Replies

Well, it’s a tough nut. But I don’t think I’d push for gifting or employer funding or any mandates whatsoever. Wouldn’t pass constitutional muster.

I understand the aprehension, and utimately you may be right. My thought is that employers are already matching funds. This would not increase their outlay. In time it may be found we can actually reduce what they are paying now.

If Constitutional muster covers what is being done now (and I think we can agree it doesn't), then this change could probably be graced in as well. In time, it may be found we can take the employer out of it completely. That would be the goal. Gettig them out of the health insurance provision business would be good too.

As for gifting, it's merely a way for people to get their major deductable up front. As this system became functional, say three to five years out, the government would no longer provide the $10,000. It would come from the massive body of savings people were building. A payback to the fund would be with interest, and help sustain growth for participants. So initially, the government would provide funds to be paid back in 3 to 5 years, and then that funding would switch out in very few years, so the government would no longer be involved at all.

But it’d be really tough to leave seniors stranded at this point.

The plan would have be to structured so current Seniors would be unaffected. Seniors start dropping off the system the very first year they retire. Some of them do. Each year more do. By the end of twenty years, you're looking at people who are 85 years old. A considerable number of seniors would have passed on by them, probably more than half. In another ten years almost all seniors on the old plan would have passed on. Most certainly only a very few would still be around by age 105, 40 years after retirement. We may see one generation pay into the system in two different ways, but even then their savings and retirement would be better than it would have been under the old system. I believe, if structured right, it could be a win/win even then.

There would have to be a graded scale set up, so new employees would pay less and less into the old plan to support retirees. For one thing, the funds going in would start to accumulate interest. That's not something that is happening today. If handled right, a building fund might actually be able to take care of the whole old system in as little as 20 to 30 years. I do agree, current seniors need to be supported as they were promised they would be. That's a contract we should honor.

Need to find a way to retrieve what was stolen from the people and return it to them while phasing it out altogether.

My take on this, is that when a good business person comes along and gets our people back to work, increasing funds are going to cure a multitude of ills. I take a very dim view of endless welfare. We need to make a special address to the American people, and explain that welfare as we know it is ending. We will no longer provide welfare to people for long periods of time. They either have SS disability, or they get back to work. In the rare instance where people do have disabilities and can't work, then there would of course have to be a very cut down version of Welfare. It would be only a hint of what it is today.

Over 24 to 36 months, I would cut the welfare benefits by a few percentage points until at the end of the allotted time, all payments would stop.

I would also through tax incentives get businesses to employ U. S. Citizens. I believe if handled right, a full economy floats all boats.

It's hard to explain all this in a short time frame. An expanded version might alleviate a lot of your concerns or objections.

But none of that will make it through congress.

Isn't that the truth. It would have to.