http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17435873/site/newsweek/

Does anyone feel this way toward our government and American society? Just speaking for me, I do. Medicare bills and Social Security debts just rack up. Our grandparents and some of our parents will die, and we'll be the ones left to pay for it all and pick up the tab. Democrats and Republicans both don't have the balls to do what is needed.

[Edited on March 7, 2007 at 8:25 AM. Reason : .]

3/7/2007 8:23:13 AM

We're not nearly as bad off as they are as they're paying upwards of 70% in taxes to pay for entitlement programs that their government will be too broke to give to them when they are eligible.

I know (and actually hope) that Medicare and Social Security are both canned in my lifetime. I will not expect a handout and do not want a handout even if my money (a hell of a lot of it) goes to fund these programs.

The idea of a government providing health care and "money when you get old" is against what America is supposed to be about: less government, pay your own way because no one is supposed to pay it for you.

I believe we should help the needy and those that are down on their luck, but I do not see a reason why Bill Gates should receive a social security check when he turns 65.

CAN THESE PROGRAMS AND REDUCE THEM TO HELP ONLY THOSE THAT NEED IT.

[Edited on March 7, 2007 at 8:32 AM. Reason : .]

3/7/2007 8:31:57 AM

Quote :

"The idea of a government providing health care and "money when you get old" is against what America is supposed to be about: less government, pay your own way because no one is supposed to pay it for you."

who says?

Quote :

"CAN THESE PROGRAMS AND REDUCE THEM TO HELP ONLY THOSE THAT NEED IT."

isn't that a contradiction?

[Edited on March 7, 2007 at 8:39 AM. Reason : .]

3/7/2007 8:33:22 AM

No, get rid of the program and continue what we do already for the needy, be it a needy person who is 12 or a needy person who is 85.

Quote :

"who says?"

I say. Economics say. The recession that this will cause when social security and medicaid take up 40% of our budget (forecasted).

3/7/2007 8:55:06 AM

I think if you are going to get rid of Social Security, you need to offer all the people who have paid into it an option to keep it or get something back. Some sort of system that cuts off at on the first day of the next year and anyone who has paid anything into SS gets the option to either continue paying and receive benefits per usual, quit paying and lose what they have already paid into it, or possibly offer some sort of refund if at all possible.

3/7/2007 9:03:56 AM

they discussed this on 60 mins sunday( I know). By 2040 if they dont change anything our country will be spending 90% on entitlement programs. We wont have any money for national defense, homeland security, etc. They went on to say that the medicare presription drug plan was the most fiscally irresponsible move in US history, I agree. They also stated that the govt offers unlimited healthcare to its poor and elderly, and they never see the costs of thier bills. When the boomers hit, it will bankrupt it all. He stated we need to drastically cut and/or reform these programs and raise taxes. No politician will touch these issues though. You dont get elected saying you are going to cut SS, medicare, and medicaid while raising taxes.

However, I think if americans were informed of the problems then we would accept such actions. However, we are in the time of politicians promising the world to try to stay elected. As divided as the country is now, you could be one entitlement program away from the white house...so you better promise 3 just to be sure.

3/7/2007 9:07:58 AM

phase the system out in stages, and offer those who have paid in a refund in the form of tax breaks for x years.

3/7/2007 9:08:48 AM

^^^Not economically feasible since we're paying for our grandparents benefits and not our own. The system requires, basically, for the younger generation to pay for the older. It's not like all the social security money the old people paid in is sitting in a swiss bank somewhere.

The whole system needs to go. If you're under 50, you don't receive the benefit. If you're over 50, then you still receive the benefit. SS taxes would go down for everyone, but for a while, you would still have to pay in without receiving later.

I pay medicare and never received or will in the future receive a benefit.

[Edited on March 7, 2007 at 9:10 AM. Reason : .]

3/7/2007 9:08:55 AM

[Edited on March 7, 2007 at 9:11 AM. Reason : nvmind]

3/7/2007 9:10:59 AM

some folks can't read and only learn from repetition... so here we go:

Quote :

"If you're under 50, you don't receive the benefit. If you're over 50, then you still receive the benefit."

3/7/2007 9:12:20 AM

Quote :

"If you're under 50, you don't receive the benefit. If you're over 50, then you still receive the benefit."

Easy for a guy in his early twenties to say... hard to get a 45 year old voter to agree with.

