I get my social security check on the 3rd Wednesday of every month. I have it sent general delivery since I don't give out my address. I don't have a checking account and that way my ex-wives scoundel lawyers can't get at my money. I am on a strictly cash basis.

The controversy over the future of Social Security amounts to a great deal of sound and fury signifying very little.  It's pretty clear that:

1)If there's money around, the political power of the Boomers will divert it to SS.

2)There won't be any money-not because of shrinking dependency ratios, but because it will all have been sqandered on foreign wars and borrowing.  What's left (if any) will have to go towards boring stuff like paying the cops and keeping the lights on.

3)Social Security won't be abolished outright, nor will it 'collapse'; payments will just be covertly reduced by high inflation, whose real level will be much higher than the cost-of-living adjustments.  Might raise the retirement age a few years as well.  Time to start saving up...

Due to the national phobia about 'socialism', there is no means test for recieving Social Security benefits.

However, without Social Security, perhaps millions of America's old and infirm would be starving and homeless.

Good source of income for casinos.

Thanks, America, for my monthly check! As I noted elsewhere, I use it to pay my country club dues and buy cases of single malt scotch with the excess. I hope the gravy train continues as long as I am alive, but I fear that the poor schmoos who are paying the bill will get nothing. The politicians have totally messed up this program. They used it to buy votes and my dear readers, they used your money to buy the votes of my fellow geezers!

This is a crucial priority, given the huge inequality in US society.

Raise the retirement age

This is a hard topic to discuss.At the time of its inception,this program was meant to provide a form of insurance for the destitute older Americans.However,the life expectancy was about 63.Getting to 65 was a major accomplishment.Now,people live to 80,90 or older.So,obviously,65 is an arbitrary and outdated age.Does anybody realize,also that this is structured like a pyramid scheme?You need people at the bottom of the pyramid(younger workers)to pay for those at the top(retirees).The problem:There are more folks at the top and fewer people at the bottom.Soon,with the en masse retirement of the Boomers,we will really be up the creek without a paddle.What are we to do?Well,a few ideas have been tossed around.All are good,all have their faults.I heard a proposal...we should choose either the same benefits,same retirement age OR same level of taxation,but not all 3.I myself would defer my payments until I am 70.I am self employed.That option may not work for everyone.So we can all choose.The big controversy is partial privatization.I do not see the harm in VOLUNTARY partial privitization of your FICA taxes intoan IRA,etc.The return would be better and you can pass it down to whomever after you pass away.I alse do not see how some of the same people who state that they are pro choice on abotion rights(I am not a raving loon on either side of that debate,I am closer to favoring abortion rights with some limits depending on the situation)suddenly do not approve of choice regarding this.

I worry for the next generation.

There are plenty of misconceptions about what the Social Security system entails and its history in my view. It is one of the most complex entitlement systems in the world; it compromises a large portion of the US Federal Budget as well. First off, politicians are going to talk to you about the Social Security Trust Fund and how it needs to be upheld, just like an insurance policy. Such talk is almost nostalgic and indeed even philosophical, for Social Security isn't even an insurance policy to speak of. It's essentially trying to establish a sort of social contract between the government and the people. But the reality of the matter is that no governmental institution is bound to maintain the integrity of such a trust fund and no one is guaranteed a return on their money. What the Bush administration is now saying is that on the one hand there's going to be no money to pay for Social Security, but on the other hand it says that government debt won't be driven up because it would swap one commitment, to pay benefits using the trust fund with another obligation to the new bondholders that would enter the system with privatization. I actually think that the truth, as usual in many cases, is in the middle. The trust fund itself is not simply an empty vessel, but the government doesn't either have a full faith responsibility to pay up. As I pointed out earlier, Social Security isn't an insurance policy. Workers actually don't pay premiums, but rather each generation pays taxes into the system to essentially pay for the retirement of the previous generation; Congress may change the amount of the benefits received as it sees fit, and it has used this power many times. All taxes go into essentially the same Treasury account and Congress can also use that money however it sees fit, even on programs outside the jurisdiction of Social Security. The government has made a big promise to guarantee retirees an income supplement essentially, but that can't be done with raising taxes, or borrowing money, or cutting spending. When the tax dollars are received by the federal government, the money is put in various general funds; retirement benefits are issued on a monthly basis and whatever money is left over goes towards spending on other programs. When taxes alone are not enough to pay for the benefits, the Treasury department redeems government bonds contained within the Social Security accounts and spends the money for other things. When Social Security was started back in the 1930's , the intent was to issue government bonds to protect the program from Congresses spending authority. It was an attempt to maximize the return a worker would get on his/her money. Until the 1980's the benefits were just paid out and nothing went into the government account until the system almost became insolvent during the Reagan administration. To solve the crisis, taxes on Social Security were raised and benefits were cut back. What this did was to create more money than was needed to pay out benefits. It allowed for Reagan and later George Bush to claim that the budget deficit was going down every year, but this was simply because there was a surplus in Social Security. Clinton performed a similar political trick with the budget. However with the retirement of the Baby Boomer generation, many estimate that the system will be unable to pay out benefits by the middle part of the next decade. Bush proposal to let workers divert part of their Social Security benefits will actually lead to a more rapid depletion of the general funds, since the transition costs alone is going to go into the trillions and the expected benefit may not even materialize in the long term. Once there are more claims than tax money, either taxes will have to go up or the government will have to simply go deeper into the red to make the payments. It's a tough political issue that is going to become more important in the next few years.

