McCain On Social Security

[bamacre]

If Social Security is a problem, then Medicare is a disaster. The coming Medicare problem is much worse than the coming SS problem.

 

[fskimospy]

Neither SS or Medicare is that big of a problem. Social Security simply needs to be updated for a changing demographic. When it was originally made, 65 was OLD... life expectancy was only 62 in 1940. Now it's 77 or so. As far as Medicare goes if you look at all these debts that are coming our way from it, (like 40 trillion over 75 years or something?) while it is certainly a problem it still only amounts to a small percentage of GDP. It's also tied to our health care system's larger problems that are obviously going to be addressed. (I sincerely doubt our health care system 50 years from now will look much like the one we have now)

 

[Xavier434]

For those who are against SS, what the hell do you want? All of you just sound like a bunch of greedy nut jobs that obviously have extremely little contact with the elderly that are very respectable people that led great lives and which rely on SS and Medicare or else they will be on the street. That and they would live much shorter lives because they would not be able to afford to get frequent health care. What exactly would putting a ton of people out on the street do to help this country?

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
For those who are against SS, what the hell do you want? All of you just sound like a bunch of greedy nut jobs that obviously have extremely little contact with the elderly that are very respectable people that led great lives and which rely on SS and Medicare or else they will be on the street. That or they would live much shorter lives because they would not be able to afford to get frequent health care. What exactly would putting a ton of people out on the street do to help this country?

How about a return of family values, where taking care of your parents is more important then, say, that new shiny sports car??

Yeah, that'd be a damn nice start!

Social Security has done nothing but allow the detachment and alienation of the elderly from the rest of their family.

My opinion.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Genx87
The avg lifespan of people when SS passed was about 60 years of age. That means on avg 50% of the population would never collect SS. Yet it was sold to people as a retirement safety net. Then you tack on the fact congress raids its surplus's every year to pay for things that have nothing to do with retirement. It is nothing but a giant scam.

The raiding of the suprplus is a scam. SS is not, it's an effective program that helps millions of seniors not be in poverty, while most seniors were in poverty before SS.

It is still a scam because there is no way it can sustain itself without sapping younger people's income. SS would be better off becoming a means tested welfare program than a blanket one size fits all social program.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
For those who are against SS, what the hell do you want? All of you just sound like a bunch of greedy nut jobs that obviously have extremely little contact with the elderly that are very respectable people that led great lives and which rely on SS and Medicare or else they will be on the street. That and they would live much shorter lives because they would not be able to afford to get frequent health care. What exactly would putting a ton of people out on the street do to help this country?

How about a Federal Thrift program for the rest of society, not just fed employee's and congress?

If not them means test the thing. If you have substantial wealth and income. You dont get SS. A friend of mine had one of his grandparents die. His grandfather got the checks from his grandmother as widower benefits. The man was worth tens of millions and was recieving a 4500 dollar a month check. Like wtf?

 

[Slew Foot]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: ericlp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: ericlp
The point here is he either misspoke or he clearly doesn't understand how SS works.

??? What exactly was incorrect with what he said?

What, can't figure it out?

I see we have a supporter right here. Don't worry PJ will be around soon enough to help you!


hahahaha


I but when bush does something really stupid you have a really hard time with that too huh?

??? What exactly was incorrect with what he said?

Dodging the question?

Dude, you honestly think the guy who thinks China's economy is growing at 1000% per year is going to have a clue to anything financial?

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Xavier434
For those who are against SS, what the hell do you want? All of you just sound like a bunch of greedy nut jobs that obviously have extremely little contact with the elderly that are very respectable people that led great lives and which rely on SS and Medicare or else they will be on the street. That or they would live much shorter lives because they would not be able to afford to get frequent health care. What exactly would putting a ton of people out on the street do to help this country?

How about a return of family values, where taking care of your parents is more important then, say, that new shiny sports car??

Yeah, that'd be a damn nice start!

Social Security has done nothing but allow the detachment and alienation of the elderly from the rest of their family.

My opinion.

Unfortunately, there are far too many families which cannot afford to take in the elderly in their family. Myself included. Most families in this situation are not what you visualize in terms of using a ton of money on luxuries. That does not mean that they can't contribute a little although even that is not possible for many families in lower income brackets that are barely scrapping by.

