Social Security

I pull down about $2400 a month, give or take from Social Security. Thanks, America. I gained all this largess by merit. I am old. (Chortle!)I am able to invest part of it in good scotch, part in my country club dues, part in some decent beer and the rest I just piss away.

Social Darwinists hate Social Security 'cause they want to see losers dying in the streets. Communists hate Social Security 'cause they'd like to see people suffering more under capitalism in hopes of revolution. Smart capitalists like Social Security 'cause it helps keep the masses pacified. Dumb capitalists hate Social Security 'cause they have to contribute 50% (except when they 1099 their slaves).

It's a mixed bag, owing to the fact that the purpose of the system has been perverted for various reasons over the past 70 years. To begin with, SS was never intended to be the sole retirement income for anyone, but, that WWII generation had other ideas. The benefit amount was raised again and again over the decades to the point where eventual pay-outs became totally out of whack with the amount actually paid in. The typical WWII Social Security recipient garnered three times the benefits, in cash value, of what he/she was actually entitled to. No wonder the system is going to go bankrupt in about a quarter century. Also, the Congress has habitually raided the SS standing fund, futher underminding its stability. People are living much longer than they did when the system was devised, and, as a result, receive benefits for much longer. This adds to the pressure on the system. And the demographic bulge of baby boomers was not foreseen back in the 1930s. Most folks don't realize that SS i... Read more

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.

Again, it has more than its share of flaws, but I'm wary of the simplistic folks who want to dismantle it. They never seem to have an answer to the "What then?" question.

What I don't think is very fair is that they're taking money out of paychecks for Social Security, and then nine times out of ten it won't be there by retirement age. And from what I heard, this could happen in a shorter amount of time than what one thinks. It is something to be very concerned about.

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...

Good source of income for casinos.

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

Raise the retirement age

Was helpful. . .but will be ruined by doddering DC old-farts who will make sure that they get theirs while my generation (who will foot the bill) will get nada. . .

its not enough to get by on for those that retire and a headache for those disabled having to deal with the underlying feeling that you get that they don't believe you need it.

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.T... Read more

I worry for the next generation.

I am not worried. I'm only 24 years old and I started a 401k about a year ago.

Social security is a good system that despite its flaws allows retired and disabled Americans to continue to receive money to aid in their day to day living.

It will help until we don't have it anymore!

I know several elderly people who would be in dire straits if not for their social security checks.A civilized society should have some way to take care of its senior citizens.Politicians who want to get their hands on this money and gamble it away on the stock market should be retired immediately,have their earnings seized-and forced to live on Social Security the rest of their lives.

I'm OK with the violin playing. I'm OK with the concept of a majority (slim though it may have been) imposing this obligation on all the taxpayers in the country, fostering a lifelong dependence by many people on an easily changeable investment scam, known in some places, as a government shell game. (I'd like to see it stand the test of constitutionality that, say, prayer in schools has had to face) It's been changed so many times, it almost doesn't even resemble the "social security" system initially passed by Congress. So desperately in need of reform was it, as Bush started his second term, that the contributor/beneficiary ratio is down to 3 to 1, reasonably projected to continue its consistent march toward 1 to 1 over the next decade or so. But the democrats in their blind hatred-driven obstruction of anything Bush proposes, have successfully derailed the bi-partisan effort by assuring today's contributors that there really is no significant problem with the system today. Ov... Read more

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 ... Read more

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.

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 ineq... Read more

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.

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)

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.

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, ... Read more

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.

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

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 thous... Read more

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.