Social Security Crisis Is About My Generation And Beyond

Mens News Daily ^ | 2/2/2005 | Jimmy Moore

[qam1]

I would like to issue a challenge to anyone under the age of 40 in the United States of America. It is time we become actively engaged in this debate over Social Security.

For those of us in our 20's and 30's, this current debate over the coming crisis in Social Security should be ours since it will have the greatest impact on us and the generations that follow after us.

While federal lawmakers can debate the merits of whether we are in an imminent crisis or not, it is clear to most people that if nothing is done the system is going to fall apart by the time we reach retirement age. The latest public opinion polls show that most Americans believe there are problems with Social Security that need to be fixed. And now.

I applaud those lawmakers who recognize the coming breakdown of Social Security and are offering possible solutions to make it as solvent as it can be by the time we reach retirement age.

With all the pontificating on the subject of Social Security by both the Democrats and the Republicans, the main point of discussion should be to come up with a workable plan that will actually create money that will be there when my generation goes to retire in 30-40 years.

And because wealth does not create itself, it will be necessary to allow those of us who are decades away from collecting benefits to invest some of OUR money in personal investment accounts.

And that's an important element that has been missing in the debate over Social Security. It's OUR money, not the lawmakers in Washington. Listening to the Democrats on Capitol Hill, you'd think it was THEIR money on the line.

"President Bush should forget about privatizing Social Security," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said on Tuesday. "It will not happen -- and the sooner he comes to that realization, the better off we are."

Who does Harry Reid think he is obstructing any discussion about improving Social Security for people in my generation? I know he's merely pandering to the senior citizen community to keep his precious seat on Capitol Hill. But this isn't about today's Social Security recipients nor is it about the Baby Boomer generation. They'll get all the money they have contributed into Social Security as they should.

But for those of us in the Generation X era and beyond, this is vitally important. While most Democratic and some Republican lawmakers are afraid to support President Bush's plan to allow some of the Social Security money to be invested to earn a profit, it is exactly what is needed for people my age to have something to retire on.

It's not gambling in the stock market, as Democrats suggest, but investing in sound businesses and making smart investments in solid interest-earning accounts that will earn younger workers the money they need when it comes time for them to retire. Why is this so difficult for some people to understand?

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) said on Monday that he "will oppose diverting money from the Social Security trust fund."

What Social Security trust fund, Sen. Nelson?! There isn't one and that's what makes this debate with these Democrats who have no clue so incredibly frustrating. They are only looking at it from the perspective of what they can gain politically today rather than doing what is best for future generations. Sucking up to seniors by making it about them is blatantly dishonest and people my age need to hear that loud and clear because this is about us.

Sen. Nelson added in his comments, "I will fight against cuts to Social Security benefits. I will fight against any plan that relies on massive borrowing and increases the debt. And I will fight to protect this program that provides a safe and reliable source of retirement income for millions of Americans."

What cuts, Sen. Nelson? What plan have you offered to make Social Security what it needs to be? If Social Security is such a "safe and reliable source of retirement," then why are so many workers my age afraid it will not be there when we reach retirement age?

If you really want to fight for something, then how about standing up for the millions upon millions of young workers who want to be assured there will be something there for us when we reach retirement age. What plan do you have to make that happen, Sen. Nelson? I'm waiting.

Expect this debate to continue for many years to come if nothing is done about it in 2005. But with each passing year, it will become more and more evident that something will need to be done to make sure Social Security will be there when my generation comes of age.

Maybe it'll take another decade or two before people my age will be elected to serve on Capitol Hill to actually do something about this very real problem. But the longer we wait to fix the problem with Social Security, the more difficult the decision will be to make the changes necessary.

The time to do this is now. Do it for my generation and the generations that follow. Have the courage to stand up for what is right. Will you join me in this challenge?

[Paul C. Jesup]

The truth is the socialists in this country have raised the debts, regulations and taxes to the point where someone is going to get burned, it is either be the Baby Boomers or Gen X and Gen Y; I don't mention any future generations because if Gen X and Gen Y get burned by this they will not be able to afford to have any children.

[CIDKauf]

Check out http://www.socialsecurity.org/catoplan/

[Atlas Sneezed]

And won't be because it "opts out" those receiving the funds you won't be paying.

---

Let them get paid from the "trust fund." After all, that is the promise being made to those who they are living off of today.

[Protagoras]

Let them get paid from the "trust fund." After all, that is the promise being made to those who they are living off of today.

There is no trust fund, as you know. So that leaves us the serious question, do you advocate that they not be paid?

[goodnesswins]

AND, when SS started the average "retiree" lived only another couple of years after retirement......

As a woman, I have conciously NOT worked for Moola for the past 10plus years (married to a guy who works hard).....I "work" at home....making life easier for him....so he can WORK and earn. I resented working at a job I hated and then ALSO paying 15% to the gov't for something badly invested....realisticly, at my age, I probably WILL see something (53).....

AND, now, furthermore, instead of funding the grandson's "education" we will be funding his "retirement" fund.....with long term investments.....that he cannot touch until a LOOONG time from now.

[Maria S]

I'm of the baby boomer generation, and I'm with you, Kid! I am totally disgusted with "Medicare to Cover Drugs for Impotence" and similar 'entitlements' for us older citizens! From the article at http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&ncid=2026&e=5&u=/latimests/20050201/ts_latimes/medicaretocoverdrugsforimpotence

"These are drugs that treat a condition that compromises the quality of life but doesn't threaten life," said Dr. Ira Sharlip, a professor of urology at UC San Francisco. "But there are many drugs that are approved for quality-of-life indications. It wouldn't be right to single out [impotence drugs] as frivolous when there are so many others in the same category" — such as prescription drugs for indigestion or mild pain, he said."