In my situation, SS is going to be my save and grace for my SO's mother. We are still going to be contributing some money on a monthly basis but SS will be most of it because we do not come close to being able to afford what is necessary. If SS didn't exist then I would not be able to afford to save up for my 5 year old's college, I would not be able to afford health care for any member of my family, and I would probably have to move into nasty neighborhood. I love my family and I will take care of them, but when I am faced with having to make the choice between my child's future and an elderly member of the family then I am going to choose my child. I believe that is the way it should be. If we removed SS, then the majority of families would be forced to make some very difficult decisions which would ultimately be worse for America over long periods of time. We need to be able to afford to educate our children for example and health care is very necessary.

Originally posted by: Genx87
How about a Federal Thrift program for the rest of society, not just fed employee's and congress?

If not them means test the thing. If you have substantial wealth and income. You dont get SS. A friend of mine had one of his grandparents die. His grandfather got the checks from his grandmother as widower benefits. The man was worth tens of millions and was recieving a 4500 dollar a month check. Like wtf?

I am not aware of what a Federal Thrift Program is and I would need to be very familiar with details when it comes to drawing an educated opinion about it. Other than that, all I can say in response is that just because I support the existence of SS doesn't mean that I believe there is no way to improve it. Your example regarding not funding the elderly who are very wealthy is a part of the system which could use revision.

 

[Genx87]

http://www.tsp.gov/

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Genx87
How about a Federal Thrift program for the rest of society, not just fed employee's and congress?

If not them means test the thing. If you have substantial wealth and income. You dont get SS. A friend of mine had one of his grandparents die. His grandfather got the checks from his grandmother as widower benefits. The man was worth tens of millions and was recieving a 4500 dollar a month check. Like wtf?

I am not aware of what a Federal Thrift Program is and I would need to be very familiar with details when it comes to drawing an educated opinion about it. Other than that, all I can say in response is that just because I support the existence of SS doesn't mean that I believe there is no way to improve it. Your example regarding not funding the elderly who are very wealthy is a part of the system which could use revision.

plan

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Genx87


If not them means test the thing. If you have substantial wealth and income. You dont get SS. A friend of mine had one of his grandparents die. His grandfather got the checks from his grandmother as widower benefits. The man was worth tens of millions and was recieving a 4500 dollar a month check. Like wtf?

I understand what you are saying and agree with it but that's no different than those that want to change the cutoff point of collecting SS taxes from the current ~$100,000 or so to unlimited, even though those that now pay well past the $100,000 mark with get no more SS than they would have previously. Of course, one could say that collecting more taxes is worse than not paying the wealthy. One could also say that SS would then be somewhat more of a safety net if there was a means test. I don't know how to fix it...just rambling.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Unfortunately, there are far too many families which cannot afford to take in the elderly in their family. Myself included. Most families in this situation are not what you visualize in terms of using a ton of money on luxuries. That does not mean that they can't contribute a little although even that is not possible for many families in lower income brackets that are barely scrapping by.

In my situation, SS is going to be my save and grace for my SO's mother. We are still going to be contributing some money on a monthly basis but SS will be most of it because we do not come close to being able to afford what is necessary. If SS didn't exist then I would not be able to afford to save up for my 5 year old's college, I would not be able to afford health care for any member of my family, and I would probably have to move into nasty neighborhood. I love my family and I will take care of them, but when I am faced with having to make the choice between my child's future and an elderly member of the family then I am going to choose my child. I believe that is the way it should be. If we removed SS, then the majority of families would be forced to make some very difficult decisions which would ultimately be worse for America over long periods of time. We need to be able to afford to educate our children for example and health care is very necessary.

Theres always ways. You said yourself about saving for your sons college. Why do you assume he will need you to pay for it? If he does well in school it will be paid for him through grants and scholarships. One could argue the reason our kids have to drive to perform in school is because there is no negative associated with it. I know people who were flat out told if they wanted to go to college they would have to bust ass in high school to get grants and scholarships, or get loans on their own.

You assume its one or the other, either your elderly or your children. Thats a rather limited way to look at it. I see a hell of a lot of people with big screens, new cars, big houses and fast boats that frankly have no concern about the financial well being of their parents. And theres no reason too either. Why bother? Who gives a shit about those old boring people, let it be someone elses problems. I want a new truck! And a boat to put behind it!

