Looming Fiscal Crisis in Social Security

LordLucan74

Cosmos Mariner
Joined
Aug 8, 2002
Posts
3,294
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT ON SOCIAL SECURITY -- February 9, 1998

Gaston Hall, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.

10:53 A.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Special thanks to those of you who had to wait all night to get in. (Laughter.) Hope you won't be disappointed. (Laughter.)

Mr. Vice President, Father O'Donovan, to all the groups here who are concerned with Social Security, especially to Congressman Penny and the Concord Coalition, and John Rother and the AARP, I thank you all for being here.

I thank Senator Bob Kerrey, who when he cast the decisive vote for our budget in 1993 said that he would do so only if I were also committed to dealing with the long-term structural problems of Social Security, to heal the deficit there as well. I thank Gene Sperling and the members of my staff who worked with us on this. And thank you, Mannone Butler, for embodying what this struggle is all about. Weren't you proud of her? She did a great job I think. Thank you very much. (Applause.)

When I first ran for President six and a half years ago now, I came to this hall to set out my vision for 21st century America, and a strategy for achieving it. Often in the years since I have come back here to discuss our nation's most demanding challenges. And on many occasions, but none more relevant than today, I have recalled the assertion of my freshman professor in the history of civilizations course, