Fact check on Social Security plan

[slugshooter]

In his State of the Union Address, President Bush said again that the Social Security system is headed for "bankruptcy," a term that could give the wrong idea. Actually, even if it goes "bankrupt" a few decades from now, the system would still be able to pay about three-quarters of the benefits now promised.

Bush also made his proposed private Social Security accounts sound like a sure thing, which they are not. He said they "will" grow fast enough to provide a better return than the present system. History suggests that will be so, but nobody can predict what stock and bond markets will do in the future.

Bush left out any mention of what workers would have to give up to get those private acounts -- a proportional reduction or offset in guaranteed Social Security retirement benefits. He also glossed over the fact that money in private accounts would be "owned" by workers only in a very limited sense -- under strict conditions which the President referred to as "guidelines." Many retirees, and possibly the vast majority, wouldn't be able to touch their Social Security nest egg directly, even after retirement, because the government would take some or all of it back and convert it to a stream of payments guaranteed for life.

Click the link below for the full article:

http://www.factcheck.org/article305m.html

[Mathews XT Man]

well of course slugo, if you got your money tied up in a private account and you arnet paying into the SS system, guess what??? You dont have anything coming from that sacred cow...its in your hands!!! DUH!!!

[slugshooter]

How does that statement even have anything to with that article, what they are saying is, even if you decide to use your Social Security money and invest it in the stock market or whatever is planned, it still isn't "yours" And the government can decide how, when and how much you get over the course of time. Sounds to me like it will be just like Social Security only on the pretense that your money might grow over time. It doesn't matter, Bush proposed it so you guys would be for it even if there was indisputable evidence that it would be the worst thing you could do.

[slugshooter]

But is that guaranteed, it says right there the government will control how you receive those benefits even if you choose the personal plan, who's to say the government won't decide to keep that money once you day and leave your family in the cold.

[Strut10]

Sluggo............. Calm down. http://www.realtree.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif "Fact" is, nothing's been put down on paper yet. The "hammering out" stage of the details really hasn't even begun. So nobody knows what this thing is going to look like when finished.

Here's why I am tenatively in support of the "concept": It takes a measure of the government's control over my life and gives it back to me. Which is, by the way, where it belongs. It kinda hurts my feelings to have a bunch of "educated" politicians sitting around under the impression that I'm too dumb to be responsible for my own outcomes. http://www.realtree.com/forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif I have established other savings plans on my own and am happy to report that I'm WAY better at getting a return for my investments than the government is. So I'd like to have back 100% of the money they steal from me every week so I could do better with it, too. I am perfectly willing to accept the fact that there is a risk involved. It's one I'd be willing to take on all by my dumb,uneducated self. I don't want the government's "guarantee" of security. I want the government the h*** out of my life!! http://www.realtree.com/forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif

[wtnhunt]

[ QUOTE ]
Bush proposed it so you guys would be for it even if there was indisputable evidence that it would be the worst thing you could do.


[/ QUOTE ]

Dont hardly think so buddy.

Recognize where the problem is coming from, try to fix it the best you can. Looks to me like his intentions are good. We will see what gets done.

[David_218]

No matter what they do to the Social Security system, we're all still screwed. I listened to The Chuck Harder Show, on the internet, yesterday (first Hour) and he had an economist on that said President Bush's plan, along with many other plans out there, will not work. Our Enconomy is in such poor shape with trade deficits, individuals credit card debt now around $8,000 Average, and free trade taking away our ability to have a value added economy. Add to this fewer and fewer workers contributing to Social Security System.

[Strut10]

[ QUOTE ]
Our Enconomy is in such poor shape with trade deficits, individuals credit card debt now around $8,000 Average, and free trade taking away our ability to have a value added economy. Add to this fewer and fewer workers contributing to Social Security System.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that right??? http://www.realtree.com/forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Well, maybe we should all sit back with our thumbs in our rumps and let the gov't. run SS into the crapper and let them supervise our credit card spending, too.

How is it that this Chuck Harder knows the plan won't work when the plan is not even a reality yet??? How does he know what it's going to look like upon completion?? Lemme guess..............he's a Democrat...........right??

