[Khurlxgq]

I don't know why this is surprising. The demographics of the aging population are not new.

[Quonuttott]

If it were up to me, Dis, we'd offer an option to current beneficiaries of continuing with the program as is or opting out and taking a tax credit for the remainder of any contributions plus, say, 10%. For those who have not started receiving benefits but have 25 or more years in contributions they'd get the same option with a reduced benefit but also be allowed to contribute up to 10% of their wages to a retirement plan tax free (like an IRA but without the contribution cap). For those with less than 25 years paid in they wouldn't get an option on receiving benefits but they would get the tax credit and be allowed to contribute up to 15% of their wages tax free.

For nothing more than the peace of mind of some folks I could also see establishing certain funds in which only "secure" investments (Treasuries) are allowed to be purchased or which are insured by the government up to a certain level. This would resolve the unease that a lot of people have with investing for retirement on the open market while still keeping the thieves in Congress from getting their hands on the funds.

Most of that sounds reasonable as a general plan, although I suspect that the government would have to raise taxes because of all the tax credits people would suddenly be claiming, which might kill any kind of deal in that regard.

[Adimos]

We did at one point, it failed miserably, left the nation in a Great Depression, then we went to a regulated market economy, which worked well for a period, then regulations were removed until we find the system failing miserably again.

And your brilliant solution would be to remove all regulation, just like before the Great Depression.

Really? Looks like it did a wonderful job of building this country when it was hampered by government the least.

The market goes through highs and lows, that's what markets do. What all you liberals would like to do is eliminate the lows. Which is impossible. All you do is put off the low until it crushes you.

You want the steak, but you don't want to have to eat the gruel you sometimes need to in order to afford the steak.

[JimmyHas]

Most of that sounds reasonable as a general plan, although I suspect that the government would have to raise taxes because of all the tax credits people would suddenly be claiming, which might kill any kind of deal in that regard.

That WOULD be the kicker unless some very deep cuts were made to other programs....or we borrowed more. Basically it would be like a restructure under Ch 11 bankruptcy.

The advantages are that we retain a viable retirement program, put the majority of the responsibility for maintaining the system back on the private sector thus reducing the potential for government abuse and, mostly, dump TONS of money back into the private sector which should spur a sustainable economic upturn.

The disadvantage is that if people fail to contribute to their own retirement we're going to see an increase in broke as hell old folks.....not that those currently surviving on SS alone are well off right now.

[q9h9pPne]

That definition makes sense, although why shouldn't it be compound interest?

OK compund interest


Your first sentence here seems to be disconnected from the rest of your statement. People were too stupid to save for their retirement, or at least had too many eggs in one basket (wall street and the bank) when the market collapsed in 1929, which is also stupid (although seemingly less stupid).

Government didn't cause the stock market to crash in 1929, the private market did that. One could argue rationally that the FED, which was set up 15 years earlier failed to PREVENT the failure, but that is different than CAUSING the failure. The stock market has nothing to do with retirement, but I can see why the government says the people are to stupid to save for retirement. Through your working life you put money away and you put it in many different places to spread your risk, if anyone even today has all their money strictly in the stock market their why the government is right, people are to stupid to save for their own retirement.

Ultimately the government is what the people make it. Obviously if government fails, it means we the people have failed, we're a democratic republic after all. I didn't vote for Obama

SS will be completely solvent through 2037, which is more than 100 years since it was started, and will be able to pay out funds until 2084. Not many private endeavors do that well do they? Yes, there are problems with SS, but they are surmountable.

7 Ways to Make Social Security Solvent - TheStreet You must grow your own pot.

My biggest gripe is that people whine about government entitlements, but then the very same people are the first in line demanding their entitlements. Conservatives whine about the system being a failure, yet they want to do nothing to save it, and they still want their handout that they feel they have coming. They can't have their cake and eat it too. Either they have to be willing to sacrifice some of their entitled benefits, or pay more taxes, or abolish the system and declare all benefits null-and-void, even the ones they think are rightfully 'theirs'. Wow, have you been watching your Dem's at work, I mean they are really attacking the budget these days, yet it's the Pubs that are making all the cuts and it's the Dem's trying to stop them. You liberals make up crap that I just a big belly laugh out of.

Right NOW is the time to make minor adjustments. SS insolvency is like a meteorite that's going to hit the earth. Nudge it early and you stave off disaster. Wait until it enters the atmosphere and the world's combined nukes can't stop it. Yep when you got your own pot plants you can stay in a daze. 14+ trillion in debt is nothing to worry about. Last month we had the largest deficit in US History and that equals 1.5 trillion more added to the national debts. But heck the US is not broke, SS is riding high on cash, and Medicare is also flush with money. Medicaid is a state problem and all the states are flush, with plenty in the bank. You must have some really good shit your smoking.