Very troubling issue. With Bush in office he will definetely push for this to become privatized. The only good thing I see about this is that moochers of this system( those not disabled or the elderly)would be weeded out and they would need to find some other way to support their lazy asses. The bad thing about privatizing SS is that those with true disabilities( mentally ill and such) would absolutely get screwed, and shipping them off to the looney bin is not the solution for these people. Also, I think that older retired folks who don't have much to live on( many pensions don't pay much)would also get screwed. If SS does become privatized, don't expect to see a differece in your paycheck. You are either naive or dumb if you think that the government still wouldn't take that chunk. They would probably just rename it the Terrorist Prevention Fund.

I'm estatic that President Bush is taking this on. It's an obvious problem and the President has shown the courage to stand up and do something about it. John Kerry lost my vote when he said he would do nothing to change social security in the third debate this past fall. Basically, Kerry told America to stick it! Well . . . I guess we all know what resulted from that.

president bush should be applauded for addressing this issue, regardless of whether you agree with his solution. i have sweated blood to save for my retirement, and i don't expect to receive social security which is fine with me. i don't even mind paying taxes for those who are destitute and live on social security as their only means of income. i am completly unwilling to pay taxes to finance an affluent lifestyle for those who are able to meet their needs through other sources of income, but collect social security anyway. at this time, for those my age, social security more resembles a pyramid scheme than a safety net for those who truly need it.

If you're younger than 40 and you didn't rate this a 5, you really don't understand how feloniously incompetent governments can be, and you are likely to be swindled out of thousands and thousands of dollars over your lifetime without even being aware that you've lost a cent. Trust me in this, you are an advocate for private investment accounts. Look into it and find out what you are not aware of.

Thanks FDR for introducing AMerican socialism. This has got to be privatized or done away with. The burden on society from this is completely unjustifiable.