3/7/2007 9:35:02 AM

it's gotta happen or we'll go bankrupt. The 45 year old has 20 years to sure up his retirement. Or he'll be one of the "needies" who has to stand in line to get his monthly money.

3/7/2007 9:36:20 AM

Yeah, the solution is to just create "the shafted generation." People that are young enough have all their lives to invest all that extra money. People that are just old enough miss out on that opportunity and lose out on everything they already paid in.

Nice platform. It's sure to go over.

3/7/2007 9:39:15 AM

people in our generation are really going to get the shaft. That or you will be penalized by saving by way of means testing you out of your money. More encouragement for people to do spend instead of save.

3/7/2007 9:41:08 AM

Quote :

"phase the system out in stages, and offer those who have paid in a refund in the form of tax breaks for x years. I think if you are going to get rid of Social Security, you need to offer all the people who have paid into it an option to keep it or get something back. Some sort of system that cuts off at on the first day of the next year and anyone who has paid anything into SS gets the option to either continue paying and receive benefits per usual, quit paying and lose what they have already paid into it, or possibly offer some sort of refund if at all possible. Not economically feasible since we're paying for our grandparents benefits and not our own. The system requires, basically, for the younger generation to pay for the older. It's not like all the social security money the old people paid in is sitting in a swiss bank somewhere. The whole system needs to go. If you're under 50, you don't receive the benefit. If you're over 50, then you still receive the benefit. SS taxes would go down for everyone, but for a while, you would still have to pay in without receiving later. I pay medicare and never received or will in the future receive a benefit."

Great to say on a message board. Now, to the second part of my question that your responses lead to. What person in what party in Congress or running for President would put forth such an idea? Not a one unfortunately. One thing that hurts our generation is that older people vote more than we do. So, come election time, candidates cater to the people that vote. So Republicans and Democrats would neither put forth such an idea due to backlash. And where does that leave us?

Quote :

"The idea of a government providing health care and "money when you get old" is against what America is supposed to be about: less government, pay your own way because no one is supposed to pay it for you."

Says you, but America has been that way for 75 years. We can go all idealist and say well it shouldn't be that way, but it's not realistic cause a majority of congressmen and the people vote for it.

Not to mention that the "less government" thing, especially from the Republicans, is a laughingstock since G.W. came to power. I don't see how anyone can keep a straight face when Republicans say they want less government. (Department of Homeland Security, Department of Education, Department of Defense, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the past 10 years, etc.).

[Edited on March 7, 2007 at 9:55 AM. Reason : .]

3/7/2007 9:47:49 AM

Someone will propose the agenda sooner or later. It HAS to be done. Or this whole thing will come crashing to the ground.

I have no problem (although begrudgingly so) paying my SS taxes and not receiving the benefit if we remove, once and for all, the entitlement society that FDR and LBJ so naively put into motion.

3/7/2007 9:52:40 AM

^ It fit FDR's time. FDR gets more a free pass from me than LBJ though, who thought we could increase domestic spending during a war.

It's not whether someone puts forth the agenda, of course someone will, the Libertarian Party does every election. The question is whether the person putting forth the agenda actually gets elected, to which I think not.

3/7/2007 9:58:00 AM

^ I think FDR was naieve as to what he was creating. "The closest thing to eternal life that you can get is a government program." - Ronald Reagan


Some things are a matter of necessity. Once the situation becomes so grave with entitlement spending, it'll gain traction with the public. Some things HAVE to be done.

3/7/2007 9:59:19 AM

^ You're thinking that people now in their 40s and up are going to vote against them receiving money from programs they've paid into their entire working lives. American society is very self-centered. I just don't see it happening without lots of pain on our government's end first and some very creative mathematics to make people think they're receiving a service they're no longer not (like hyperinflation).

[Edited on March 7, 2007 at 10:04 AM. Reason : .]

3/7/2007 10:03:07 AM

Quote :

"phase the system out in stages, and offer those who have paid in a refund in the form of tax breaks for x years"

I like this, especially if its a progressive refund in that the older you are, the greater your tax break. You'd have to make the cut pretty low though; for instance, those born after 1977 will not be reciving benefits, those born before will. While I agree that everyone should have saved - and tough shit if you didn't - that is just not a realistic or moral assumption to demand that 49 year old man start saving for retirement.

We've got a -1% savings rate as consumers in the US. Some form of correction is going to happen, it will be painful, its on us to decide when and how to make it. Bad news does not get better with age.

