Obama claims GOP trying to destroy Social Security

[Slew Foot]

Math fail? Isn't life expectancy 75 or so?

For all people. The life expectancy of someone already 65 years old is well into the 80s.

 

[bl4ckfl4g]

For all people. The life expectancy of someone already 65 years old is well into the 80s.

Ok yeah that makes sense but wouldn't it need to be 95 for them to get paid ss for 30 years under normal retirement age conditions?

 

[Budmantom]

Screw the GOP, obama should just get Bernie Madoff on his staff and social security will be fine.

Where do you think Bernie got his idea?

 

[Budmantom]

The issue is simple really. Over the years the government has borrowed $2.5 trillion from social security, and now many are starting to worry that the bill is coming due. To that end Republicans want to "reform" social security, which is really just their way of saying that they have no intend of ever paying the money back. Instead they want to raise the retirement age or lower benefits.

If the democrats have any political savy at all they'll exploit this opening, since social security is extremely popular in the general population, and several republicans are already on the record saying they want to cut it. Obama's comment could be just the first step in that direction.

The government "borrowed" $2.5 trillion that they can't pay back...... BRILLIANT!!!!

Bernie did the same, the difference between Berrin the the government is that Bernies clients didn't have to participate.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Screw letting the GOP invest my money in the stock market. Stop taking it out of my check altogether and let me invest it myself.

 

[Budmantom]

What are the chances that our government can't payback the trillions of dollars it owes.....

 

[her209]

Screw letting the GOP invest my money in the stock market. Stop taking it out of my check altogether and let me invest it myself.

And what happens if you lose it all like in the case of Enron...?

 

[Hacp]

And what happens if you lose it all like in the case of Enron...?

Then you shouldn't have been investing to begin with. You invest in stocks with the knowledge that you can lose everything in a mere second. Decide on an amount that if it goes away tomorrow, you won't be devastated by. Invest that amount and nothing more.

 

[her209]

Then you shouldn't have been investing to begin with. You invest in stocks with the knowledge that you can lose everything in a mere second. Decide on an amount that if it goes away tomorrow, you won't be devastated by. Invest that amount and nothing more.

Still didn't answer the question.

 

[Hacp]

500 years ago, you just died when your heart stopped. Now, it's possible to restart your heart, and it's possible to switch some of the tubes around (this is what a bypass is). We also have artificial hearts that are used for a few hours at a time while doing surgery. In the future, these artificial hearts could be made portable and run on batteries, similar to a pacemaker.

Newsflash. We're already in the age of artificial hearts.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2090328

Its almost impossible for people to die now unless they have cancer.

 

[Hacp]

Still didn't answer the question.

You lose it, you lose it?

 

[bamacre]

And what happens if you lose it all like in the case of Enron...?

Then you're on par with what government would have done. And then, at least it's only you, and a handful of others, but certainly not everyone.

 

[Ronstang]

While I would love for schools to teach personal finance and fiscal responsibility, if you leave it up to only the individual to save for his or her retirement, there will be massive fail in the future, period.

Most recent retirement savings amounts by ages...

Quote:
So where do we find the average retirement savings by age? We are forced to rely on the internet. Unfortunately, with the recent stock market crash, writing about nest eggs and average retirement savings hasn’t been very popular. To get data, we turn to the Employee Benefit Research Institute’s latest report on Individual Account Retirement Plans (August 2009).

The EBRI’s report has a ton of detailed information on almost everything you might want to know about retirement savings and participation, from defined contribution plans to IRAs. For the purposes of our comparisons, I’ll just look at the age breakdown (2007 figures adjusted to 2009):

* < 35: $6,306
* 35 – 44: $22,460
* 45 – 54: $43,797
* 55 – 64: $69,127
* 65 – 75: $56,212
* 75+: (sample size insufficient)
Awesome amounts we have there. I wonder, since those are 2007 figures, if the amount has actually went down considering the crash of 2007-2009.

Those are nice numbers. Does anyone ever take into account what they would look like if everyone knew there was no government mandated retirement plan that everyone is FORCED to participate in? People plan their retirement using SS as a base and adding to it themselves. They don't have a choice. Look at all their money that is stolen from them by the government for their own retirement. If people invested the money they pay in FICA taxes in the most conservative investments possible over their working career they would have more money at retirement.

That being said those numbers are truly dismal. I have more than most people have in retirement accounts at age 65-75 in just one of my checking accounts. Then again I have always known that the government is going to fuck everything up and in 20 or so years we are all going to be left holding an empty bag.

 

[Fingolfin269]

And what happens if you lose it all like in the case of Enron...?

Who cares? I don't intend to rely on social security for retirement which is why I'd rather just have the money now to do with what I wish.

 

[theeedude]

Obama just stating the obvious, if you want your Social Security, don't vote Republican.

 

[charrison]

Obama just stating the obvious, if you want your Social Security, don't vote Republican.

IF you are younger than 40, it does not matter which party you vote for, you are going to get screwed on SS.

The current system is not sustainable. Demographics have radically changed since this program has started and it is headed for a trainwreck.

 

[bamacre]

SS is not nearly the problem Medicare is. That's what we aught to be talking about.

