Worthless...

[lurch00]

I don't feel much like writing about this right now, but I just wanted to point out how worthless the Democratic response to tonight's TV interruption.. I mean, State of the Union address. Say what you want about some of the solutions proposed for social security. At least the President put it on the table and opened debate for it. Obviously, the

Comments

[nushawn]

Look at when the social security "crisis" is going to happen. I believe it's somewhere between 2042 and 2067. When has the government ever been concerned about something that far out in the future? That alone tells me that the issue here isn't saving it. I think it's likely this is the position the dems are going to take on this issue. I think it simply comes down to the fact that social security is just about the last thing in this country that the ultra-rich haven't been able to get their hands on and now they'll have the ability.

Just one more reason why i want out of this country.

[lurch00]

I think that 2042 date is when we actually have to start borrowing money to pay for it. I think the date is like 2018 where it starts paying out more than it takes in. The 25 years after that it pays out of savings. I do think it's worth looking at in the near future

[fattony99]

If I recall correctly, and I'll post the link when I find it, 2018 as the "pay out of reserves" date is the extremely pessimistic prediction from the government actuaries. The last 15 years or so (since the last year they had to pay out of reserves), they've budgeted based on that "extreme" worst case, when the actual numbers are a lot closer to the "best" case predictions, but slightly below that. This means that the actual state of social security is closer to Doherty's prediction. I think 2067 is best case, and 2042 is the average case. Even if Social Security were to go into worst-case mode tomorrow, it has to STAY in that mode for 13 years in order for 2018 to be the "pay out of reserves" date

[nushawn]

That 2018 figure also assumes that none of the excess money collected in the next 13 years i sactually put aside for social security. Of course, that is in fact what will happen, but just putting that money aside, as required by law, would actually allow the system to be solvent for years to come.

The other funny thing about those projections used for social security is that they paint a completely different picture of the US economy over the next decade than the projections used for the tax cut. I believe that in both of these cases the GAO has said that these predictions were not realistic. Besides, this is the guy that said that there were WMD in iraq, so i don't see why his numbers should be given any credence in this case.

The main thing is that you should assume that every dollar you put into social security is essentially thrown away. Don't expect it to be there for you at all when you retire.

On the bright side for tony, this plan would probably net him a nice bonus check for a couple of years.

[shakenbysound]

I'm so confused on this issue, and still not sure where I stand. On one hand, I think if people are forced to put aside money for retirement, I think they should have some say in where it goes. On the other hand, how do you stop people from making bad choices and then ending up in a worse situation then they would be otherwise? I do think it's ironic that the reason Social Security first got started was due to the stock market crash in 1929, and all the people who lost their retirement savings. If Bush did give me an oppurtunity to put my money in the stock market, I'm not sure I would take it.