The Social Security Trust Fund is expected to start paying out more than it's taking in within the next few years. What options do you think should be explored to address the problem? Which is your favorite? Why?Congressman Wall Street answered:
The most important thing to remember is that anybody who is already retired or close to retirement has to get all the benefits they were promised without any changes whatsoever. When I was in the House, I co-sponsored legislation that would make it out of order for Congress to even consider legislation that would in any way cut the benefits of senior citizens. That's important. But anybody who takes an honest look at this system knows that in its current form it's not sustainable for future generations. That's why I've advocated that young workers get an opportunity in a reformed Social Security program to, if they choose, accumulate some savings as a way to provide a portion of their retirement benefit. I think this would be very helpful to young workers, and make the program sustainable for the future. [emphasis added.]He never gets around to explaining how those who are retired now will still "get all the benefits they were promised" while reducing the funds flowing into the system. Those funds would be the "accumulated" savings of those "young workers" he talked about. Never gets around to showing how this will help "sustain" Social Security in the future.
I've said it before. If it walks like a duck...
Pat Toomey, Social Security privatizer.
9 comments:
DAYVOE, PONZI SCHEME PROPONENT
@rich10e..
True. Very true.
Plus, types and amounts of payments being made out of SS today are nowhere near those that historically thought to be "SS" in the early years.. the program has expanded dramatically.. SS is no longer, nor has SS been for quite some time, a retirement-supplement. SS is now a welfare transfer scheme. It is highly unlikely I'll ever see much from SS and I've contributed at the max several years.. but that makes me "rich", I suppose... I'll experience a negative return on all the $$ stolen from me since I have no say. Oh, did I say, I'm rich? Right.
Dear Conservative Transfer of Wealth Nitwits -
Remove the cutoff for high wage earners (you know, those darling folks who fund the GOP?) and voila, the system nearly pays for itself!
And please stop it with this, "SS was never supposed to be..." BS. Humans were never supposed to fly or type with their thumbs, but we do it anyway. Life goes on. Things change. Shut up. Retrograde thinking might seem charming and so "constitutional," but the framers knew they had a fluid document for a fluid world -- which is why we're still OK these many years later. And we ain't going back!
By the way, I have yet to meet ONE conservative who is willing to forgo their SS benes. How 'bout you guys?
Tell you what. The conservative pols do have the polling right, though, 'cause a lot of the young people I know would be willing to risk their money in the market. For two reasons; a) they don't know any better since mommy-daddy had wiped their butts until they were into their 20's, and b) because they simply don't see the risk -- which is a pretty natural thing when you're 25. Ask them the same question when they're 45 and have just been bounced from another job is a corporate "downsizing."
And has to "having a say?" Posh. You have no saying in about 99 million things the government does every day with you tax dollars. But do I hear you whining about multi-billion dollar military expenditures? No. Pissing money down the Afghan rathole is OK. Spending in you your own citizens? Hell, that's socialism!
Can you tell I'm in a bad mood.....?
@Pittdown..
Trust me.. I NOT counting on SS. I may not enjoy as fruitful a retirement as I'd like, but that is a direct result of certain business and life decisions I've made.. you know.. the ones where one puts his *own* $$ on the line? .. like buying a Company?.. like starting another business on the side?.. Hmmm? Something you Liberals wouldn't understand... as you wait on your weekly paycheck or your monthly welfare payment.
Oh.. I'ver enjoyed my life so far, at age 55, traveled the World, and I still have plenty of time to do everything I want.. including, make $$. You see, I have a CPA and an MBA from a Top 10 school.. and a decent Rolodex.. I'm down a little now, but I'm far from being out. I'll never retire. I LIKE what I do. No, I LOVE what I do.
BTW, did you get to play 70 rounds of golf (so far) this year? I did.. and made good $$ in the meantime.
@Piltsman..
Oh, that 'lol ole 'pesky' Constitution.. sorta irks you Liberals, doesn't it?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Good.
CM, in your retirement, you are invited to live on what Social Security pays, and give away any savings you have to charity. Since apparently you think the government is giving people too much money (by the way, are you aware people do like getting Social Security, and vote for politicians who promise it will keep on coming?).
Suppose we had started this using Social Security funds for private investment during the Bush administration. What would have happened to all that money in 2007, when the market tanked (due to other actions of Phil Gramm and George Bush)?