3/7/2007 10:04:58 AM

Here is Milton Friedman's plan to eliminate social security and let people plan their own retirements...

1. Repeal the payroll tax

2. Continue to pay all existing beneficiaries under social security the amounts that they are entitled to under current law.

3. Give every worker who has already earned coverage a claim to those retirement, disability and survivors benefits that his tax payments and earnings to date would entitle him to under current law, reduced by the present value of the reduction in his future taxes as a result of the repeal of the payroll tax.
The worker could choose to take his benefits in the form of a future annuity or gov't bonds equal to the present value of the benefits to which he would be entitled.

4. Give every worker who has not yet earned coverage a capital sum (again in the form of bonds) equal to the accumulated value of the taxes that he or his employer has paid on his behalf.

5. Terminate any further accumulation of benefits, allowing individuals to provide for their own retirement as they wish.

6. Finanace payments under items 2,3, and 4 out of general tax funds plus the issuance of gov't bonds.

3/7/2007 10:59:37 AM

^Is your contention that income tax and/or debt is a preferable source for social security than payroll tax?

3/7/2007 11:11:40 AM

Quote :

"While I agree that everyone should have saved..."

And if they hadn't been paying Social Security all along they could have saved it. SS was part of their savings. It's like taking away someone's savings account they've been paying into for 20 years and then saying "you should have saved your money, lol."

3/7/2007 11:22:49 AM

Right, which is why I say its not realistic. There needs to be a cut off, it is just a matter of where.

3/7/2007 11:39:25 AM

Lawmakers of the past likely didn't consider many factors affecting the long-term solvency of Social Security: increased efficiency, automation, shifts of the economic base, and so on. Social Security is starting to feel like a Ponzi scheme to me.

3/7/2007 11:45:54 AM

Going back to the original prompt, while I think that there are concerns about things like Social Security, Medicare, the environment, etc., I believe that our problems aren't nearly as bad as Europe. One of the things hurting the continent right now is the growing unemployment among youth and the extreme difficulty in scoring permanent employment. With the way labor laws are written, particularly in the more heavily socialized states such as France and Germany, employers are extremely hesitant to hire new employees, even highly educated and skilled ones, in fear of the long term cost of a new permanent employee (labor flexibility) and whether or not their hire is a good one.

In France in particular, its extremely difficult and expensive to fire a permanent contract employee, so they've resorted to bringing in new employees as disposable "interns". These folks get crappy pay, few benefits (if they're lucky), and job security that makes American corporate job security look pretty good in comparison. New business creation is also very difficult given the bureaucracy and costs.

If you come out of a top university, say the equivalent of an American MIT, and are stuck for six, seven years as a temp for a corporation despite being overworked in the fleeting hope of MAYBE lucking out and getting a permanent hire, you'd be pretty bitter too.

3/7/2007 12:18:29 PM

^This is the road that we're taking... and if we're not careful, we'll have the same situation on our hands...

3/7/2007 12:29:17 PM

Quote :

"Here is Milton Friedman's plan to eliminate social security and let people plan their own retirements... 1. Repeal the payroll tax 2. Continue to pay all existing beneficiaries under social security the amounts that they are entitled to under current law. 3. Give every worker who has already earned coverage a claim to those retirement, disability and survivors benefits that his tax payments and earnings to date would entitle him to under current law, reduced by the present value of the reduction in his future taxes as a result of the repeal of the payroll tax. The worker could choose to take his benefits in the form of a future annuity or gov't bonds equal to the present value of the benefits to which he would be entitled. 4. Give every worker who has not yet earned coverage a capital sum (again in the form of bonds) equal to the accumulated value of the taxes that he or his employer has paid on his behalf. 5. Terminate any further accumulation of benefits, allowing individuals to provide for their own retirement as they wish. 6. Finanace payments under items 2,3, and 4 out of general tax funds plus the issuance of gov't bonds."

Sounds great on paper, but I question where the money will come from. If you pay for items 2 through 4 by tax funds and bonds, tax rates would have to go up and we'd have to create "phantom" bonds due to the number of baby boomers. The Social Security "lock box" (to borrow an Al Gore term) has been raided. I don't think there is enough money to pay and it sounds like a great way to hyperinflation to just pay the bills. Maybe a gradual repeal of the payroll tax over time.

[Edited on March 7, 2007 at 12:40 PM. Reason : .]