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Xavier434
For those who are against SS, what the hell do you want? All of you just sound like a bunch of greedy nut jobs that obviously have extremely little contact with the elderly that are very respectable people that led great lives and which rely on SS and Medicare or else they will be on the street. That and they would live much shorter lives because they would not be able to afford to get frequent health care. What exactly would putting a ton of people out on the street do to help this country?

How about a Federal Thrift program for the rest of society, not just fed employee's and congress?

If not them means test the thing. If you have substantial wealth and income. You dont get SS. A friend of mine had one of his grandparents die. His grandfather got the checks from his grandmother as widower benefits. The man was worth tens of millions and was recieving a 4500 dollar a month check. Like wtf?

Ah, so lets simply make it a wealth redistribution program like welfare where those of us who are responsible and motivated pay for the retirement of those who are not?

Excuse me if I say FUCK THAT.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Slew Foot

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

It'd also be "solvent" if it wasn't a scam. The whole idea of paying old people for being old is flawed anyway so it's no wonder it isn't solvent.

Unless you can back that up with any credible links, your whole premise is based on fluff. Social Security would be solvent with a surplus if Congress hadn't "borrowed" the money already mandated by law to squander elsewhere.

An illegal war costing trillions and tax cuts for the very wealthy come to mind. :roll:

You mean the congress full of Democrats with a 9% approval rating?

Har, har, har. So funny. Reality is the (R)'s were in control when the war started and up until the last 18 months. Even now the 'congress full of Democrats' you speak of is still ~ 50% (R)'s. Nice try though. :roll:

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Neither SS or Medicare is that big of a problem. Social Security simply needs to be updated for a changing demographic. When it was originally made, 65 was OLD... life expectancy was only 62 in 1940. Now it's 77 or so. As far as Medicare goes if you look at all these debts that are coming our way from it, (like 40 trillion over 75 years or something?) while it is certainly a problem it still only amounts to a small percentage of GDP. It's also tied to our health care system's larger problems that are obviously going to be addressed. (I sincerely doubt our health care system 50 years from now will look much like the one we have now)

They aren't a problem?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Xavier434
For those who are against SS, what the hell do you want? All of you just sound like a bunch of greedy nut jobs that obviously have extremely little contact with the elderly that are very respectable people that led great lives and which rely on SS and Medicare or else they will be on the street. That and they would live much shorter lives because they would not be able to afford to get frequent health care. What exactly would putting a ton of people out on the street do to help this country?

How about a Federal Thrift program for the rest of society, not just fed employee's and congress?

If not them means test the thing. If you have substantial wealth and income. You dont get SS. A friend of mine had one of his grandparents die. His grandfather got the checks from his grandmother as widower benefits. The man was worth tens of millions and was recieving a 4500 dollar a month check. Like wtf?

Ah, so lets simply make it a wealth redistribution program like welfare where those of us who are responsible and motivated pay for the retirement of those who are not?

Excuse me if I say FUCK THAT.

That's really all it is right now - a wealth redistribution program but the only catch is you have to be old(or a couple other scenarios). It makes no sense to call it SSI when it is just a check handed to old people.
Sound calloused? Yup, but sometimes the truth hurts and is blunt. Do I hate old people? Nope. Do I want them to "starve" - nope. IMO, if we are going to attempt to have the "old" not live in poverty then we need to scrap SS so people can save and control their own retirement but yet provide the same "safety net" the rest of the people get when you get old and have nothing saved. It's quite simple really and isn't that big of change from the current system except means testing and the whole tax collection part.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Xavier434
For those who are against SS, what the hell do you want? All of you just sound like a bunch of greedy nut jobs that obviously have extremely little contact with the elderly that are very respectable people that led great lives and which rely on SS and Medicare or else they will be on the street. That and they would live much shorter lives because they would not be able to afford to get frequent health care. What exactly would putting a ton of people out on the street do to help this country?

How about a Federal Thrift program for the rest of society, not just fed employee's and congress?

If not them means test the thing. If you have substantial wealth and income. You dont get SS. A friend of mine had one of his grandparents die. His grandfather got the checks from his grandmother as widower benefits. The man was worth tens of millions and was recieving a 4500 dollar a month check. Like wtf?

