I know I'm in the minority here, but I actually don't like the President's plan. $2 Trillion is a LOT of money. I'm not sure the solution to the problem needs to costs that much. To be honest, I also wonder if the problem itself is a less than $2 Trillion shortage (making this plan a washout as far as tax dollars go). A $2 Trillion dollar fix for a $2 Trillion dollar problem doesn't seem like much of a fix to me. Especially when the problem is that we can't pay the $2 Trillion in the first place. If we can't come up with the cash, how is having a different plan that costs the same amount of money that we can't come up with going to solve the problem?
If anyone has any information on this, please post.
How can you not like a plan that isn't even formed yet? All things are on the table for discussion, but there is no plan, not yet anyway. Only proposals, and discussion.
Middle-O-Road: The current unfunded liability in Social Security is probably north of $10 trillion, so the $2 trillion "transition cost" is a very small price to pay for fixing this problem once and for all. The Democrats focus on the $2 trillion transition cost while begging "don't look at that $10 trillion problem over there... maybe it will go away! Maybe there will be a tsunami that will wipe out 20-30MM future beneficiaries and Social Security will have another 40 years of ponzi-scheme viability!" That's the Paul Krugman view of this.
Why don't you visit the Cato or Independent Women's Forum or Heritage Websites and look at some of the very good papers that have been done on Social Security. Or ask your Congressman how the city of Galveston, TX, workers are doing having opted out of Social Security many years ago? Answer: they're loving their private plan... just as Congressmen love their 401K private plan. And those plans aren't going bankrupt.
Actually, there is NO PROPOSAL yet. The president has said he won't come out with specifics until there's been a chance to debate the matter.
I'll be retiring in 3 years with a good pension from the state of OR. For myself, I think we should do three things now:
1) means test SS benefits for current retirees;
2) increase the retirement age;
3) start the process of privatizing SS for younger workers.
It's the only way to deal with the problem & be fair.
You're not alone, the plan to reform Social Security is a very bad idea.
If the current Plan A means super-crappy returns for our kids and Plan B (Plan Bush) allows for productive investment growth for our kids, then it isn't hard to see which would be the better plan.
It's about planning ahead. I'm 56, and I favor making the switch.
"$2 Trillion is a LOT of money. I'm not sure the solution to the problem needs to costs that much."
Please give us your definition of cost. Do you consider your money to belong to the government and feel lucky to get to keep what they allow you to keep?
I see you are here peddling your bogus two trillion dollar price tag on Sicial Security reform.
I thought I had educated you to the nature of your mistake on another thread, but here goes again.
If you don't get it this time, perhaps you are UNWILLING to face the truth and that you are here for one purpose: to lie and propagandize. I hope that isn't the case.
Get this straight: Letting people keep any amount of their own money, whether one dollar or two trillion dollars doesn't "cost" anyone anything. Meanwhile, we need to sunset the present ruinous system.
So where is it you think that this two trillion dollar expense will come from? I suppose you are referring to the cost of supporting the retirees who have already had their money stolen and as a result are dependent on the Social Security handouts. If so, you need to be aware that this will cost us whatever it costs us, whether two, three, or four trillion dollars, and there is no escaping this expense.
As a nation we are already obligated to keep the faith with those of us, like me, who have been forced to pay into the old system all our lives.
The issue is really whether we allow the present system to sunset, or whether we try to do the impossible: perpetuate a Ponzi scheme in perpetuity.
You seem to come down on the side of continuing the fraud.
If you are posting in sincerity, please open your mind. If you are just trying to stir things up, why don't you go elsewhere.
If you really don't understand the situation, as you seem to imply, write me.