[brraverishhh]

If it were up to me, Dis, we'd offer an option to current beneficiaries of continuing with the program as is or opting out and taking a tax credit for the remainder of any contributions plus, say, 10%. For those who have not started receiving benefits but have 25 or more years in contributions they'd get the same option with a reduced benefit but also be allowed to contribute up to 10% of their wages to a retirement plan tax free (like an IRA but without the contribution cap). For those with less than 25 years paid in they wouldn't get an option on receiving benefits but they would get the tax credit and be allowed to contribute up to 15% of their wages tax free.

What you would do is with this is increase the demand on the trust fund.
Social Security is insurance, insurance works because people don't know the future. The guy who pays into Social Security for 45 years, and dies at 64, never collects a nickel, but the person who lives to 110 collects many times what they put in. It's there when you need it.
If it were possible to withdraw a lump sum, then people with terminal diseases would withdraw lump sums, people who faced financial difficulty might also be tempted to withdraw lump sums, and later end up on welfare, instead of Social Security, (we aren't letting people starve to death are we?).
All these options increase the demand on funds.
And tax credits for savings increase savings amongst the people who need it least, and do nothing for the truly financially strapped.

If you did away with Social Security, then senior poverty would increase, along with the money spent on welfare programs for seniors.
Seniors, for the most part don't work, and live off someone else, be it their investments, or like in the old days, they move in with one of their kids.


For nothing more than the peace of mind of some folks I could also see establishing certain funds in which only "secure" investments (Treasuries) are allowed to be purchased or which are insured by the government up to a certain level. This would resolve the unease that a lot of people have with investing for retirement on the open market while still keeping the thieves in Congress from getting their hands on the funds. This is exactly what the Trust does now.
The alternative to Treasuries, is private issues, which can default, and which would have to be selected by people on the government payroll, a scenario that is so open to abuse, that it has never been seriously considered.

[JimmyHas]

What you would do is with this is increase the demand on the trust fund.
Social Security is insurance, insurance works because people don't know the future. The guy who pays into Social Security for 45 years, and dies at 64, never collects a nickel, but the person who lives to 110 collects many times what they put in. It's there when you need it.
If it were possible to withdraw a lump sum, then people with terminal diseases would withdraw lump sums, people who faced financial difficulty might also be tempted to withdraw lump sums, and later end up on welfare, instead of Social Security, (we aren't letting people starve to death are we?).
All these options increase the demand on funds.
And tax credits for savings increase savings amongst the people who need it least, and do nothing for the truly financially strapped.

Who's talking about lump sum distributions? If you had contributed, for example, $111,600 (contributions for 30 years at a salary of $60k/yr) you'd get a tax credit of $122,760 to use until it was gone. I'm not talking about a refundable credit.

[Quonuttott]

The stock market has nothing to do with retirement, but I can see why the government says the people are to stupid to save for retirement. Through your working life you put money away and you put it in many different places to spread your risk, if anyone even today has all their money strictly in the stock market their why the government is right, people are to stupid to save for their own retirement.

The crash of the stock market mainly hurt rich people. Everyone else was hurt because they kept their money in banks, and the banks consequently went under after wall street crashed. Were people stupid to keep their money in the bank? Even if they kept their savings spread across 5 different banks, they all probably failed. My family has a history of owning land. My family (great grandparents) made out pretty well during the depression.


I didn't vote for Obama Irrelevant. I didn't vote for him either. You're still an American as am I. Its 'our' government that is fucking things up whether we voted for who is in office or not.

Wow, have you been watching your Dem's at work, I mean they are really attacking the budget these days, yet it's the Pubs that are making all the cuts and it's the Dem's trying to stop them. You liberals make up crap that I just a big belly laugh out of. The main republican plan seemed to be privatising retirement accounts, putting everyone's money all in wall street, which is exactly the wrong direction since that's basically repeating history from 1929 only through government encouragement. Republicans are also head over heels at cutting cutting cutting taxes, but never really get around to cutting spending. And conservatives still vote for that shit. You cannot continually cut taxes, leave spending intact, and claim to be fiscally conservative. The house bill the republicans are passing contains 98% of the spending that the dems want. The republican-approved budget has a 1.589 Trillion dollar deficit.

I'm not really sure where you are going with the pot comments, the only pot I use is the one I cook in.

