the Democrats blocked meaningful legislation that would have been a step toward privatization. Once again we're screwed because of Democrats' stupidity.
2007-11-22 13:25:25 · answer #3 · answered by oogabooga37 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Giving more to the government will not help the SS issue. The problem comes when there are more people retiring at a faster pace than people putting in a/k/a Baby Boomers the largest group by population births from 1943-1964. This group determines most decisions. What we should be doing is teaching money management to the next generation x and y. Soon you will see a larger group going on food stamps and needing government health care. * Health care is the next crisis.
2007-11-22 13:23:05 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Every single time it has been raided or a new law passed to raise taxes on the benefits it was done in a Democrat Congress. Perhaps, if by National referendum, we told Congress no more raising your pay every year by $5000 or like they did a couple months ago, and raised their retirement benefits by 14%. You are all now on Social Security like the rest of us poor working slobs. Then have a National referendum on term limits.
2007-11-22 14:04:07 · answer #5 · answered by ohbrother 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
it wont. I say, do away with it. When they give us back our money when we are retired, its worth less (inflation) and it hasnt grown at all. The govt. doesnt invest the money we give them through SS. They just give it to the current retired people. Where if we could take that money and make 11% a year on it in a mutual fund, it would be worth tons more. I say schools need to have a class that teaches us how to deal with finance, that is mandatory just like Social Studies or math. In fact, instead of learning about Jamestown in 3rd, 6th, and 7th grade, give us a class that will teach us where to save our money, and teach us about the international economy in general. It's irritating to me that a lot of people dont understand that S.S. isnt really helping us at all. Just my 2 cents.
Jason
2007-11-22 13:22:21 · answer #6 · answered by jsda_man 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
it would ONLY make sense if the new law would GUARANTEE THAT the money can ONLY BE SPENT ON SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS. The law would also have to provide that anyone that voted to change it in the next hundred years would lose their seat in Congress if the change passed. Then, you know that NO ONE would vote to change it.
2007-11-22 13:19:30 · answer #7 · answered by Mike 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The solution is to let people keep their own money and plan their own retirements. The government shouldn't be running a Ponzi Scheme.
2007-11-22 13:23:10 · answer #8 · answered by twincrier 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
People are still under the misconception that government is efficient and they need more of your money to make the Country better.
2007-11-22 13:20:51 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
well... that's the trick isn't it...
and that could really go for any government spending... be it military, schools or anything else...
but there seems to be a need for these services none the less and there have been questionable attempts by the private sector in some of these areas...
2007-11-22 13:23:43 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