 

[First]

Americans are horrible at saving, the average American savings is something sad like $10,000 by retirement, something crazy bad like that. Without Social Security they'd quite literally be living day-to-day and/or have to go back to work, which is only an option for particularly healthy 65+ year olds. Given that SS has been solvent going on 7 decades and can easily be solvent again another 70+ years by repurchasing bonds, campaigning against it is both stupid and political suicide.

 

[drebo]

Americans are horrible at saving, the average American savings is something sad like $10,000 by retirement, something crazy bad like that. Without Social Security they'd quite literally be living day-to-day and/or have to go back to work, which is only an option for particularly healthy 65+ year olds. Given that SS has been solvent going on 7 decades and can easily be solvent again another 70+ years by repurchasing bonds, campaigning against it is both stupid and political suicide.

Social security is only "solvent" because it relies on the steady stream of current workers paying for the current recipients. If it were truely solvent, it would not need any new funds to pay for those currently receiving their benefits.

As it is, it's the biggest ponzi scheme ever and it needs to go away. It has been mismanaged to the point where it's not worth trying to fix.

Let me manage my own money. If I screw it up, that's my own fault.

 

[Hacp]

Social security is only "solvent" because it relies on the steady stream of current workers paying for the current recipients. If it were truely solvent, it would not need any new funds to pay for those currently receiving their benefits.

As it is, it's the biggest ponzi scheme ever and it needs to go away. It has been mismanaged to the point where it's not worth trying to fix.

Let me manage my own money. If I screw it up, that's my own fault.

Exactly. Now young people will need to pay because baby boomers voted in all those cost of living and inflation increases for themselves.

 

[Craig234]

Who cares? I don't intend to rely on social security for retirement which is why I'd rather just have the money now to do with what I wish.

Which may or may not work out, but you care nothing for the other millions of Americans.

Before SS, the elder poverty rate was 90%, and you say 'who cares, I want that again'.

 

[ShawnD1]

Which may or may not work out, but you care nothing for the other millions of Americans.

Before SS, the elder poverty rate was 90%, and you say 'who cares, I want that again'.

This is hardcore right wingers you're talking about. Of course they want to inflict pain on someone. They always want to destroy medicare so old people just die off and leave us alone already.

 

[Craig234]

Social security is only "solvent" because it relies on the steady stream of current workers paying for the current recipients.

Which is solvent, when planned right. People said it would go bust within a couple years.

As it is, it's the biggest ponzi scheme ever and it needs to go away. It has been mismanaged to the point where it's not worth trying to fix.

Let me manage my own money. If I screw it up, that's my own fault.

It's not a Ponzi scheme; you clearly don't know what one is. People paying in now to current recipients to get paid later by workers then isn't a Ponzi scheme.

A Ponzi scheme is one in which people are enticed to get big returns on 'investment' by getting more new people to invest than there are old investors, which clearly has limits.

Sounds nice, 'you manage your own money'. That had a 90 percent elder poverty rate. SS works.

That's the thing, you're pushing an ideology 'wah wah I don't like anything with the government involved' - and has no substance as to what works.

 

[First]

Social security is only "solvent" because it relies on the steady stream of current workers paying for the current recipients. If it were truely solvent, it would not need any new funds to pay for those currently receiving their benefits.

As it is, it's the biggest ponzi scheme ever and it needs to go away. It has been mismanaged to the point where it's not worth trying to fix.

Except gov't programs by their nature can only survive with a constant and often times new stream of tax receipts. To say it's a ponzi scheme is a red herring, it means nothing since ponzi schemes actively hide their true intent and no one ever has all the most relevant facts. SS is a transparent, public process where no one is under the impression they are guaranteed to particular percentage return.

Let me manage my own money. If I screw it up, that's my own fault

Thankfully you don't speak for the millions of average Americans with less than 5 figures of saved retirement money. To say "Well, it's their own fault" is a classic, pointless and false oversimplification of an extremely complex issue.

 

[Jhhnn]

Gawd, Righties are dense. Particularly the younger ones. Boomers have *paid extra* since 1983 in attempt to cover their own SS, account for the demographic bulge. That's where the money in the SS trust came from, get it? *Paid Extra*, paid more than SS cost all these years, ya miserable selfish twits.

It's not a Ponzi scheme, at all. It *is* a generational transfer. If anything, paying Boomers' SS should be less of a generational transfer than previous generations' simply because of the existence of the money in the trust. We paid for the SS of previous generations unflinchingly and tried to set aside funding to ease the burden for the generations who would pay ours. And so long as there are future generations, that should continue.

The only thing that really threatens the solvency of SS is all the other governmental debt that's been racked up, mostly by supposedly conservative and fiscally responsible Republican administrations- RR, GHWB, GWB all contributed mightily to the current federal debt. The only Admin who attempted to exercise fiscal responsibility was that of the much hated on the right Clintonites, who closely approached balance by the end of their 8 years.

Who benefited most from the don't tax and borrow more money policy of Repubs? The true Bush constituency, that's who- the top 1 percent's tax rate is 2/3 of what it was in 1980, and their share of national income has almost tripled. They also own the vast majority of the debt not held in the SS trust, too...

None of which really matters to people who're still being played by the ol' repub song and dance, the rhetoric of foolish self absorbed greed...