Honestly, this whole mess is the people’s fault. They have elected men and women to congress who have royally screwed up everything, and then allowed them to stay in office.

right you are… I take my responsibility for my fellow Americans, just like I take responsibility for our other collective mistakes. however I promise you all I have been and will continue voting to correct it as often as the booth is open… that’s my promise.

now if we could just get some politicians to say that…

Over my working life I (and my employer) will pay in well over the $500K, but lower wage people will not pay anywhere near this amount.

The other thing that really burns me about SS is that government employees are on a completely different system. So as government grows in size, fewer people are in the pool of SS taxpayers. I say we put all government employees retirement on the SS system and we’d see screams for reform from the employees.

Can anyone say Hyperinflation? (and sooner rather than later).

Follow that with the LLL answers of Tax more, will mean what 500k worth? “Who has 500k to be taxed and is their even enough rich rich enough to pay for all those that don’t?”

Of course this will not happen and instead we will get more regulation, more taxes for global warming and a even HIGHER end debt entitlement cost.

The bright side I guess is that when it all does crash the LLL’s the only answer to re-build from nothing is good ole conservatism.

Reading over the Trustee’s Report, I feel that the collapse of Social Security is quite overrated.

thuja on May 19, 2008 at 12:52 PM

It’s all in how you do the accounting, government has got pretty good over the years at blowing sunshine on this issue. Its amazing what you can do with a pencil, Enron looked great in year 2000, not so great in 2001.

So they scared old people into believing Bush was trying to take their money when in reality he was trying to prevent total collapse of the system. And total collapse will happen one day, it’s inevitable.

Maxx on May 19, 2008 at 12:23 PM

Reading over the Trustee’s Report, I feel that the collapse of Social Security is quite overrated. It’s based on growth rates of the economy that are far under historical experience. This isn’t to say that we wouldn’t be much better if Bush had had his way. I would argue that the best reason for the purposed reforms of Social Security is bribe everyone into thinking a good economy is good for them.

In fact, I would go much further and advocate a free marketish bribing of lower income groups. I advocate giving everyone a $1000 a year for their retirement while we get rid of the current system. They could only put the $1000 in domestic index stock funds until they are 65 years old, and they will of course have internet access to the exact value of their retirement funds. Thus, when the Democrats attempt socialist policies that harm the economy and the stock market, lower income individuals will see their own net worth decline and will understand the value of good economic policy. Too long has the bribery worked only in favor of socialist policies.

Honestly, this whole mess is the people’s fault.

Trtle2001 on May 19, 2008 at 12:33 PM

Well, that will be the government’s defense, no doubt. They will not take responsibility for their deceptions, I agree to that extent.

How is Social Security an entitlement? It’s money taken straight from my paycheck with some kind of promise that I’ll get it back later.

If it’s not given back, then I’d call it theft.

Esthier on May 19, 2008 at 12:02 PM

This is the really sad part. There is not now, nor has there ever been anything in Social Security law that mandates the government to give you anything back. There is a lot of convoluted language that implies that the government is suppose to give you something back but no hard language that places any kind of strict obligation for government to pay.

Social Security has been a giant ponzi scheme from the beginning. Bush really did try to do something about it by advocating a privatized system, which has worked in other countries that have similar systems. But the Democrats want no part of that, they don’t want their slush fund to go away, this could be true of some Republicans too. So they scared old people into believing Bush was trying to take their money when in reality he was trying to prevent total collapse of the system. And total collapse will happen one day, it’s inevitable.

before American workers become nothing more than serfs providing funding for a massive nanny state.

Too late.

If it’s not given back, then I’d call it theft.

We are in agreement, but it won’t help the entitlement situation, it will make it worse. We do and will need more nurses. . . but those nurses will make increasingly less money as payouts for Medicare recipients will need to be cut in order to maintain the solvency of the program.

ThackerAgency on May 19, 2008 at 11:16 AM

I’m not optimistic about the situation. Politicians are mostly kicking the can down the road. I give Bush credit for taking a shot at it, but like Reagan he got slammed by the scaremongers. At some point a President will appoint a “blue ribbon” panel of former congressmen, governors and business leaders. The panel will make the recommendations, and both parties will agree to a cease fire regarding compromise points.

We are in agreement, but it won’t help the entitlement situation, it will make it worse. We do and will need more nurses. . . but those nurses will make increasingly less money as payouts for Medicare recipients will need to be cut in order to maintain the solvency of the program.

My collie says:

Who wants to break the news to the general populace? Any volunteers?

The reason ‘low skilled’ is important is because of the amount of taxes that they pay. The entitlement programs are based on the idea that you can make the money to fund it through taxes. If you have more low paying workers, you won’t have enough to fund the entitlement programs. . . but you will have more people who need to have their entitlement programs funded.

The government will cause this country to fail through irresponsible spending and policies. . . but they don’t care because through the fall, they’ll be powerful and that’s all that matters to them personally.

ThackerAgency on May 19, 2008 at 11:05 AM

Bingo! The amount of taxes those low-wage workers will generate is miniscule compared to the huge benefit bite those same low-wage workers and their families will drain out of the entitlement pool.

Insane.

The government will cause this country to fail through irresponsible spending and policies. . . but they don’t care because through the fall, they’ll be powerful and that’s all that matters to them personally.

ThackerAgency on May 19, 2008 at 11:05 AM

That’s no doubt true. Still, regardless of irresponsible politicians the country will experience an increase in jobs for eldercare over the next 25 years. Boomers will stop producing, stop purchasing consumer goods and begin consuming healthcare services. More of the American economy will move toward the service sector, with many of those jobs requiring some training but not much education.

/sarc