[David_218]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Our Enconomy is in such poor shape with trade deficits, individuals credit card debt now around $8,000 Average, and free trade taking away our ability to have a value added economy. Add to this fewer and fewer workers contributing to Social Security System.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that right??? http://www.realtree.com/forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Well, maybe we should all sit back with our thumbs in our rumps and let the gov't. run SS into the crapper and let them supervise our credit card spending, too.

How is it that this Chuck Harder knows the plan won't work when the plan is not even a reality yet??? How does he know what it's going to look like upon completion?? Lemme guess..............he's a Democrat...........right??

[/ QUOTE ]

No he (Chuck Harder) is not a Democrat. Here's his website if you want to check him out : www.chuckharder.com (http://www.chuckharder.com) You can also listen to his broadcast at 1 pm CST or 2 pm Eastern Time. He has a lot of good articles on the economy you should explore his website!

[Mathews XT Man]

." Actually, even if it goes "bankrupt" a few decades from now, the system would still be able to pay about three-quarters of the benefits now promised."
OK...in other words,its like paying 3/4 of your bills when they come due!! SORRY, I want all of what I paid in, try that with the gas station next time you fill up!!

[Norm Sauceman]

Until the Government officials who are in control of deciding what MY Social Security retirement is going to be are on Social Security themselves and NOT the PORK they have dished out to themselves for their own retirement, then heck yes, I am going to be scared. At the least, I am going to be skeptical they can get it right.

[ruttinbuc]

Looks like the working class is headed down the crapper again!

[David_218]

[ QUOTE ]
Until the Government officials who are in control of deciding what MY Social Security retirement is going to be are on Social Security themselves and NOT the PORK they have dished out to themselves for their own retirement, then heck yes, I am going to be scared. At the least, I am going to be skeptical they can get it right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not only do the Senators & Congressmen receive generious retirement benfits; we (the Taxpayers) foot the bill for their Health Care Insurance FOR LIFE!

[stevebeilgard]

sluggo, bush didn't say the ss system was heading for bankruptcy first. the dems have been saying it for over 30 years that i can remember. they simply didn't do anything about it. clinton said in '98 that it would be bankrupt in 20 years. any you're a history major????

Note to other readers: my daughter is a far right wing history professor, and a teacher. all is not lost to liberals!

[13littleones]

The fact is: President Bush said he "open" to any ideas to fix the problem.....it's not set in ink yet...

[slugshooter]

[ QUOTE ]
sluggo, bush didn't say the ss system was heading for bankruptcy first. the dems have been saying it for over 30 years that i can remember. they simply didn't do anything about it. clinton said in '98 that it would be bankrupt in 20 years. any you're a history major????

Note to other readers: my daughter is a far right wing history professor, and a teacher. all is not lost to liberals!

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know where you got history major from. First I have heard of anything being said about Social Security going broke is from Bush, of course, he likes to use "shock and awe" to get his message across. A good teacher doesn't enforce their political beliefs in the classroom anyway.

[wtnhunt]

[ QUOTE ]
First I have heard of anything being said about Social Security going broke is from Bush

[/ QUOTE ]

Afraid your wrong there buddy. I am only 35 and I have been hearing here and there that SS would go broke before I was old enough to retire since the time I started working over 20 years ago.

[David_218]

Anyone, under 50 years of age is going to have real problems with Social Security.

[ParrotHead]

Ok, lets examine this…

President Bush said again that the Social Security system is headed for "bankruptcy,"
In the 70’s, the social security program was found to be stable.
In the 80’s the social security program was found to be stable after COLAs were increased to respond to minor inflation levels.
In 1993, the amount of taxable benefits was increased to 85 percent on retirees.
In 1996, a trustee’s report stated that the Social Security system would start to run deficits in 2012, and the trust funds would be exhausted by 2029. All members of the Advisory Panel agreed that some or all of Social Security's funds should be invested in the private sector. To keep the unchanged system actuarially sound, payroll taxes would have to be increased 50%, to 18% of payroll, or benefits would have to be slashed by 30%.
1997 - All members of the presidentially-appointed Social Security Advisory Panel agreed that some or all of Social Security's funds should be invested in the private sector. To keep the unchanged system actuarially sound, payroll taxes would have to be increased 50%, to 18% of payroll, or benefits would have to be slashed by 30%."
1999 - The Social Security Trustees' Report stated the Social Security Retirement System's unfunded liability increased by $752 billion since the 1998 Trustee Report was published. This brings the total long-term unfunded liability to more than $19 trillion.