The long-term viability of social security is one of the greatest issues facing the United States today. For the uninitiated, social security is administered as a pay as you go system. This means that nothing is saved in the trust fund for the future, but rather current payments into the system are being used to pay liabilities that were accrued in the past. On a cash flow basis, this means that any revenues not needed today gets loaned to the government to be spent like any other general revenue tax source. When one looks at the forest instead of the trees, the end result is that social security is actually a pyramid scheme that would be illegal if any other individual or entity administered such an arrangement (eg ERISA outlaws this type of corporate retirement plan). The net effect is that with changing demographics and demands for benefits, current and near current beneficiaries are living off of the wealth that will be generated by future taxpayers (ie a generational tax inequity, or we are borrowing from our children). The root of the problem is that the system was sold as a forced retirement plan (ie a life annuity), but became a hodgepodge combination of retirement plan and welfare program. In other words, social security was sold as a retirement plan, but turned into a partial welfare plan. This happened (in part) because people think that social security is supposed to be a livable income. It is not, and no one was taxed enough to fund such a program (on average). Moreover, the welfare part still pays even to those who are not in need. In fact, those over 65 years of age are the wealthiest demographic in the U.S. today. (See the census figures if you need confirmation of this.) The solution, however, is not private social security accounts. I say this because the program is still designed to provide a safety net, private accounts can still be lost though failed investment, and the government would still bail them out (whether you agree that it should or not). Nevertheless, real reserves must be created to keep the government out of the trust fund; therefore, the solution is to break the trust fund reserves into blocks that are invested in blind trusts, which are in turn administered by private investment professionals. How these blocks and professionals are limited and regulated is too in-depth for this comment, but suffice it to say that risk is controlled by spreading the investments out through the domestic and foreign markets and by limiting the total amount of the reserve controlled by any one consolidated entity. The bottom line is that social security as it is administered today is a long-term and continuous theft by the past and current generations from the younger and unborn generations, resulting in the biggest threat to social harmony, national equity, and the long-term fiscal health of the U.S.

When my generation heads into retirement, social security will be all but depleted. Is this necessarily a bad thing? I for one will look forward to the day when social security stops coming out of our paychecks. I am aware that social security will be miniscule when I retire, so I have taken the precautions and have already started saving for retirement. Most companies have a 401K program. Mine matches 100% which is typical of many companies. Take advantage of this and start putting your money away now, a little bit a paycheck, and you will not have to worry about social security when you retire.

Like smoking crack without any of the upside. End this program. Only reasonable solution is total privatization.

The concept of a government allowing workers to save money for their old age is noble, if flawed. Of course, with discipline, one could arguably do that for him/herself (republican way). Keep taxing people and allow the government to hold your money until your old enough to make decisions for yourself (democrats). Honestly the Real Truth is somewhere in the middle (as I am on most issues). If we allowed people to invest for themselves the hardworking illiterate, the uneducated, and the just plain irresponsible folk would be an even bigger burden as they aged. Social Security is a keeper.

I think this is a very important, serious issue in our country. I think it is horrible that even at my age I have to feel scared that I might not have social security when I get old enough to retire.

A lot of people who fill up this board with nonsense about how FDR ruined the United States with socialism probably would starve to death some day without this. SS was one of the finest major changes ever made in the U.S. (and fought tooth and nail by the right wing, of course)

Only if we're going to discuss opening up more private investing.

In his last few years of office, President Clinton asked the Congress to join with him to Save Social Security first. Clinton believed that the federal budget surplus should be devoted entirely to protecting the Social Security Trust Fund. However, this is just a short-term solution to a long-term problem. Social Security is set to run a deficit in just 13 years. The reason? Washington's dirty little secret is that there is no Social Security Trust Fund--- they have spent it all. Social Security is now operating on a pay-as-you-go basis, and very soon, when the baby boomers who paid into the system begin to retire, their rate of return will be extremely poor. Obviously, they will not live long enough to get back all that money that they paid into the system. Of course, since most of the money paid in has already been spent on other programs, the government will have to raise both payroll and income taxes to send out the retirement checks every month. To avoid this catastrophic course, Congress must pay back the money they have stolen from the Trust Fund in order to send out the payments. This will ensure that those who have already paid into the system will get their money. However, we must gradually get rid of this system, as we are headed down a perilous fiscal and social course. Beginning in 2004, eighteen-year-olds entering the work force should not have to pay Social Security Payroll Taxes. Instead, young workers should have the right to redirect their payroll taxes to individually owned, privately invested retirement accounts. Payroll taxes would still be taken out of a worker's paycheck, but the worker would be offered a choice of retirement plans. Whatever plan he chooses, that is where his money shall go. The worker would not be able to touch the money until he or she passed the mandatory retirement age. This would ensure a stable retirement plan WITHOUT government control and intrusion (and depending on the plan, interest would grow as well). It makes no sense to send your hard-earned money into the black hole that is the Social Security system when you could just as easily have a much more fruitful and beneficial IRA plan.

Important issue. Needs to be reformed otherwise the system will crash within 20 years. Most logical solution would be to means test social security so the needy elderly recieve it and not the many many moms and pops with the gas hogging SUV and vacation home.