3/7/2007 12:39:07 PM

we're shit out of luck. I like Friedman's plan (the most intelligent economic mind since Smith). I think the hyperinflation that ^ speak's of will pale in comparison to the economic disaster when the whole system crashes and foreign investment leaves.

3/7/2007 12:41:39 PM

Quote :

"Maybe a gradual repeal of the payroll tax over time."

Or an immediate jump in income taxes to be phased out over time. It would be a tax cut for the middle to lower classes and a marginal raise on the high income (which under the old system were taxed at a reduced amount).

3/7/2007 1:09:01 PM

Quote :

"In France in particular, its extremely difficult and expensive to fire a permanent contract employee, so they've resorted to bringing in new employees as disposable "interns". These folks get crappy pay, few benefits (if they're lucky), and job security that makes American corporate job security look pretty good in comparison. New business creation is also very difficult given the bureaucracy and costs."

American corporations are already doing this to a less extent by hiring contractors instead of permanent employees. They get most of the benefits of an employee and none of the responsibility. The only big difference is that the pay disparity isn't as great as that of the French interns.

3/7/2007 1:09:08 PM

I think the biggest problem with social security is the total lack of knowledge the average american has about the program.

They think there is some giant account that collects all their payments and builds interest for 30 years when in reality its no more than a wealth redistribution program from the young to the old.

Your money gets raped on Friday payday and a 72 year old man pays for a hotel room in Vegas that night with it.

Period.

Real wage growth is about 2% a year, so 2%/yr is your "interest" on all those payments you make.


The truly wonderful aspect about social security (and by wonderful i mean "the reason you're really getting fucked in the ass") is that it depends so heavily on replacement rates.

I believe we have about 4 workers for every 1 retiree right now.... Pretty soon that number will shrink to 2.5 workers for every 1 retiree.

Have fun letting old people take weeklong cruises, play nickel slots, and get insane amounts of x-rays all on your dime!!!

It's too bad you can't just keep the money and do those things when you're young instead...


I think if people really understood this and we made sure to take care of the people who have already paid in then they wouldn't oppose privatization.


Or we could just keep going the same route... delay retirement ages further and further (no reason 82 year olds cant work right!?!?), raise taxes (who needs wages, id rather have retirement home money 50 years from now!!), or cut benefits (haha, just kidding. This will never happen.)

[Edited on March 7, 2007 at 1:23 PM. Reason : a]

3/7/2007 1:20:47 PM

If we didnt let the gubment touch the SS money and use it for other BS projects, then we would be ok. However that never happened and now we have one helluva mess when these boomers hit.

3/7/2007 1:30:38 PM

its not so much a government waste issue as it is a flawed program.

The replacement ratio keeps shrinking because people are living longer and population growth has declined.

Since this is a wealth re-distribution program from young to old, the shrinking replacement rate can only be offset by one of the three other factors in the equation.

We already established cutting benefits will never happen because the old people will scream murder.

Tax increase makes the working class bolt.

The only thing left to do is raise the retirement age or kill old people in their sleep. Honestly, that would be a lot of bodies and if you listen to the nutjob hippies we're running out of landfill space. (thats why we waste billions of dollars with that recycling bullshit)

3/7/2007 1:37:17 PM

Gettin the shaft again
Gettin it in the eeeeend

3/7/2007 1:38:29 PM

Well, you kind of have to look at it this way. There isn't any solution that will not fuck someone over. Either old people are going to get the shaft, or we are, but at some point, someone has to take the fall to end social security, because it simply doesn't work and spells out bad things for the future.

3/7/2007 2:04:00 PM

i vote for our generation to get fucked. We have plenty of time to make up for those fuckups. 45 and under, sorry. You have to pay into the system and receive no benefits.

3/7/2007 2:19:52 PM

Quote :

"They think there is some giant account that collects all their payments and builds interest for 30 years when in reality its no more than a wealth redistribution program from the young to the old."

I'm pretty sure everyone knows this, they are just unwilling to take the hit after working all those years for their turn.

3/7/2007 2:26:41 PM

Quote :

"Your money gets raped on Friday payday and a 72 year old man pays for a hotel room in Vegas that night with it."

gg

3/7/2007 2:39:28 PM

Quote :

"i vote for our generation to get fucked. We have plenty of time to make up for those fuckups. 45 and under, sorry. You have to pay into the system and receive no benefits."

Okay. Let me know when, I'm moving to Nova Scotia...or the Caymans, haven't decided yet.

