Posted on 11/14/2007 8:41:45 AM PST by Clintonfatigued
Almost everyone knows that the next president will have to wrestle with the immense costs of retiring baby boomers.
Come now a small band of Democrats and Republicans who want to do the new president a giant favor. They want to force the new administration to face the problem in early 2009.
Why is this a favor? Because dealing with this issue is so politically unsavory that resolving it quickly would be a godsend. Otherwise, it could haunt the White House for four years.
(Excerpt) Read more at encyclopedia.com ...
If the kids don’t have brains enough to plan for their retirement it’s their own fault. I could do fine without SS because when I was in my twenties I was told it won’t be around by the time I retired and I believed them. So the fact that I’m getting anything from SS is a surprise and I will dutifully use it to cruise the Caribbean. Thanks to those youngsters coughing up their hard earned bucks.
We just need to adjust benefits to life expectancy like back in the beginning of SS. People collected when they were 65 and life expectancy was 65.
So adjust for life expectancy and males now get SS at 80 and females get SS at 82.
So Renegade, get back to work!!!
Me too. You can't be that old. Are you sure you're a boomer? :o)
Bite me !
On top of the above, the CONGRESSCRITTERS began to use "surplus SSA funds" to cover any and all general revenue shortfalls (surprised?)
The end result is, that a rather modest "safety net" which "somewhat resembled "insurance, was transformed into the unsustainable mutant that we have today!
Indeed, the preamble to the original Social Security Act boldly stated that it was to be a SUPPLEMENT to retirement funding!
Obviously..., a sterling example of the proverbial "Camel's Nose Under the Tent"????
Dude,
You told someone else to quit whining and get back to work. I tell you the same thing and you get mad.
I think most people forgot that they weren’t suppose to live long enough to collect SS. The only ones as a group following the original game plan are black males and I think there life expectancy is under 60.
The Dems have already assured us that there's nothing wrong with social security. Is the author assuming the Republicans will hold the White House?
Yes I understand the original intent. It ain’t that now and it won’t be that tomorrow either.
Probably. Hitlery scares a number of people.
Yo Dudster,
You go tell my buddies wife about life expectancies after he died of a sudden heart attack last year at the age of 53. I didn’t set up the program and I sure am going to take back all I put into it . The government cost me approx 1.5 milion that I could have acculumulated if I had the option to invest privately all those years . Don’t go blaming the shortfalls of SS on the Boomer generation . Blame the government who raped the monies in the fund for everything under the sun for the last 50 years.
BTW, I can’t even begin to get my $$ back for at least 1.5 years BUT I will think of you next week while I smoke a cigar on the beach at Luquillo, PR and The same in Costa Rica next March .
I don’t blame the Boomers for the shortfalls or the initial raiding of the funds to cover government programs.
The only thing we can blame everyone of voting age is not forcing the politicians to fix the problem and use “a commision” as their way to weasal out of doing their job.
Think of me in January. I’ll be at Fort Bliss training up a NG unit to get ready for their overseas deployment.
I’m really proud that you are doing that . If NEEDED I would volunteer to be a sniper in that God forsaken land, but I am too OLD( 60+). I tell both my sons to buy lots of guns and ammo before the next election .
My niece’s husband has 4 tours with the Army under his belt and is now in training for Warrent Officer .Then back to Afganistan.(tour 5 )
I still like the old special forces “Kill em all and let God sort them out !”
Good luck and Merry CHRISTMAS ahead of time .
Just hypothetically, let's consider the possibility that the Social Security idea is unsound; that is, when a large working population provides income for a small retiree population, things work fine. But when it's a smaller working population attempting to support a large retiree population, then it doesn't work.
Since the demographics of the Baby Boom have been understood for half a century, then the question becomes, "Who in their right mind would support this system, knowing that it must break down?"
The answer to the question is that such a program is supported by socialists who prefer government "solutions" and control rather than personal freedom and responsibility.
Regardless of the group to which you belonged during your productive years, the foreseeable consequences of Social Security were just that; foreseeable.
You can bet that the productive population, at such time as its numbers permit, will vote away YOUR "entitlements", and justifiably so.
IF..., it (charitably) ever was...
Take my word for it I’m a boomer, I’ve been around since Harry Truman was president. First TVs ,the whole thing.
Yea!Well right now any politician that attempts that is “Voted away” You are probably right though. In about 20-30 years when me and your Dad are gone they will probably vote them away. Oh wait, thats when you will want to draw it. Never mind.
My wife draws it now. I will draw it at the earliest opportunity which will be in a little over two years.
If it is permitted to draw this money, then it would be foolish not to take it. But that does not mean that anybody should ever have voted in such a fraudulent program.
I fully anticipate that the taxable nature of my payments will change radically in coming years and the amount of the payment will probably be reduced, including additional reductions to pay for socialized medicine.
As the competitiveness of nations like Russia, India, Brazil, and China increase, it will become even more difficult to prop up this program. It was a mistake to ever implement it and the pain of addressing that mistake will only increase with time.
Like any Ponzi scheme, it is those who arrived latest who will lose the most. When that number of people reaches the tipping point, "reforms" will be made such that the program will become unrecognizable. And that will be a good thing.
Oh I agree! I have criticized SS as long as I can remember but doing anything about it is for the most part impossible. At any rate I am now at the point where nothing they do will help me so all I can do is get some of the money I could have invested back. Like I said sense I was in my twenties SS has been going bankrupt.
Maybe the boomers will vote away your life as we are the largest ARMED segment of the population.
As you can tell from my post #57, I am a boomer and I am most certainly armed.
But if the issue of continuing the Ponzi scheme which is Social Security ends up being resolved by force of arms, I will not be in the trenches with the socialists but on the other side.
We Boomers (not including me) have acted irresponsibly in supporting this socialism and we deserve the same outcome that all socialism eventually earns; disappointment, government breakdown, and violence, in that order.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.