I think that disabled Americans who cannot work should have Social Security to aid them financially, but Stupid Lazy Americans who are perfectly healthy and capable of working but who do not like to work for a living should not have Social security. They should work for a living. i hate my tax money supporting lazy people who hate working for their living, but I like it being used to help poor disabled people whose disabillity keeps them from working.

S.S. is dead. . .you better invest in your retirement now. . .I shudder to think what will happen to my generation when they hit retirement age. As for me, I am sick of being taxed for something that will not be there for me when I get old. Anybody else sick of the f*&^ing 'boomers'?

Government should not exsist to provide you with "Social Security".....get out of my life!

stop pretending and do something about it,like limit spending and stop using this money

definitely more important than gay rights, for example......

I don't know much about the details of the inner functioning of social security, but I do know that it is a good thing for people to be assured money when they may be to old to work. It is of the utmost importance because even if you don't agree with the idea you still have to admit that everyone who put in deserves to be able to take out. Social Security eats up a good part of ones check thereby further reducing ones ability to invest and further increasing their reliance on SS when they are older.

The government should let us citizens of America to independent, and not be a part of what the liberals want, us turning into the communist republic of America.

social security should be abolished.

Well,I don't know how funny I can be with the subject matter.If it had not been for social scurity my husband would not have any thing to live on.He has worked hard all his young life.Because of no education,poor parenting,marrying young,raising a large family of our own,and always helping others.You could say, well these are chooses you made. Ok, yes they were,BUT no one said you're going to be worn out by the time you are fifty.He had disablity insurance.They had so many rules that we didn't know about.We had the usual large benifit package.That only a layer could understand.The things like you must pay back all the money when you get your disablity started.You must file social scurity if you are out of work for a certain time.The money you draw from s.s. is deducted from your personal disablity.You are expected to have three mons. of income put back to live on until your personal disablity starts.It took three yrs. to get s.s..We had to hire an att. to get it ,and pay him four thousand dollars to go to court one time.S.S. already has this in place to pay the lawyer out of your money!I didn't like that,but we did get the s.s. that we so desperly needed..Dasiy

Social Security isn't anywhere near enough for the elderly to live on with the way costs are today. Older people should be given a lot more benefits.

Retired individuals in their golden years have a way of obtaining money after working hard all their lives. FDR was the great president who set up this program.

Social Security is the legalized Government form of money laundering. By the time I retire, I will have paid in 40 years worth of Social Security. During these 40 years my money will not have grown in interest, the Government will only use it. When it is time for me to draw my Social Security, assuming there is something left draw from, neither my family nor I will ever receive the full value of what I paid in or any interest from its borrowed use. I say give me my money now, all of it. I can put the same value in an interest barring account and come out far better when I retire than Social Security will ever provide. The Government has taken away my rights of investment of these funds. As far as I am concerned, this is extortion.

SINCE WHEN DOES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT KNOW WHAT'S BEST FOR ME? I'M NOT HAPPY ABOUT BEING FORCED TO ALLOW THE FEDS TO "INVEST" MY MONEY FOR ME. AFTER ALL, THESE ARE THE SAME FOLKS WHO BROUGHT US MID-NIGHT BASKETBALL AND THE GRADUATED INCOME TAX.

I rank this very high in terms of overall importance, assuming we're talking about reforming the system thru private accounts. Keep in mind that SS currently works just like a Ponzi scheme (which would be illegal if not operated by the gov't). The first generations of retirees made out like bandits on it, but now the demographics have shifted so that we'll pay more into the system than we'll ever get out. Private accounts (massively successful in places like Chile) are the only way to put the system of sound financial footing and to eliminate some of the worst aspects of the system (such as the fact that minorities -- which tend to have lower life expectancies -- get the worst returns. A black bus driver who dies at age 64 will have paid into the system all his life, and receive no benefits and have nothing to leave to his kids.) Under private accounts, you would own real assets like you do with a 401(k).

I consider this to be another form of denying personal responsibility. It allows people to be complacent about planning for their own future, by relying on future generations to work to pay someone elses way.