[GennadiyRom]

So what do you propose is the solution? When the top 1% of the nation earn 24% of its wealth, 99% still have to live and eat. When 25% of children are at or near poverty level, what is your proposal? When thousands apply for a single job, what is your proposal?

What does it tell you about American values when a report on Poverty in America gets so little attention in MSM? America has moved, maybe we could say brain washed and propagandized, so far from it original values of faith, hope, and charity, that we are now a nation of the selfish haves and everyone else. What a sad nation the conservatives and republicans are creating. 'Weirdness' as George Will used the word is a pure euphemism, greed and actual stupidity are closer to the truth.

That Must Watch 60 Minutes Poverty Segment | The Economic Populist


'One in four African-Americans lives below the federal poverty line, compared to about one in eight Americans overall. In 2009, the poverty line for a family of two adults and two children was $21,756.'

'Poverty among African-American children is especially alarming—putting a generation at risk. More than a third (35.7 percent) of all African-American children lives in poverty, compared to one in five children living in poverty in the country as a whole.' Above quote from here.



'For Preventing The Children of Poor People in Ireland From Being A burden to Their Parents or Country, and For Making Them Beneficial to The Public' By Jonathan Swift

”I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled ...” Jonathan Swift - A Modest Proposal


Books: Our Invisible Poor : The New Yorker

"If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin." Charles Darwin

[GennadiyRom]

The crash of the stock market mainly hurt rich people. Everyone else was hurt because they kept their money in banks, and the banks consequently went under after wall street crashed. Were people stupid to keep their money in the bank? Even if they kept their savings spread across 5 different banks, they all probably failed. My family has a history of owning land. My family (great grandparents) made out pretty well during the depression.

You can't be serious, the stock market crash, the direct result of republican policies hurt mostly the middle class who saved for many years a nest egg. The rich have lots of money, I know many, they never suffer, even when they complain and whine and act like the sky is falling.

[Quonuttott]

You can't be serious, the stock market crash, the direct result of republican policies hurt mostly the middle class who saved for many years a nest egg. The rich have lots of money, I know many, they never suffer, even when they complain and whine and act like the sky is falling.

Yes it hurt the middle class as well, although I suspect they were most hurt by the banks failing.

The rich ultimately had other assets which meant they still did ok even after the crash and bank failures.

[Khurlxgq]

Yes it hurt the middle class as well, although I suspect they were most hurt by the banks failing.

The rich ultimately had other assets which meant they still did ok even after the crash and bank failures.

The rich owned the banks. Big difference there!

[no02rSx2]

The "hand-outs" could be cheaper then the bullets and barbed wire it'd cost to deal with the folks with no wage to be made else-wise.

[gusecrync]

I cannot believe that Handouts Make Up One-Third of U.S. Wages - WOW holy cow...

Government payouts—including Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance—make up more than a third of total wages and salaries of the U.S. population, a record figure that will only increase if action isn’t taken before the majority of Baby Boomers enter retirement.

Even as the economy has recovered, social welfare benefits make up 35 percent of wages and salaries this year, up from 21 percent in 2000 and 10 percent in 1960, according to TrimTabs Investment Research using Bureau of Economic Analysis data.

“The U.S. economy has become alarmingly dependent on government stimulus,” (THE DEMOCRAT WAY SORTA LIKE A DRUG DEALER GET THEM HOOKED THEN HIT EM HARD)said Madeline Schnapp, director of Macroeconomic Research at TrimTabs, in a note to clients. “Consumption supported by wages and salaries is a much stronger foundation for economic growth than consumption based on social welfare benefits.”

The economist gives the country two stark choices. In order to get welfare back to its pre-recession ratio of 26 percent of pay, “either wages and salaries would have to increase $2.3 trillion, or 35 percent, to $8.8 trillion, or social welfare benefits would have to decline $500 billion, or 23 percent, to $1.7 trillion,” she said.

Last month, the Republican-led House of Representatives passed a $61 billion federal spending cut, but Senate Democratic leaders and the White House made it clear that had no chance of becoming law. Short-term resolutions passed have averted a government shutdown that could have occurred this month, as Vice President Biden leads negotiations with Republican leaders on some sort of long-term compromise.

“You’ve got to cut back government spending and the Republicans will run on this platform leading up to next year’s election,” said Joe Terranova, Chief Market Strategist for Virtus Investment Partners and a “Fast Money” trader.

Terranova noted some sort of opt out for social security or even raising the retirement age.

But the country may not be ready for these tough choices, even though economists like Schnapp say something will have to be done to avoid a significant economic crisis.