"U.S. sales of drugs to treat impotence have leveled off at about $1 billion a year, despite heavy advertising on televised sports events and other promotional campaigns."



If you're old enough to be on medicare (65+), you can pay for your own Viagra...don't ask young people to pay for your arrogant need to continue pretending YOU'RE still 21!!

Sorry, folks, but it's time seniors (and that's what many of us are) find a little more dignity, and stop trying to act like we're still 20.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Let them get paid from the "trust fund." After all, that is the promise being made to those who they are living off of today.

There is no trust fund, as you know. So that leaves us the serious question, do you advocate that they not be paid?

---

I advocate that they get no more benefit than those who are paying for their retirement can be guaranteed.

If the retirement age needs to go up to 72, some current retirees need to go back to work.

If there will be means testing in 20 years, start doing it now.

If there will be hefty tax increases to fund the system, start taxing the boomers now when they are in their prime years.

But most important, those who are retired or nearly so, and who will be unaffected by any reforms should STFU while we are making plans to avert a crisis that will occur after they are dead.

[Protagoras]

I advocate that they get no more benefit than those who are paying for their retirement can be guaranteed.

I advocate we all go to the moon. They both have the same chance of happening.

If the retirement age needs to go up to 72, some current retirees need to go back to work.

Same as the Dems.

If there will be means testing in 20 years, start doing it now.

Same as the Dems.

If there will be hefty tax increases to fund the system, start taxing the boomers now when they are in their prime years.

Same as the Dems.

But most important, those who are retired or nearly so, and who will be unaffected by any reforms should STFU while we are making plans to avert a crisis that will occur after they are dead.

Good idea, try it out on a few. See if you can get an elected official to tell 'em. See if you can get someone on the ballot with that platform.

I'm happy I gave you a chance to vent, but I was commenting on realistic proposals. Not Democrat "solutions". Or insincere dreams.

The problem is; we are saddled with a fundamentally flawed and incorrectly conceived (but popular) government Ponzi type scheme. The question is how do we realistically get rid of it and set people free again to provide for their own retirement?

The Dems essentially have the same plan by default that you advocate.

[cherry]

the problem plain and simple is that the govt gives out billions to old people and relatively little to young people.....the old people have all the money and they don't work so they can line up outside a Senator's office and yell and scream and then be called "quaint"....

the problem your generation is facing , as well as mine, as a 51 yro, is that "them that gots the gold, rules"....or in simpler terms, the rich get richer.....

the game is stacked....and the only thing you can hope is that one of your elderly parents is rich and leaves enough for you and your siblings to get by on....

I know I sound harsh, but that's just the way I see it....

we have done a huge disservice to young and middle age people in our country, and everyone just wants to gloss over it....

truth is, there is a going to be a remarkable sinking of the way of life for our younger people......unless we help them....

[redgolum]

I like the plan, but the Dems won't let anything like it come near the Presidents desk. Many GOP senators will fight against it also.

There are just to many retired folks who don't want anyone to touch the golden goose.

[CIDKauf]

That's when you point out that under the current system, the worker has NO RIGHTS to his money. 2 prior Supreme Court cases state clearly that this is true. Any Democrat against privitization will face the heat from bloggers, because this is the issue.

[Blzbba]

"If you're old enough to be on medicare (65+), you can pay for your own Viagra...don't ask young people to pay for your arrogant need to continue pretending YOU'RE still 21!! "



Too true! After yesterday, and thanks to Bush's massive pres. drug benefits increases last year, us taxpayers are now subsidizing the sex lives of seniors.

Only in America.

[wtc911]

"The old codgers on SS is too worried about not getting your money now if you opt out of SS. Until we come up with a way to replace the money that those like you and me would not pay in taxes if we opt out they won't go for it."

_________________________________________________

If you're young enough to complain about this then you've got plenty of time to get yourself set for life without SS benefits. You might start by getting an education that gives you the skills to write a decent, grammatical, cogent sentence.

[Howlin]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1334438/posts


http://nationalreview.com/comment/moran200502020755.asp

[Howlin]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1334438/posts


http://nationalreview.com/comment/moran200502020755.asp

[Huck]

We'll see. I appreciate the info. I just don't know what if anything will actually pass. I hope it includes me.

[Howlin]

I have NO idea what the truth is or what will happen; I am the last person on this forum to understand economics, etc.

I'm just passing along what I saw.

[Huck]

I appreciate it.

[wtc911]

At 37 you've got plenty of time to get yourself set, unless you've managed to dig a really deep hole already and life has burdened you with maxed out responsibilities. Even then, you could do it. Forget SS, it might or might not be there so behave as if it won't and drink to your good fortune if it is. Pay off all credit card debt before you go to the movies and the diner again. Own your car and take car of it. Negotiate the lowest rate on your home if you have one. Then start buying investment real estate. You have thirty years to acquire four to six small properties and have them paid for through debt that services itself. Even if you only manage to get four you'll have @ $50k/yr income (in today's dollars). Assuming you have paid off your own residence you should be ok. If you manage to secure six you'll see @ $72k/yr. It's not that hard to do. You just have to be committed to your own welfare.

[Atlas Sneezed]

The Dems essentially have the same plan by default that you advocate.

---

You mistakenly assume that I prefer the tweaks I mention. But I do at a minimum support the principle that the current generation of retirees should not enjoy any benefit that can not be guaranteed to those who are funding their retirement.

The Dems are NOT advocating such a principle.