Republicans move to privatize Social Security

[hortysir]

Let’s at least hope they learned their lesson with the RyanCare debacle:

‘Under 55? You just lost your SS retirement; go get a 4th job or work until you’re 90.’

OOORRRR......
Be in a position where your not expecting to rely on $1,400/month to live on

 

[uscitizen]

Let’s at least hope they learned their lesson with the RyanCare debacle:

‘Under 55? You just lost your SS retirement; go get a 4th job or work until you’re 90.’

OOORRRR......
Be in a position where your not expecting to rely on $1,400/month to live on

HUH?

MY SS is a bit over 3k per month.
It is disability but should have lived long enough it would have been the same for reg SS.

Buit based on the wages we can expect in the future, yeah 1,400 sounds about right.

 

[Mr.Nick]

1. There is no money

2. There is no money

3. There is no money

4. There is no money

5. There is no money because my sig is correct.

 

[hortysir]

Let’s at least hope they learned their lesson with the RyanCare debacle:

‘Under 55? You just lost your SS retirement; go get a 4th job or work until you’re 90.’

OOORRRR......
Be in a position where your not expecting to rely on $1,400/month to live on

HUH?

MY SS is a bit over 3k per month.
It is disability but should have lived long enough it would have been the same for reg SS.

Buit based on the wages we can expect in the future, yeah 1,400 sounds about right.

Really? Cool then.
I was just going by what someone told me they get in disability. But then, he never really made alot either

 

[grunt11b]

They did so well with their derivatives Ponzi scheme.

What do you think Social Security is, candy ass?

70 years of success.

Success as in the dirty politicians robbed everyone of their retirement?

 

[Chris]

1. There is no money

2. There is no money

3. There is no money

4. There is no money

5. There is no money because my sig is correct.

There's plenty of money. This is the richest country in the world.

We need to scale back the empire and raise taxes to 1990's levels.

Pretty simple really.

 

[uscitizen]

OOORRRR......
Be in a position where your not expecting to rely on $1,400/month to live on

HUH?

MY SS is a bit over 3k per month.
It is disability but should have lived long enough it would have been the same for reg SS.

Buit based on the wages we can expect in the future, yeah 1,400 sounds about right.

Really? Cool then.
I was just going by what someone told me they get in disability. But then, he never really made alot either

Above a minimum it is based on how much you paid in.
And how early you take your benefits. the earlier you take them the less you get.

 

[grunt11b]

I might support the idea, but I would WAY more information about the plan first.

1) Where is the money invested

2) How is the money invested (conservative or risky)

3) Can I change how or where the money is invested

4) Can I freely monitor my investment

The list of questions goes on and on. But, if done the right way, I support it.

And when your investments go south when you are 80 years old, what will you do then?

That's basically what is already happening now. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over the same way and expecting a different outcome. If anything needs reformed, it's SS. I should not have to pay into it so someone who has never worked a day in their life can benefit from it. It should not be available to people just because they hit a certain age, it should be available only to those who paid into it.

 

[grunt11b]

Let’s at least hope they learned their lesson with the RyanCare debacle:

‘Under 55? You just lost your SS retirement; go get a 4th job or work until you’re 90.’

The only people that would be threatened are those that don't pay into it. Everyone else who works could pay into their own savings account and would still be able to retire just fine. SS is nothing more then another leftist wealth redistribution scheme, just like healthcare will be.

 

[grunt11b]

1. There is no money

2. There is no money

3. There is no money

4. There is no money

5. There is no money because my sig is correct.

There's plenty of money. This is the richest country in the world.

We need to scale back the empire and raise taxes to 1990's levels.

Pretty simple really.

We're not the richest country in the world, I think that title would go to Dubai. If we where the richest country we would not be borrowing money from China.

 

[Mr.Nick]

1. There is no money

2. There is no money

3. There is no money

4. There is no money

5. There is no money because my sig is correct.

There's plenty of money. This is the richest country in the world.

We need to scale back the empire and raise taxes to 1990's levels.

Pretty simple really.

In theory you're correct, however in reality you're wrong.

 

[Harry Dresden]

I might support the idea, but I would WAY more information about the plan first.

1) Where is the money invested

2) How is the money invested (conservative or risky)

3) Can I change how or where the money is invested

4) Can I freely monitor my investment

The list of questions goes on and on. But, if done the right way, I support it.

And when your investments go south when you are 80 years old, what will you do then?

and if they dont?.....instead of having 1200 dollars a month someone might have 2000-3000 a month.....why is 1200 a month so comforting to you Chris?......most people can probably invest that money and get more back ......why not let them decide?......if you dont want to do it,you stay in the System.....

 

[uscitizen]

I might support the idea, but I would WAY more information about the plan first.

1) Where is the money invested

2) How is the money invested (conservative or risky)

3) Can I change how or where the money is invested

4) Can I freely monitor my investment

The list of questions goes on and on. But, if done the right way, I support it.

