Who will be screwed the most by the Idiot's SS plan?

[Cobalt Violet]

Poll question: Who will be screwed the most by the Idiot's SS plan?

People in their:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. People like myself who are not quite 50 and have paid the maximum in

all our professional life

[Cobalt Violet]

2. That what I figure too.

People in their 40's.

[EVDebs]

4. Yes, and those facing what, 40% cuts in benefits...eom

[lonestarnot]

32. I would be interested to know how many of us in this age group voted for

Kerry, answered poles etc. I know the vote is secret, but wonder if this is why they selected this age bracket for the first to be screwed...

[norml]

3. Banana Republicans

Tell the people to do a web search on the name of any Country that's tried it, along with the words, "social security privatization". They will then be able to read for themselves what a disaster it's been in every Country that it's been tried. The Right Wing Media Whores tout Chile, with numbers that end in 1996. If you can get people to look up the reality of the situation in Chile today, you've won the argument on this issue. Some Bush Bot called into the local AM Talk, and said "Under Brazil's private plan people get five times as much as under Social Security in the US." But if you do a search on, "brazil social security privatization" you see instantly what a lie that is. By the way, those touting "The Galveston Plan" do not mention that it has higher payroll taxes than Social Security, no cost of living adjustment, does not cover dependents, and they use numbers ending in 1999 to get the highest numbers possible. However, putting the lie to The Galveston Plan isn't as simple as a simple web search. Just remember, web search(country social security privatization).

[BuyingThyme]

5. The FETUS

[Cobalt Violet]

9. How so?

[BuyingThyme]

11. The FETUS is the one who will...

be without a viable SS program and will pay the additional THREE TRILLION DOLLARS in debt.

[Cobalt Violet]

13. Plus they'll have to support Mom, Dad, Gramps and Grams and the in-laws.

Because none of them will be get enough social security to support themselves anymore.

[spooked911]

6. I'd like to say EVERYONE, but definitely younger people will get hurt the

most by Bush's proposed policy. Forties people-- like me-- probably will see the worst of it though. Too young to get guaranteed benefits or for them to fix it, and too old for them to have a chance to fix it after Bush screws it up.

But hopefully this is all a moot point!

[tokenlib]

7. All of us who have a heart...

The personal misery and struggle will be bad enough. But watching other people,.new retirees in the future, poor people, underemployed people--there is going to be a lot of suffering. We'll see it on the streets..more homeless perhaps...more rundown homes not being able to afford upkeep. It will be a tragic scene--heartbreak and hopelessness...

Somehow it has to be stopped! Bush and the republicans be damned.

[stray cat]

8. I suspect everyone because no one will make up the benefit cuts.

This is especially true if the cuts in benefits are phased in gradually - that would hurt the younger generation the worst. If the cuts are not phased in gradually - the 40s up to 55 will be hurt because they won't have time to plan save additional sources of funding.

[stray cat]

10. Who will benefit is the question - Follow the money!

[BuyingThyme]

18. Follow the monkey!

[baldguy]

12. Everyone under 55.

[Just Me]

14. About 85% of the population.

That would be those who hold the least wealth.

Has a lot more to do with wealth than age.

[cestpaspossible]

15. The younger you are, the worse it is for you.

[IndianaGreen]

16. "We will all live happily ever after... in Canada!"

I am about to write off this country altogether. America is on the verge of becoming a modern version of the Holy Roman Empire with Bush as Emperor Constantine trying to impose the empire's influence and state religion on everyone else.

I want no part of Jesus and his prophet Bush!

[Piperay]

29. Sounds

good to me! This place is barely fit to live in now, it's going to be totally uninhabitable in a relatively short time. :cry:

[CWebster]

17. 54

[earth mom]

19. Baby Boomers who are 54 and under and the disabled

since no doubt they will try and screw these people too.

I'm 44 with a disabled child and I AM OUTRAGED by this F-IN B.S.!!!

[BansheeDem]

20. Here's a thought

The AARP's Laurel Beedon wrote about the THRIFT SAVINGS PLAN (TSP) in 1999 as a model for use in Social Security. In other SS threads I have said nearly the same thing. If modeled wisely, the TSP would not be a bad way to partially privatize SS. I have been in federal service for over 20 years, and the TSP that I have has grown to a point now where it will be of great value when I retire.

The main issue is getting people to actually invest at the appropriate rate and locking the money until retirement. The minimum won't help much. The actual minimum rate should be about 5 percent of gross income, or more if possible. But when full advantage is taken, it is an excellent plan.

Just as a note, TSP has been managed very well, and hasn't lost a penny since it's inception. I think, as Democrats, we should not run from this issue, but instead - reclaim it. After all, it was Our program to begin with.

To view the AARP report; go here: (in PDF format)

http://research.aarp.org/econ/9909_thrift_savings.html

[retread]

21. Why do you concede the need to "partially privatize"???? n/t

[BansheeDem]

22. I've always been in favor of a partial privatization ...

Why do you concede the need to "partially privatize"?


of Social Security. I'm not conceding anything - I'm being practical. I favor a voluntary private account addition (similar to what FDR proposed) with no reduction in benefits. However, any supplement added to my retirement is welcome - even if it is off-set somewhat by reduced benefits. The bottom line will be more overall money coming in. If you read the AARP report on the TSP, you would see why I support some sort of supplement. It works. My personal TSP account which has been active for nearly 20 years is proof of that.

