Social Security facts.

[slugshooter]

Does Social Security Really Face an $11 Trillion Deficit?

Bush and Cheney say yes. But actuaries say the figure is "likely to mislead" the public on the system's true financial state.

Summary

President Bush and Vice President Cheney have told audiences that Social Security faces an $11 trillion shortfall if nothing is done to fix the current system. But they fail to mention that this is over the course of the “infinite future." Over the next 75 years -- still practically a lifetime -- the shortfall is projected to be $3.7 trillion.

The "infinite" projection is one that the American Academy of Actuaries says is likely to mislead the public into thinking the system "is in far worse financial condition than is actually indicated," and therefore should not be used to explain the long-term outlook.


Click the link below for the full survey:

http://www.factcheck.org/article302m.html

[OJR]

It could well be that the shortfall isn't going to be too bad! However, when we have to start paying back what is borrowed, then there is a big problem.

Also, what is wrong with a person being able to invest a portion of their retirement into some account other than what is being held by the government? I know for a fact, the rate of return will be considerably better than what it is now!

[ParrotHead]

Democrats are trying to defend this hideous program on the basis of freedom. They say that Social Security gives old people freedom from want. They also say that the benefits are guaranteed. They are not. All Social Security benefits are subject to the whim of the Congress. That is not a garantee.

Democrats are telling Social Security recipients "Don't' be scared. We can fix this problem." Yeah .. they can fix the problem. They can fix the problem the way Democrats always fix problems. Raise taxes. Seize more money. Transfer more income.

On CNN yesterday, there was a piece with a mother and daughter talking about how they hated Bush and the topic of Social Security came up. The daughter said that she had no confidence at all that there were going to be any Social Security benefits for her when she reached retirement age, whatever that retirement age might be. On the other hand she said that she wasn't in favor of privatization because she didn't want to have to go to the trouble of making decisions on how her retirement money should be invested. She would just rather have the government do it for her.

This is typical democratic dribble – they don’t want to make a decision and they dam sure don’t want anyone else to either! Remember - they're the one's for social equality which means you weight the laziest folks first then try to balance out the rest.

The current issue of Time calls Social Security the best social program ever. Sorry, they have it wrong. The best social program ever is a system of economic liberty featuring capitalism and free enterprise operating under a system based on the rule of law. No program, private or public, has ever done so much to raise so many from the depths of poverty and despair as has capitalism. When the government steps aside and lets free people react freely with one another, amazing things happen. It's really too bad that Americans have fallen out of love with freedom and so in love with government-provided security.

[bulldawg]

I'm kind of torn on this issue.
One side of me says that to let people invest the funds could be a disaster if they lose it all.
But the other side tells me that there won't be anything left if the government keeps the total control of the money.
I guess if I don't have any social security when I get that age, they can just take me out back like an old dawg and shoot me! Because as it stands, I don't have any other retirement plan or pension plan going. I can't afford it! http://www.realtree.com/forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif

[Bruce Schmeck]

Slugshooter, please be advised! The ss system has not been solvent for a long time due to the fact that those taxes are not held separately from being spent elsewhere. Ever hear of the national debt??

Social security is nothing but a government ponzi/pyramid scheme and by their very nature these schemes collapse under their own weight.

Might I also add that if we ran such a scheme they'd prosecute our a$$es!

[slugshooter]

I will admit that the only thing I really know about it is I pay into it and that my fiance's mother draws it, that's a whole other topic that I don't want to get into here. I do feel however people who have no use for it (i.e. Retired executives who made millions "working" and made millions in retirement packages should not be able to draw.) But investing in the stock market or a retirement account is risky, some people don't want to make that decision. What happens if Wall Street crashes and you lose everything. I would prefer to have a say where my s.s. money goes every month, but if I had my choice it would go into either I bonds or EE bonds. Thats what my mother and step-father are doing with whatever money they can afford each month.

[wtnhunt]

Been a screwed up system for a long long time. Something needs to be done with it. As far as the figures go, who knows at the current rate how deep it will go. Different people can speculate using the saem information and come up with different numbers. There is no doubt the system is in need of some serious reform.

Some people who are not really in need of SS are getting it now while some who might need it cannot even get it. There is a lot of dead weight. My wifes step fathers mother has been drawing since her husband passed away over 40 years ago, and she has never worked. Not really sure how she has continued to draw, but I know she has. She has drawn considerably more than what the man ever even paid in. That is just plain wrong. I remember about 7 or 8 years ago she got a back pay check for over 30 grand because she was not receiving the right amount for so many years. Makes me absolutely sick. Why should we have to pay because she was too lazy to get off her rear and get out and get a job and make a living when she was able to. Now she is too old, but the system let her slide on through for so long it is too late to do anything about her now.

Sadly there are also some out there who are capable of working who do not just because they are drawing, they draw money for children and do not use that money for those children investing in the best interests of the children, but instead use it to keep from having to work.

[HuntingInMaine]

Social Security is an outdated program that means well, but desperately needs some work. I am 32 years old and I know that myself and many around my age don't think we will ever see a penny of the money we have paid towards SS.

When the system was originally put into practice I think the average age people lived to was between 60-65 years old. This means the government didn't figure they would have to pay many people because they wouldn't live long enough to start collecting. Now people are living well into their 80's and beyond. Then add all the people who have collected money but never paid a cent in, and you have the mess we do now.

I don't know how I feel about people being able to invest their own money, but they can't do any worse than the government has been doing!

[oldksnarc]

If there is a problem with the SS system it's because the federal government has been using it at a source of money for spending. If they left it alone and quit spending from it it might be more solvent than it is. Additionally, there are those who benefit from the system who have never paid into it.

[wtnhunt]

[ QUOTE ]
Additionally, there are those who benefit from the system who have never paid into it.


[/ QUOTE ]

That is a huge problem. While some I can understand. Kids should receive benefits when a parent has been lost and those benefits should have to be used to support those kids.