Posted on 01/06/2012 6:38:10 PM PST by DJ MacWoW
KEENE, N.H. (AP) - Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum called Friday for immediate cuts to Social Security benefits, risking the wrath of older voters and countless others who balk at changes to the entitlement program.
"We can't wait 10 years," even though "everybody wants to," Santorum told a crowd while campaigning in New Hampshire and looking to set himself apart from his Republican rivals four days before the New Hampshire primary.
Most of his opponents have advocated phasing in a reduction and say immediate cuts would be too big a shock to current and soon-to-be retirees.
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.myway.com ...
I wanted my mother to live with my family. She wanted o live alone. She was so stubborn and had this independence streak till the day she died.
Gawd, are you in denial or what? Do you forget the phrase about Social Security being the third rail of politics, as in touch it and you die?
Are you SERIOUSLY trying to make the point that those in the system did not vote for politicians who kept increasing their bennies well past what was paid in, and with the help of AARP and the Dems created a voting block that prevented meaningful reforms time and time again? Are you SERIOUSLY trying to pretend otherwise?
And then you have the nerve to say I am making a marxist statement?
Woof. This really is the Bad Spock version of FR.
You didn’t answer the question.
Your question is too asinine to answer, especially since you are denying the role seniors have played in blocking entitlement reform. Toodles.
Joe was born in 1936 and is now 75 years old and started working for Acme in 1956 at age 20. He retired in 2002 at age 66. In 1956 his annual salary was $15,000 and it increased by 2% each and every year (Joe wasn’t exactly a go getter but a 2% raise each and every year isn’t too bad) and Joe was never unemployed but didn’t have any bonuses or other income, so when Joe retired he was making $37,299.17.
Using the actual SS and Medicare withholding rates and the maximum wage withholding limits for the years Joe worked, I estimated that Joe would have had $62,770.74 withheld from his paychecks from the year 1956 through the year 2002. With Acme’s match, the total contributed was $125,541.48. Using the benefits estimator from the SSA website, I came up with an approximate monthly benefit of $1,639.00 or $19,668.00 per year; this amount is not adjusted for any credits or for deductions of Medicare premiums. Assuming Joe started collecting SS at age 66 in 2003 and continued to collect the same monthly benefit through 2011, he would have collected $177,012.00 a deficit of $51,470.52 or $5,718.95 per year, meaning that some younger person currently working is putting roughly $5,800 of their yearly contribution just to fund Joe’s monthly SS benefits.
This down and dirty calculation of course as I mentioned above does not consider Medicare, neither the premiums deducted from his monthly SS benefit and COLA increases nor the actual cost of any Medicare benefits that might have paid out, which could be considerably higher than any premiums deducted if Joe had an major health issues.
I should be obvious fairly obvious why the system is unsustainable. And this does not even take into consideration survivor benefits or SSI payments or fraudulent claims or inflation or rising medical costs or interest on the nation debt…..
If I devised a private retirement investment scheme like this, I’d be put in jail.
THANK YOU!!!
“You didn’t answer the question.”
Still waiting for you to answer mine. Please specify how to ensure SS solvency without bankrupting this country. Raise taxes? Cut benefits? A mixture of both?
“some younger person currently working is putting roughly $5,800 of their yearly contribution just to fund Joe’s monthly SS benefits.”
Excellent post. The greediest around here will casually overlook it and continue to whine about “promises” while robbing others. Its rather pitiful to watch dependency.
And I'm not running for office.
I will not answer you again.
One thing we can do is to revert back to the thing that Social Security was intended for - retirement income. Nearly 30% of Social Security recipients are below retirement age. Today, we have people drawing social security for things like ADD. This has got to stop.
And while screaming, “It’s my own money that I put in and I deserve to get it back!” they often fail to consider that their employer put in (were forced to put in) 50% of that money. They are happy to put their hand in not only younger worker’s pockets but the pockets of their employers as well.
Also many SS recipients fail to realize that for one thing, SS was originally meant to be only a “supplement” to retirement savings and a failsafe for only the neediest, not something that the average retiree was expected to live off of. Secondly, if instead of the government confiscating their and their employer’s money, they instead invested that money (even only their share), that over the years, even in the most conservative investments with modest but steady returns, they’d have more than enough they’d ever need to live comfortably in retirement with enough left over to pay for their medical care.
I’d like to see the entire system dismantled and privatized but I readily admit I don’t know how that would work without gradually lowering benefits, raising retirement ages, gradually lowering SS and Medicare deductions and perhaps mandating participation in some sort of private retirement fund….
I’m not advocating pulling the rug out from people nearing retirement age but the cold hard reality is that for me, at age 50, I have little expectation of collecting any SS or in any amount to keep me fed and housed. I’m maximizing my 401k contributions and taking advantage of my employer’s generous match – 100% up to the 1st 3% and 50% up to 6%, and fully contributed and vested with each paycheck. I would very much like to take some if not all of my current SS and Medicare withholding and put it into my 401k plan or use part of it to pay for private LTC insurance.
And being a payroll and HR professional, I’m amazed at how many people do not contribute to their employer’s 401K plan. The company I work for automatically enrolls all employees working 30 or more hours per week at 3%. If an employee wants to opt out, they have to do so and sign a waiver of benefits agreement. (We do the same for our medical plan too).
ROTFLMAO! What? That idiotic canard that “cutting waste” will save the day? Once AGAIN, such amounts are drops in the bucket and is not a serious solution.
Good riddance to you sir.