Ah, so lets simply make it a wealth redistribution program like welfare where those of us who are responsible and motivated pay for the retirement of those who are not?

Excuse me if I say FUCK THAT.

Somebody is going to get fucked, why not you?

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Xavier434

I am not aware of what a Federal Thrift Program is and I would need to be very familiar with details when it comes to drawing an educated opinion about it. Other than that, all I can say in response is that just because I support the existence of SS doesn't mean that I believe there is no way to improve it. Your example regarding not funding the elderly who are very wealthy is a part of the system which could use revision.

plan

I read it, but I am having trouble grasping the advantage of using it over SS. Mostly, I just want to know one thing. What will the difference be by using a TSP like system instead of SS for those elderly who lived their lives in lower income brackets and currently do not have any money to support themselves and their children do not have any money either?

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Theres always ways. You said yourself about saving for your sons college. Why do you assume he will need you to pay for it? If he does well in school it will be paid for him through grants and scholarships. One could argue the reason our kids have to drive to perform in school is because there is no negative associated with it. I know people who were flat out told if they wanted to go to college they would have to bust ass in high school to get grants and scholarships, or get loans on their own.

You assume its one or the other, either your elderly or your children. Thats a rather limited way to look at it. I see a hell of a lot of people with big screens, new cars, big houses and fast boats that frankly have no concern about the financial well being of their parents. And theres no reason too either. Why bother? Who gives a shit about those old boring people, let it be someone elses problems. I want a new truck! And a boat to put behind it!

You ask why I assume I will need to pay for my son's college. The answer is because I feel that as a parent it is my responsibility to provide a secure future for my kids. I cannot predict the future. Therefore saving or not saving for the future is always based upon an assumption. Given my choices, I can assume that he will not have enough money for college and save for it or I can assume that he will and not save for it. One contains a risk to my son's future. The other does not. One is doing what I believe is responsible. One is not. Also, understand that while I am saving for his school, I am not saving for all of it. I fully expect him to "bust his ass" in high school and take loans if necessary to make up for any funds that he does not get covered by financial aide or the savings which I will provide. In that sense, I am expecting him to meet me half way if not more.

The bottom line is this right here. We keep SS and medicare or we put a ton of Americans in an extremely intense financial burden that will directly impact the lives and futures of the children in many families. For many, it will even put them into poverty where they up needing financial assistance to live through other entitlement programs or else they will not survive. That's it. Beyond that, the only other thing we can do is revise SS and medicare to make it more efficient or we can replace it with a system that is just as fair and just as available to those who cannot afford to live without it as it is currently.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Xavier434
For those who are against SS, what the hell do you want? All of you just sound like a bunch of greedy nut jobs that obviously have extremely little contact with the elderly that are very respectable people that led great lives and which rely on SS and Medicare or else they will be on the street. That and they would live much shorter lives because they would not be able to afford to get frequent health care. What exactly would putting a ton of people out on the street do to help this country?

How about a Federal Thrift program for the rest of society, not just fed employee's and congress?

If not them means test the thing. If you have substantial wealth and income. You dont get SS. A friend of mine had one of his grandparents die. His grandfather got the checks from his grandmother as widower benefits. The man was worth tens of millions and was recieving a 4500 dollar a month check. Like wtf?

Ah, so lets simply make it a wealth redistribution program like welfare where those of us who are responsible and motivated pay for the retirement of those who are not?

Excuse me if I say FUCK THAT.

I guess the point of SS is a safety net is it not? Why would somebody worth millions need a 4500 dollar a month check just because? All welfare is wealth redistribution be it personal or corporate. And anybody who is dumb enough to not save for retirement and live off SS gets what they deserve. Living at or below the poverty rate. Which is all SS can and will ever be able to afford. The other option will consume an ever growing rate of everybody's paycheck.

What is more fair in this deal. Means testing and cutting out the size of SS, or staying on the current one size fits all model that will require young people to pay more and more of their income to fund this monster?

 

[Genx87]

I read it, but I am having trouble grasping the advantage of using it over SS. Mostly, I just want to know one thing. What will the difference be by using a TSP like system instead of SS for those elderly who lived their lives in lower income brackets and currently do not have any money to support themselves and their children do not have any money either?