A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll released last week showed that less than a quarter of Americans supported making cuts to Social Security or Medicare in order to reign in the mounting budget deficit.

Those poll numbers may be skewed by a demographic shift the likes of which the nation has never seen. Only this year has the first round of baby boomers begun collecting Medicare benefits—and here comes 78 million more.

Social welfare benefits have increased by $514 billion over the last two years, according to TrimTabs figures, in part because of measures implemented to fight the financial crisis. Government spending normally takes on a larger part of the spending pie during economic calamities but how can the country change this make-up with the root of the crisis (housing) still on shaky ground, benchmark interest rates already cut to zero, and a demographic shift that calls for an increase in subsidies?

At the very least, we can take solace in the fact that we’re not quite at the state welfare levels of Europe. In the U.K., social welfare benefits make up 44 percent of wages and salaries, according to TrimTabs’ Schnapp.

“No matter how bad the situation is in the US, we stand far better on these issues (debt, demographics, entrepreneurship) than other countries,” said Steve Cortes of Veracruz Research. “On a relative basis, America remains the world leader and, as such, will also remain the world's reserve currency.”

News Headlines

Nancy Pelosi is on record for stating that unemployment insurance benefits is an economic stimulus-- Of course this being taken out of the so-called economic stimulus bill of 787 BILLION dollars that was delivered to the states to provide unemployment insurance benefits. Money that was shoved down our throats with a promise to create private sector jobs.

It's of no surprise that 1/3 of the wages in this country is delivered by the working taxpayers of this country. And if it keeps going down this road with no serious cuts to social security--medicare (which make up 40% of the federal budget)--this country will turn into a 3rd world country. Baby boomers are retiring into these two funds by 18,000 per day and this will continue for the next 15 years.

Everything needs to be on the chopping block and there should be no sacred cows in this. If Americans don't understand what a too big out of control federal government has done--they are truly blind.

[Hofonom]

So, what we need is for the Congress to take a serious look at the entitlement programs.
1. Social Security: Raise the retirement age; base Social Security Retirement payments on a sliding scale. The more you make in retirement income the less you get from Social Security. Make Social Security basically a insurance program, if you need it you get it; if you are making let say $50,000 a year as a married couple...no Social Security

2.Medicare same requirements as above

3.Medicaid take a real close look at who and why they are on Medicaid

4. Unemployment benefits: reduce the number of weeks allowed for payment. Must have proof that you are looking for a job. Too many sit around and wait for unemployment to run out before they start looking

5. Welfare. Reform it. Welfare payments can only be use for food and shelter plus a annual allotment for clothing. No more big screen TV's, trips to the casinos, etc.

6. No payments if you are in this country illegally.

I miss any?

[JMLot]

Ladies, Gentlemen, other... it is only going to get worse. The economy is not getting all that much better no matter how much government is trying to spend and we have a significant level of people, baby boomer generation, moving into the realm of social security. 34%-35% of the population getting "wages" or "income" or from the government is only the beginning. I'd expect to hit 40% or more within the next 5 years, easy. With a nice debt to go along with it.

[Dogxzysl]

well they are not taxable wages ... These are wages given for voting democrat!

Thats a pretty good wage per hour! Pull lever, my work here is done, now to collect.

[Heaneisismich]

My biggest gripe is that people whine about government entitlements, but then the very same people are the first in line demanding their entitlements. Conservatives whine about the system being a failure, yet they want to do nothing to save it, and they still want their handout that they feel they have coming. They can't have their cake and eat it too. Either they have to be willing to sacrifice some of their entitled benefits, or pay more taxes, or abolish the system and declare all benefits null-and-void, even the ones they think are rightfully 'theirs'.

You are exactly correct. It's one of the many hypocrisies of conservatives and more proof that they only believe in limited government when it suits them.

[Khurlxgq]

SS is a handout.. the way the government makes believe you are getting what you put in though makes people think its not.

I knoe someone who at 18 "hurt" his back.. he has been on SS since.. he rides a motorcycle, just had his thrid baby and runs a pt business that is his "Wifes" so he can work, but like the handout.

And you are an accomplice in this fraud because you do not turn him in.

[goatteatromiag]

SS is a handout.. the way the government makes believe you are getting what you put in though makes people think its not.

I knoe someone who at 18 "hurt" his back.. he has been on SS since.. he rides a motorcycle, just had his thrid baby and runs a pt business that is his "Wifes" so he can work, but like the handout.

I have heard of this happening way too often. People thinks its alright if they do that because in America you can just have money for free. What they dont realize is there are going to be enough of them to bring down the system they depend on...