3/7/2007 3:24:35 PM

Quote :

" I'm pretty sure everyone knows this, they are just unwilling to take the hit after working all those years for their turn."

50% of the country probably can't even name the vice president, so I really doubt even 5% of the country has any clue how social security works.

[Edited on March 7, 2007 at 4:26 PM. Reason : a]

3/7/2007 4:26:30 PM

Maybe those Europeans should let more young people from other countries come in.

3/7/2007 4:53:03 PM

Quote :

"We got more good macro news today. For example... Factory Orders Dive Amid Broad Declines March 6, 2007 (Martin Crutsinger - AP Economics Writer) Orders to U.S. Factories Fall by Largest Amount in 6 1/2 Years in January Orders to U.S. factories fell by the largest amount in 6 1/2 years in January, reflecting widespread declines across a number of industries. The Commerce Department reported that total orders dropped by 5.6 percent in January, the biggest decline since July 2000, a period when the economy was slowing sharply in advance of an actual recession which began in 2001. The government said that orders for big-ticket durable goods plunged by 8.7 percent, even bigger than the 7.8 percent drop that had been reported a week ago. That report, which increased worries about the economy's health, played a role in the 416-point single-day drop in the Dow Jones industrial average a week ago. The report on factory orders, coupled with other data showing weaker-than-expected activity, have raised concerns that the current economic slowdown may be more serious than previously expected. Good news if you're a financial markets speculator, that is. The markets cheered the news, with the DOW and NASDAQ rising 1.3% and 1.9% respectively. This is the kind of evidence that the Fed needs to deliver the three juicy rate cuts that Goldman Sachs expects this year. Still, the economic and market environment remains confused. We read variously that the economy is "recovering," "strong," "slowing," and "weaker than expected." There is little agreement on where we are in the current economic cycle. The confusion stems from the misguided attempt by economists to see the economy as an industrial/Keynesian economy versus a FIRE economy dominated by finance. An economy that runs on finance lives and dies on liquidity. (Liquidity was the topic of Fed governor Kevin M. Warsh's speech yesterday, Market Liquidity: Definitions and Implications. It's a good refresher for those looking for "definitions," but the speech is light on the "implications," which are of the central banking motherhood and apple pie variety, "This attention to our dual mandate--to maintain stable prices and maximum sustainable employment--supports investor confidence in the economy and the considerable benefits conferred by liquidity.") Keynesian Economics for Dummies says that when an economy is in recession, the government should step on the gas–boost the money supply and run fiscal deficits to stimulate demand and boost the economy until it is growing again. Then, as a second step–and this step is key–after the economy starts to grow again, the government needs to take its foot off the gas–cut the money supply and reduce deficits. But what if the government never really took its foot off the gas, and failed to take effective steps to reduce the money supply and deficit spending, because every time they try, the markets go haywire? What if the economy heads into another recession after the last round of stimuli produced an increase in unfunded government liabilities (Medicare, Social Security, and government pensions) from $20 trillion to $50 trillion in only six years? When a broad measure of the money supply which took over 200 years, from the inception of the USA until 1984, to grow to $1 trillion but only the past ten months to add another $1 trillion? Looks like we'll find out soon enough."

[Edited on March 7, 2007 at 5:35 PM. Reason : .]

3/7/2007 5:34:32 PM

Quote :

"I say. Economics say. The recession that this will cause when social security and medicaid take up 40% of our budget (forecasted). "

so it is basically your opinion and you have nothing to say that will support your notion it is against the founding principles of this country

3/7/2007 6:23:20 PM

Did you really not pay attention in grade school? The revolution was about less government... The Bostonians rioted after a .3% tax on tea... POINT THREE PERCENT. And you would have me believe that the founders would find it ok to tax my income to the amount that they do to fund old peoples' retirement?

Go back to third grade.

3/7/2007 7:02:45 PM

That was after a long train of abuses.

3/7/2007 7:09:18 PM

Discount it all you want, but taxation was at the base of the revolution.

3/7/2007 7:10:20 PM

It was a bit more complicated than...

Brits: 0.3% tax.

Americans: REVOLUTION! RHARRR!!!

3/7/2007 7:11:30 PM

Quote :

"Discount it all you want, but taxation was at the base of the revolution."

3/7/2007 7:14:39 PM

Quote :

"It was a bit more complicated than... Brits: 0.3% tax. Americans: REVOLUTION! RHARRR!!!"

Yeah, that added a lot to the thread...

3/7/2007 7:18:23 PM