Hum, no. Social Security was originally intended to be a supplement to an individual’s retirement nest egg, a something to fall back on in the event of some sort of catastrophic loss of that nest egg.
Nearly 30% of Social Security recipients are below retirement age. Today, we have people drawing social security for things like ADD. This has got to stop.
Agreed but even absent SSI payments, the system would still be insolvent (see my post 482 – the math doesn’t work).
And you make a rather poor argument by saying that socialistic social programs and private personal and business wealth confiscation schemes are OK when it comes to seniors but not OK for those who are not seniors. And I can’t say how many people with ADD are getting SSI payments but my understanding that SSI is not that easy to get, although I’m sure there are more than a few getting it who don’t deserve it and more than a few who probably have a legitimate case who can’t get it.
Perhaps rather than arguing over who is more deserving, we all need to suck it up and realize that the system is unsustainable and it all needs to stop.
“With Acme’s match, the total contributed was $125,541.48.”
Did you include a reasonable return on his investment in this calculation? Perhaps the bond rate just to keep up with inflation? Just asking... Seems to me that with interest his nest egg would have tripled with compound interest.
Obama was voted in too. Do you deserve the results?
Welcome to the human condition FRiend!
Do you think everyone in Germany in the 1930’s wanted National Socialism? I doubt it. They suffered the consequences just as we are going to suffer the inevitable reality of a culture that lives far beyond it’s means and trusts in an out of control government to care for us.
Cradle to grave, right?
The founding fathers warned each generation to be vigilant against expanding government. They failed and we are failing.
I believe it is my responsibility to plan and save for my own retirement. I believe it is my responsibility to take care of my parents, not yours. Luckily, my parents felt the same way so they saved enough that they will never be a burden on me. If they had not, I would still care for them. If I did not save enough or plan for retirement the constitution does not say that I am entitled to my own house, electricity, telephone, cable, internet, water, and sewage for one person or two. If I can’t afford it than I should find roommates or move in with family. That is more sensible to me than trying to maintain a residence on a check that does not go far enough. My grandmother is doing this now and it is frustrating to watch! I help pay for her lifestyle of sitting alone in a 3 bedroom home watching television...... the American dream I suppose.
That is the America our constitution provided for... not the socialist nation we inherited and will obviously leave for our children and grandchildren.
Did you include a reasonable return on his investment in this calculation? Perhaps the bond rate just to keep up with inflation? Just asking... Seems to me that with interest his nest egg would have tripled with compound interest.
What ROI? I’m talking about the SS & Medicare withholding and the employer match. If the government actually took even some of that money and invested it, even in bonds to keep up with the rate inflation they’d be doing at least something good. The government doesn’t invest that money, it’s not even put into a “lockbox”; they spend it and give you a big fat worthless IOW. The government doesn’t pay you any interest on the SS & Medicare withheld from your paycheck.
Now if the employee was allowed to privately and wisely and conservatively invest that money, the ROI would be substantial. Not to mention they could pass any of their investment not spent during their retirement on to their heirs.
So Santorum is right here - he is not saying cut the benefits to those on fixed incomes on SS - but instead to cut it to those who can absorb a cut. Because as a poster noted, those who retired in 1990 or so got back what they paid in within a couple of years. If they are 86 now, it means they have gotten a 10-1 payout. That is an entitlement.
This is correct. However, I have a bone to pick with some on this thread who suggests that “rich” people don’t get what they paid into it because they don’t need it and in the next breath tell us that they paid into the system. You can’t have it both ways.... if the rich person loses out on the promise how is it morally superior for you to draw far beyond what you put in because it was promised to you? Logically, if each person does not receive a return that is equal to their contributions it is no better than welfare.
Social security for most Americans is a wealth redistribution scheme that counts on more workers putting more money into the system each year with good returns on investmests that don’t exist. The government spent it all and another 16 trillion to boot.
With that harsh criticism here is my pledge. If they will abolish the system by phasing it out of existence I will not only accept that all of my contributions are lost but I would continue to pay into the system until my parents selfish generation passes on. I would do that for my children. It probably won’t work though because I am confident my generation will be just as selfish.
However, the reality is that this government borrows almost half of each dollar they take in (including social security) and they are addicted to that guaranteed money rolling in. They can’t even cut an insignificant amount of the budget..... they are going to collapse the system.
The frustrated part of me almost welcomes it for the opportunity to build it back for my kids. I am prepared and spend my money doing that instead of enjoying endless luxuries that don’t mean anything. I pray for those that believe this government because all those promises won’t fill your belly or heat your home.
“Don’t cut SS, cut GOVERNMENT.”
What do you think Social Security is?
There could have been. If they had bought gold and foreign bonds. But they didn’t. They filled it with IOU’s and spent the money.
Perhaps rather than arguing over who is more deserving, we all need to suck it up and realize that the system is unsustainable and it all needs to stop.
Amen. Unfortunately, there are countless “conservatives” on this very thread who forcefully state that the government must honor the promises it made to them but they want others who saved more or have more to lose the promise.
The Tea Party recognized that our path was not sustainable and they rose up for one election and elected a GOP majority in the house. Nothing has changed and we are spending more than ever. It’s hopeless.... the GOP had the ability to block the spending and has not done it. Looking at this thread, I am confident that they would have been voted out in the next election anyhow.
We face either hyperinflation or insolvancy. Either scenario and the social security check some of you want to take from the pocket of my kids won’t be worth a thing. I hope everyone who reads this is prepared. I am.
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.