Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Superbelt
The number of people who decide to go for the new plan will force everyone else to pull out of the Social Security network as well. Why? Because there will be no more solvency, the people who are left will be unsustainable (as the richest americans who pay around 88k for the system will definetley pull out) It will be foolish to try and stay there and just wait for it to permanently crash.
|
This is a minor problem related to SS. Sure it sounds like something to be concerned about, but the real problem(s) are much worse. If there isn't SS anymore, why would you worry about this. Look at the ratios related to SS (payor to payee), compare them as the ratio gradually sinks to an almost 1:1 through the decades. We are getting close to single digit ratios, what then? Who's gonna bitch when SS ratios are sitting at 5:1?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Superbelt
The real problem is Bush trying to turn SS into something it's not.
|
Nope, wrong here.
SS has already become something it is not. The SS we have today is nothing like the SS drafted in 1935.
I realize the need to blame everything on Bush, but this ins't the case. In his situation, he loses either way. The system is going down, hard. How many more times are we going to try and saddle him with the responsibility of a problem he inherited. Why aren't we bitching about Clinton's "balancing" of the books that used up a good portion of SS funds. Why aren't we bitching about the fact that Congress thinks SS guarantees them a blank check as long as they "promise" to pay SS back.
No, sir, SS is in trouble. Not "straighten it out" trouble, but "we're gonna have to find a different way of doing this to fix it" kind of trouble.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Superbelt
The absolute stability and assurance of SS payments is supposed to be 1/3 of your retirement. Personal investment is another 1/3 and your company retiremet plan is the other 1/3.
Only SS's 1/3 is guaranteed. Bush's plan will make sure none of it is.
|
First, maybe this sounds like the way it is supposed to be or should be, but this is strictly opinion. There is no "supposed to be" that can be atributed to this statement.
Plus, see above about ratios. The stability just isn't there.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Superbelt
The whole reason behind SS is as a safety net to make sure something like the Depression wiping out everyones retirement security can't happen again.
|
Again, the "whole reason behind SS" is nothing like the real reason SS was created.
Was SS supposed to cover families? No.
Was SS supposed to cover wives when the husband died? No
Was SS supposed to cover death? No
etc., etc., etc.
SS was also not started as an entitlement program. SS was also started with a ratio much higher than what we have now. When SS was created, not only did they not think about it being an entitlement program, they didn't think it would be permanent and they didn't expect to have the kind of life expectancies we have today.
You can't assume that something that was created for the situation in 1935 could be relevant, applicable or doable in 2005.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Superbelt
Also, doesn't anyone else want to tear their hair out at Bush's proposal to borrow 2 trillion dollars to pay for the transition of this? BORROW, not raise the money.
|
This I don't like as well.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Superbelt
The money is going to have to be paid eventually anyway, why put it off for decades, only to see it become an even more gargantuan hurdle for me and my children to pay for? Why does Bush appear to have no more financial responsibility than a college freshman who just signed up for six new credit cards?
|
Because something has to be done and it is going to cost money. We are all going to pay for it one way or another.