So if memory serves me correctly, it wasn’t President Bush that came up with the hair-brained idea of actually letting people be somewhat responsible for their future and retirement, it was an advisory panel appointed by Slick Willie. So what did ole Slick do with this advise? He did what every democrat would have done, he raised taxes.

“three-quarters of the benefits promised” Ever ask someone that received social security if they could live on 75 percent of what they’re getting now? How about asking a few and see what they say, my guess is not only NO, but **** NO.

nobody can predict what stock and bond markets will do in the future. First, the stock market is a gamble, anyone going into it needs to know this. But history also shows that the more money you pour into the stock market, the better it does.

As for your last statement – what is different between this and a 401k? Nothing is different except the fact that you have more control over what you can do with it.

What’s the big deal here folks, does it really piss the left off that some people actually want accountability and responsibility over their lives? Do you really hate those that have taken all the advantages this country offers and have actually done well for themselves? What exactly is your problem with this other than President Bush spoke about it and is in favor of it? Can you logically explain what bug you have up your **** about giving society a little more freedom to plan for their future? Are you afraid that your sorry asses are going to get left behind by those that go out and make more money when you’ve chosen not to?

[David_218]

[ QUOTE ]
nobody can predict what stock and bond markets will do in the future. First, the stock market is a gamble, anyone going into it needs to know this. But history also shows that the more money you pour into the stock market, the better it does.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think the stock market is going to remain basically "Flat" for the next forseeable future. You're right inthat today's stock market is a gamble & historcally it has come up, in the past. However, with the oil market's behavor, Trade imbalance, Dollar loosing value, and China & India both buying up more and more resources; I can't see much of a rise in our Stock Market in the near future. The S & P 500 Index funds are only yelding 3% on average in dividends per year, and with this I think the best place to park your money, for awhile would be in a Money Market account or a C.D. They might not pay very much but atleast they are going in the right direction, and they're insured up to $100,000. You could also invest in "I" Bonds which are adjusted for inflation.

[Texan_Til_I_Die]

I'm 46 years old and I'm planning to retire not later than 62. I would be willing to let the government keep every penny I've paid in to Social Security if they would just let me "opt out" of paying for the rest of my working years. I'm quite confident that I can take the same amount I would pay them, invest it myself, and retire with a better income than I will ever see from their plan.

[David_218]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm 46 years old and I'm planning to retire not later than 62. I would be willing to let the government keep every penny I've paid in to Social Security if they would just let me "opt out" of paying for the rest of my working years. I'm quite confident that I can take the same amount I would pay them, invest it myself, and retire with a better income than I will ever see from their plan.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot can happen, in 16 years. All I can say is plan for the worse and hope for the best.

[OJR]

As soon as I turned 62, I started to draw social security.

The thing is, when I was working, I never figured to use social security as my sole source of retirement. If I had, I would be in deep doodo!!! Social Security is and always has been a "Supplement" to retirement.

For those who will not or do not try to save up something other than social security, I cannot feel sorry for them. They have known their entire life that sooner or later they are going to hit the age where they won't be working.

Everybody had better invest on their own. It doesn't make any difference how much it is, but you have to save something!!!

[slugshooter]

Calm down Parrothead, if you have a problem with the post e-mail the non-partisan factcheck.com people, I didn't write it, all they do is clarify the spin that both parties put out regarding whatever is going on. I for one don't and won't put my money in the stock market, or a 401K, there is no guarantee on return but "historically" it has shown a good return, well, "historically" people lost everything and threw themselves out of windows when the stock market crashed 70 years ago. I would rather put my money in something that is guaranteed to gain interest ( CD's, I Bonds or EE Bonds) than put it in the stock market and hope everything goes well.

[OJR]

SS, you had better get a job that pays you MILLIONS because if you invest in those, you are really going to have a very skimpy retirement!!

Good luck to you!!!

[stevebeilgard]

one of the many great things about our nation is freedom. bushes plan is voluntary. so, if you choose, you may leave your money in the ss system. or, you may invest it in cd's, i bonds, etc. more power to you. see, i don't, and never did, have that option with my ss plan. in fact, my ss plan is to not ever use it. i'll take care of me. but, i do like options, such as bush is presenting for younger people.