And when your investments go south when you are 80 years old, what will you do then?

and if they dont?.....instead of having 1200 dollars a month someone might have 2000-3000 a month.....why is 1200 a month so comforting to you Chris?......most people can probably invest that money and get more back ......why not let them decide?......if you dont want to do it,you stay in the System.....

Where the heck did this 1,200/mo come from? It is not accurate.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Let’s at least hope they learned their lesson with the RyanCare debacle:

‘Under 55? You just lost your SS retirement; go get a 4th job or work until you’re 90.’

OOORRRR......
Be in a position where your not expecting to rely on $1,400/month to live on

HUH?

MY SS is a bit over 3k per month.
It is disability but should have lived long enough it would have been the same for reg SS.

Buit based on the wages we can expect in the future, yeah 1,400 sounds about right.

For most retired workers and their dependents, however, Social Security retirement benefits alone are not enough for them to maintain the standard of living they had before retirement. Although Social Security retirement benefits are protected against inflation by annual Cost of Living Adjustments, the average retirement benefit for retirees is only about $1,153 a month, and the survivors of workers receive an average of only $1,112 a month (2011 figures). For 2011, the maximum monthly Social Security retirement benefit for a worker retiring at the full retirement age of 66 years was $2,346. Because of low inflation, retirement benefits for 2011 have remained unchanged from their 2010 levels despite premium increases by Medicare and many prescription drug programs.

 

[Susan45]

I am really astounded at how many people on this thread don't know a damn thing about SS. You all should be embarrassed to know so little, after all to keep it safe you should have a working knowledge about how it works.

SS was designed as an insurance program. It covered the old, disabled and minor survivors. It hasn't changed much over the years.

We are now in the 75 yr of SS and they have about a 3% admin cost, which means that for every dollar it takes in .97 cents goes back to the public. Please put this into context with a private company that usually have about 15% admin costs. Most of us that collect SS are happy with the way the money is in the bank on the 3rd of the month, every month, without fail.

Yes, the government has been taking money from the trustfund. BUT it is against the law for them to just take it. They must borrow it and they put government bonds in place. These bonds pay interest and SS has been collecting that interest and putting it back into the trustfund. Those bonds are said to have the full faith and credit of the US government.

Back in 1983 they noticed that the trust fund was getting low and that the baby boomer generation was growing up so Reagan appointed a committee to come up with a solution. They raised the SS tax (FICA) and until just recently we were running a surplus. SS is NOT going broke and is NOT broken. All those cries to fix it are just people preying on your ignorance in order to get their hands on the money.

Here is the SS page on life expectancy. It is much more clear then I could make it.

Life Expectancy for Social Security

If I've missed anything please speak up and I'll try and find an answer, if I don't already know.

 

[Susan45]

I might support the idea, but I would WAY more information about the plan first.

1) Where is the money invested

2) How is the money invested (conservative or risky)

3) Can I change how or where the money is invested

4) Can I freely monitor my investment

The list of questions goes on and on. But, if done the right way, I support it.

And when your investments go south when you are 80 years old, what will you do then?

That's basically what is already happening now. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over the same way and expecting a different outcome. If anything needs reformed, it's SS. I should not have to pay into it so someone who has never worked a day in their life can benefit from it. It should not be available to people just because they hit a certain age, it should be available only to those who paid into it.

You obviously don't know a thing about SS. You cannot collect if you've never paid in and the amount you receive is based on your wages.

 

[Susan45]

I might support the idea, but I would WAY more information about the plan first.

1) Where is the money invested

2) How is the money invested (conservative or risky)

3) Can I change how or where the money is invested

4) Can I freely monitor my investment

The list of questions goes on and on. But, if done the right way, I support it.

And when your investments go south when you are 80 years old, what will you do then?

and if they dont?.....instead of having 1200 dollars a month someone might have 2000-3000 a month.....why is 1200 a month so comforting to you Chris?......most people can probably invest that money and get more back ......why not let them decide?......if you dont want to do it,you stay in the System.....

I'll bet there are a lot of people that had investments in the last decade are delighted they have their SS now. We've just seen what happened to the market. I completely lost my investment and it's nice to know that on the 3rd my SS check will be there.

And like any insurance program the more that pay in the better it is for the program. It certainly doesn't stop anyone from investing.

 

[kiwiman127]

I know of an elderly couple that lost over a million dollars via Enron, which was everything they had. They are now living entirely off Social Security.

 

[Charles_Main]

The Republicans can't wait for their buddies on Wall Street to get their hands on all that delicious retirement money.

They did so well with their derivatives Ponzi scheme.

And how well has DC done handling that money? hmmmm? What kind of return we getting?

 

[Charles_Main]

I know of an elderly couple that lost over a million dollars via Enron, which was everything they had. They are now living entirely off Social Security.

Not to sound heartless, but if you have your entire Retirement of 1 Million dollar wrapped up in the stock of 1 Company, You are an idiot.