If it's one of "mankind's greatest accomplishments", and everything negative that anyone says about this "accomplishment" is just Bush administration propaganda.....

....then why are you so hesitant to rely on it for your retirement?

:rolleyes:

Either it's solid and everything's OK, or it's failing.

Can't have it both ways!

This is not a partisan issue, and the Secretary's statements are NOT mis-informataion. The REALITY of the matter is that the system is unsustainable, and all of the "fixes" that politicians have been offering are only making it worse by delaying the inevitable.

...Which is costing us even MORE of our hard-earned money in the meantime.

It is a flawed, doomed, unfair wealth re-distribution system that is taken advantage of both by irresponsible citizens AND power-hungry politicians, and it should be phased out. Or participation should be made VOLUNTARY, at the very least.

Mike

if you have an IRA, a 401k or anything similar, ask a very old railroad worker where they got the money to start SS. They have probably already figured out how to fix SS and you won't like it.

I didn't say that.Because its future depends on politicians doing the right thing.Not true. The Social Security system is solid, but everything is definitely not OK. It needs fixing, but the fix is well within our reach.I didn't say they were, but I do wonder how you know that his statements are accurate.

EDIT: And I don't recall seeing anything from Secretary Paulson that says that the system cannot be fixed.Many economists disagree with you.A voluntary system would fail. The only way the system works is for some people to die before they receive the amount they paid in. It is just the slight touch of socialism that our capitalist system needs to continue operating.

People are going to start having bigger families like they used to, just to insure there are enough kids around to support the parents when they get old and can't work any longer.

[QUOTE=dculkin;1804598]Good grief. Such doom and gloom.

on the short list of the greatest accomplishments in the history of mankind

I respectfully disagree. SS is the greatest tax ever perpetrated on the American public.

Which is one of the biggest reasons that it is destined to fail.

And many economists agree with me.

Mike

Just put it in a lock box and everything will be okay.

-Al Gore

Many economists disagree with each other all the time . . .

The hell you say???? They wouldn't, would they?

The writing has been on the wall for years. Either they are going to have to cut benifits or raise taxes...A LOT! No politician is going to say gee sorry but were going to have to cut that SS check by 30%. Consider that a lot of old people vote they would be pissing there politcal career away. So they are going to wait until their is a massive problem and they have to deal with it.

My retirement plan involves real estate that cash flows.:D

That's fair. I think it's a great system in part because I would find it unacceptable to live in a purely capitalistic society. Capitalism has brought greater prosperity to more people than any system I know, but we need a safety net. Social Security provides that safety net in an efficient, low-overhead manner. It has lifted many, many Americans out of poverty and prevented many others from falling into poverty and doesn't impose such a penalty as to discourage people from trying earn as much as they can.

I agree with both statements.

I thought you once said it was the best thing we ever did?

But once Bush gets out of office, they will do the right thing. So where is the problem? It is all Bush. Now you say it is the elected officials. Which is it?

How do you define "solid"? When I say "solid" it is find and can run on. My car is "solid" because it is running without a flaw. When my car needs to be fixed, it won't be "solid" any more. If it keeps breaking down and needs fixing, I won't call it "solid". If it is needing a major overhaul, I don't call it solid either. To me, solid means it is running the way it should. Well, maybe once in a while, a small fix.

And why is that? Because it cannot work without forced participation? That is your definition of solid? It is so solid that without being forced into it, the entire thing is so fragile it will crack and break?

I thought it was depending on enough people contributing into it? IIRC, it was designed for more workers vs retirees than we are having now?

You do realize that whether you add a spoonful of sewage into a barrel of fine wine or you add a spoonful of fine wine into sewage, the result is the same, don't you?

It is one of the best things we ever did. If I said it was the best, then I exaggerated.I didn't say that anyone would do the right thing. I said that once Bush is gone, "maybe" they will do the right thing.Less than perfect, but sustainable with reasonable adjustments.Right. What is wrong with that? Do you doubt the government's ability to continue to force people to pay into Social Security? If not, then how is the system not solid?I don't have the expertise to discuss the details of all that. As I understand it, though, there are many people who die before they get back the money they paid in. It stands to reason that those payments go the benefit of the surviving recipients.If you say so. I don't have any experience with that sort of thing.

I seem to recall you telling me it was our greatest successful program or something to that effect when I said before that it was a mess.

As right as they have been doing since BEFORE Bush came to office? IOW, if Bush didn't mess with it, it could have gone on forever? And you think that they are going to make it work AFTER he is out?

How reasonable do you want to make it? We started out with 22 workers to 1 retiree. Now the figure is less than 10 workers to 1 retiree. Fixes have been put off, funds have been raided, etc, etc. Any fix is NOT going to be a small painless adjustment. It is going to HURT.

The ration of workers is dropping FAST. How long it can sustain itself will definitely be in doubt even if you press ganged everybody into it, including retirees.

It was set up in a different day and time when there were way more workers than retirees. Now the equation has drastically changed and will change even more when the baby boomers retire. How can that be classified as "solid"? The main basis for your making money has changed. You get paid $2200 a month. Now you are being paid $400 a month. Skipping out on your Starbucks Latte once a week isn't going to change things much. Hence my saying that the system is a mess.

What would you think of investing in a barrel of the finest wine with a spoonful of sewage in it?