I understand, as long as Obama's in the White House and the Democrats have majorities in Congress (even though Republicans are stopping the work of the Senate by abusing the rules) you will say anything to make the government look bad. You will proclaim yourself a financial expert (who intentionally distorts statistics) and then lie to all of us.
I do agree Social Security is in trouble, and needs to be fixed, or gotten rid of or something (some kind of modification). It's too bad that we don't have a full Congress to work on that. The Republicans have decided to turn into two year old's.
CM - First, no liberals run or own businesses? Who did Warren Buffet vote for again? But I guess he doesn't know much about making money.
And what the hell is wrong with working to earn a paycheck? I thought conservatives stood up for working Americans? Guess not.
And there's nothing unconstitutional about Social Security, but you sound like the Joe Miller type of conservative who thinks things like the minimum wage are unconstitutional.
Want a ponzi scheme, Rich? That would be Pat Toomey having us shell over SS money to Wall Street...and we know Wall Street is so very interested in taking care of our money (by care, I of course mean fleecing the nation's retirees Enron-style).
And Social Security is not in crisis. Try reading a SS trustees report sometime. That notion is pure conservative spin in their ongoing efforts to destroy the social safety, something a free market needs - along with robust regulation - to succeed.
Clowns like Rich and CM would have us return to the Gilded Age economics of the late 19th century with no industrial or workplace regulations, no minimum wage, etc.
The simple fact is that before Social Security and Medicare, the vast majority of the nation's seniors lived in poverty. I guess these guys would prefer to live in a country where the nation's elderly have to choose between heating their homes and which brand of cat food they eat each month.
The problem is 30 years of failed conservative economic policies which have transferred vast amounts of the nation's wealth to the richest among us. Even while the average Americans wages have declined over the last 30 years, the wealthiest have gone up even in this recession (we're all still waiting for that to trickle down) We've been financing tax cuts for the wealthy on the backs of the middle class with public debt, while simultaneously running up record deficits and the national debt (our national debt is by and large the product of the economically irresponsible policies of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, both of whom promised to govern as fiscal conservatives and then proceeded to do neither).
We're talking about a conservative mindset that thinks it's fiscally responsible to cut taxes while launching two wars. And what did those Bush tax cuts produce? Well, they certainly didn't stave off the Bush recession (brought about largely because of Bush's Ownership Society policies that inflated the housing market - these clowns also prefer Boom & Bust economic cycles it seems) or lead to robust economic/job growth (historically both GDP and job growth are statistically higher under Democratic administrations than under Republic administrations - you can look that up on your own, if you can spare time from working hard playing golf).
And who the fuck cares if you got to play 70 rounds of golf this year or not? Good for you. I'm sorry you measure life by such a hollow, meaningless metric as how many times you play golf. That certainly belies the notion that you work hard for your money.
As to your comment about the Constitution, CM, with regards to Piltdown Man's comment, the idea of originalism is conservative rubbish invented in the 1970's and 1980's. It's utter hogwash.
Liberals don't run companies? Are you marginally educable? Where in hell do you people come up with this kind of tripe?
Personally, not that it matters, but I've run two companies, worked for several and worked freelance. The entire gamut.
However, it does pain me that I didn't play 70 rounds of golf this year. Damn. My life is meaningless! I weep and keen for lost opportunities to rub elbows with the entitled white males who prowl the bunkers and greens of this world - those stalwart men of business who understand that golf, an exclusionary sport which still resents Blacks, Jews, Catholics and anyone else who isn't "one of them" is where the power really lies.
And who gives shit is you "like what you do?" I do to, but what does that have to do with SS?
And the "I'll never retire" comment is just too funny. People retire for many reasons. Health is right up there. For people who do more than just push a pencil around all day, 40+ years of working takes it's toll. I know that even the normal plumbing project around home is harder now than it used to be. I can't image what it must be like to be in your 50's and still doing that sort of work every day! Ditto lots of other professions.
And a lot of people don't get to decide to retire. Their magnanimous corporations decide for them; they slough off older works because they a) make higher salaries, and b) have opinions.
In fact, tens of thousands of near-retirement workers were tossed off during the Great Recession. It was great cover for companies to dump what they consider to be "dead wood."
Jay said: "And what the hell is wrong with working to earn a paycheck? I thought conservatives stood up for working Americans? Guess not."
I caught that too.
They only laud the Joe the Plumber for the rubes.
You only have to look at the policies they favor to know they have complete contempt for any Joe the Plumber unless he's Joe the Owner of a Chain of Plumbing Companies.
Post a Comment