The biggest is the money in those funds is privately held. The govt cant touch it and we the tax payer dont have to pay for its withdrawl. Secondly it has a higher rate of return than SS. Somebody who can gain 8-10% a year in a 401K program will live a very nice life compared to somebody relying on SS.

Imagine if the majority of the country has a TSP instead of SS and the rest of the people used a welfare like system. Overnight we could cut liabilities of SS and make it sustainable due to a much lower population using it.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Genx87

I read it, but I am having trouble grasping the advantage of using it over SS. Mostly, I just want to know one thing. What will the difference be by using a TSP like system instead of SS for those elderly who lived their lives in lower income brackets and currently do not have any money to support themselves and their children do not have any money either?

The biggest is the money in those funds is privately held. The govt cant touch it and we the tax payer dont have to pay for its withdrawl. Secondly it has a higher rate of return than SS. Somebody who can gain 8-10% a year in a 401K program will live a very nice life compared to somebody relying on SS.

Imagine if the majority of the country has a TSP instead of SS and the rest of the people used a welfare like system. Overnight we could cut liabilities of SS and make it sustainable due to a much lower population using it.

It definitely sounds wonderful when you put it like that. I imagine there is a bit more of a catch, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if it turns out to be a better system regardless especially when considering how much more of a return it most likely makes over the course of many years.

I am still interested in hearing about any catches or other important details from other knowledgeable posters if you are willing to share your thoughts.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Neither SS or Medicare is that big of a problem. Social Security simply needs to be updated for a changing demographic. When it was originally made, 65 was OLD... life expectancy was only 62 in 1940. Now it's 77 or so. As far as Medicare goes if you look at all these debts that are coming our way from it, (like 40 trillion over 75 years or something?) while it is certainly a problem it still only amounts to a small percentage of GDP. It's also tied to our health care system's larger problems that are obviously going to be addressed. (I sincerely doubt our health care system 50 years from now will look much like the one we have now)

So those people that retire now at 60+ and don't draw SS till 65 (to get a higher check amount) by using what savings they had (since about no one now offers a pension) just have to learn that they need to work 5 or more years. That's a great slogan. Work till you die and SS will fix itself!

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Neither SS or Medicare is that big of a problem. Social Security simply needs to be updated for a changing demographic. When it was originally made, 65 was OLD... life expectancy was only 62 in 1940. Now it's 77 or so. As far as Medicare goes if you look at all these debts that are coming our way from it, (like 40 trillion over 75 years or something?) while it is certainly a problem it still only amounts to a small percentage of GDP. It's also tied to our health care system's larger problems that are obviously going to be addressed. (I sincerely doubt our health care system 50 years from now will look much like the one we have now)

So those people that retire now at 60+ and don't draw SS till 65 (to get a higher check amount) by using what savings they had (since about no one now offers a pension) just have to learn that they need to work 5 or more years. That's a great slogan. Work till you die and SS will fix itself!

With longer life expectancy is it unreasonable to expect people to work into their 70s now?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: loki8481
clearly the answer is soylent green, starting with McCain himself.

Hey, I wouldn't even vote for the guy, much less want to eat him.

Not even with some favre beans and nice chiante? :evil:

Not even while listening to Harvey's "Who is Eating Me Eating You Eating Me" song.

LMFAO!

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I guess the point of SS is a safety net is it not? Why would somebody worth millions need a 4500 dollar a month check just because? All welfare is wealth redistribution be it personal or corporate. And anybody who is dumb enough to not save for retirement and live off SS gets what they deserve. Living at or below the poverty rate. Which is all SS can and will ever be able to afford. The other option will consume an ever growing rate of everybody's paycheck.

What is more fair in this deal. Means testing and cutting out the size of SS, or staying on the current one size fits all model that will require young people to pay more and more of their income to fund this monster?

I have no problem with wealthy being exempt.

But only if you have a choice to exempt yourself from the deductions. The idea is I pay in now to provide someone elses retirement and someone else pays in later to pay for mine. Lets make it a bit more personal. I pay in now to fund my retirement later. You know....Lets privatize it.....

Otherwise it becomes nothing more then wealth redistribution by taking money from well to do people and giving it to those who are not.