[slugshooter]

[ QUOTE ]
SS, you had better get a job that pays you MILLIONS because if you invest in those, you are really going to have a very skimpy retirement!!

Good luck to you!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

It all depends on what you consider skimpy. Here's a little facts for you using the Treasury Departments growth calculator on bonds, which, I bonds are paying 3.69% if you buy right now but for the calculator we'll say 3%

With a $100 dollar investment and $100/month for 30 years, you'll have 52,241.95

with $200 you wind up with $104,483.90

with $500 you end up with $261,209.74

with $1000 you'll end up with $522,419.48

The question is, how much do you need to live comfortably in retirement, what is comfortably, it's different for everyone, now right now I certainly can't afford 500 or 1000 dollars a month, but 100 or 200 would be manageable and I am sure there are many here that could afford more. It's a lot less risky than the stock market, and besides, if I had a career that paid millions, I wouldn't even be worrying about social security or I bonds.

[OJR]

When you start having medical bills and insurance doesn't cover them, $200 or $300,000 doesn't last any time at all.

One trip to the hospital cost me over $125,000.00. Your safe bonds and investing that way is great if you never get sick or if you have plenty of insurance to cover it!

If it was just for living expenses, great! There is more to life than that when you get older!

I have been there and done that several times! 2004, my medical bills are going to run me over $75,000.00. Lots of good hunting trips went down the drain real quick!

Am I complaining. NO!! I am just trying to tell you the way it is!!!

I will make it and pay my bills without the help of the government!!

I am doing a little investing in the stock market and right now one of my stocks is up a little over 35% and I have been in it for about 8 months. I have a few more that are also on the plus side. Your bonds surely haven't done that in the last 8 months!!

By the way, I am going to take my profit and look for something else to get into!

[wtnhunt]

You know, I can remember going back to the 70's when my grandfather retired and got called out of retirtement several times. He worked for alcoa and had a pretty nice retirement. SS was diddly for him. He ended up with lung cancer as a result of exposure to asbestos when he worked back in his younger years. In the mid 80's before I graduated high school I can remember him suggesting that putting back for retirement was something you absolutely had to do. At that time little did he know he would end up with the fight for his life and would end up losing a huge portion of his savings. His life savings was a pretty nice chunk put into bonds and invested very well for his retirement, but he was no longer able to go back when alcoa called him for special projects, and after he passed my grandmother was no longer able to care for herself and she ended up in a home which pretty well polished off just about all of the remainder of his life savings. Think my mother and her 4 sisters ended up sharing a little over $100,000 after insurance paid out and what was left of his investments, that is not much.

My point is had he not saved and invested wisely, even with SS at the time he would have been in huge trouble,and he retired in the 70's. My grandparents were not rich by any means, but they were pretty comfortable. If SS was not enough to live on then, you know it is not enough to live on now. You never know what kind of circumstances might arise in your future. Dont count on the government to support you, if you do, dont complain when you get to that point and it is not enough to live on.

SS reform in my opinion needs to begin with getting those who are using and abusing the system off the benefits. Those who have not earned the right to draw should not be drawing, but I just dont see that happening anytime soon. Bush acknowledging something has to be done now is a step in the right direction if you ask me. Nothing about a plan from what I have heard is set in stone, however the ideas of letting people invest a portion of their own SS money to go directly to their own savings rather than having the government invest it does sound pretty good to me.

[ParrotHead]

[ QUOTE ]
Calm down Parrothead, if you have a problem with the post e-mail the non-partisan factcheck.com people, I didn't write it, all they do is clarify the spin that both parties put out regarding whatever is going on. I for one don't and won't put my money in the stock market, or a 401K, there is no guarantee on return but "historically" it has shown a good return, well, "historically" people lost everything and threw themselves out of windows when the stock market crashed 70 years ago. I would rather put my money in something that is guaranteed to gain interest ( CD's, I Bonds or EE Bonds) than put it in the stock market and hope everything goes well.

[/ QUOTE ]

All I asked was "why". Why some out there think it's a bad idea to give citizens a little more freedom to plan for themselves instead of having/relying on the governmnent to do ti for you.