As a forty something (closer to fifty actually) I realize that I won't be seeing the full benefits of SS. Anyone my age or younger who thinks that they will, is being foolish. All this talk about how the SS fund is just fine, is just that - talk. It is not fine, and hasn't been for a very long time.

FDR never intended that SS would not be self-sufficient. He thought it would take about 30 years for that to happen. Well, thanks to our Congress over the past 70 or so years, the fund is heading south. Not exactly what he envisioned.

And anyone that can't find 5% of their gross to add as savings is not managing wisely. Even as a poor 20 something, I had enough restraint to save first.

Quite frankly, I'm getting a bit tired of my party boo-hooing SS when they were responsible (just like the Republicans) for the mess in the first place.

[Lars39]

24. Times have changed since you were young.

Saving any percentage is pretty damn hard when you've got student loans,
not many job prospects because of the lovely bush economy,
and housing that is absolutely through the roof.
Add no health insurance and health problems and the savings account is guaranteed to be
non-existant.

[BansheeDem]

26. It's not that I don't understand, I do ...

Saving any percentage is pretty damn hard when you've got student loans, not many job prospects because of the lovely bush economy, and housing that is absolutely through the roof. Add no health insurance and health problems and the savings account is guaranteed to be non-existent.

Times have not changed all that much, actually. When I was starting out, I was working a full time job, going to college at night, and working a part-time job so that I could have a little extra to save. I think I averaged about 4 hours sleep during those years. But ... I did manage to save that 5% I was talking about. It's up to about 15% now. Was it easy? No, it wasn't. But I was focused and knew that I had to make sacrifices in my standard of living (and my family's) to ensure some financial security later down the line. Believe me, they were none too happy about it at the time.

If it is going to be too difficult to save, then having part of what you pay in payroll taxes anyway deferred to a private account is like finding a way to get that small percentage I'm talking about. In my case, I just took my yearly cost of living adjustment and any promotions that I received and used a portion of that to add to my THRIFT savings (TSP) account. The partial privatization of SS is not all that different. As long as the plan is managed in the same way as THRIFT, then I see it as a win-win for anyone involved. Especially for those of us who are fully expecting a reduction in benefits as we reach retirement age.

For the vast majority of us, rather than buying the latest and greatest, whatever - we need to make due with what we have for a few more years. I'm not saying that we should sacrifice everything for the sake of financial security, but some self discipline is needed. I sure am glad that I did what I had to do - now it is paying off.

[Vinca]

23. It's hard to say because he hasn't given specifics.

Several things bother me about this. First, if the private account goes belly up the year before you want to retire, you're SOL. Talk to the Enron victims. Secondly, if the investment plan is so rosy for private accounts, why don't they just do it with all the social security funds so everybody gets more? (Hint: Maybe there really is a risk.) Finally, I think there's a considerable risk to the elderly. All of a sudden, lots of money won't be landing in the SS coffers. Dubya thinks he can borrow until the cows come home. That may be true, but what if Japan or China or any other country gets nervous about our black hole of debt and turns off the flow of cash? That means Grandma eats cat food. There has to be a better way. Let's face it, anyone can open a private account tomorrow, for a small amount of money, in addition to their social security. It's a free (sort of) country.

[BansheeDem]

27. It will be put in a managed account ...

that will be a combination of funds - similar to the S&P 500. I keep referring back to my THRIFT SAVINGS PLAN (TSP), but it's important to understand that this type of account has weathered many financial storms. (including Enron). There will be no sudden dip or crash. It just doesn't work that way.

As to the idea of investing the entire SS fund in a managed account - the problem is that it would no longer be public, and therefore not subject to manipulation by government entities. The politicians on both sides of the isle would never stand for that.

[nodictators]

34. Banshee fails to mention that the THRIFT plan is an add-on to SS

Bush's scam would have workers take nearly one-third of their FICA tax and gamble with it in the stock market. Workers that do that would have a huge reduction in their SS retirement benefts.

Any competent investment advisor would tell their clients to invest only discretionary money in the market, and not put their retirement money at risk.

As noted by Josh Marshall, Bush has said that he wants to phase out Social Security:

At root, with all the statistics and flimflam over words, President Bush wants to change that. He wants to phase out Social Security in favor of private investment accounts. In the latter case, there is no guarantee at all, just as there is no guarantee in private nesting, which of course is just as is should be. He wants to get rid of the defined benefit program and change it to a defined contribution program -- not partially, but totally. Indeed, he said this in his recent press conference quite clearly.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/12/20041220-3.html

But few of the reporters present latched on to the statement or its significance. Social Security, he said, is "now in a precarious position. And the question is whether or not our society has got the will necessary to adjust from a defined benefit plan to a defined contribution plan. And I believe the will will be there. (emphasis added)."
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_01_30.php#004700

[imenja]

25. No one, because it doesn't stand a chance of passing

[pdurod1]

28. I Agree, it costs too much and "Raise the Cap" will embarrass Bush

as the simple fix to a minor SS problem.

[stevebreeze]

30. the benefit cut will grow over time

probably by being tied to inflation rather then wages. They will try to remove their action in destroying SS far enough into the future so that the closer in age you are to retirement the less you will be harmed. The closer in age to retirement you are the more attention you will pay to how it affects yo personally.

[cmd]

31. Low income Americans

Their age doesn't matter.

[rman]

33. what has age got to do with it?

how much can a minimum wage earner set aside for retirement?
virtually nothing.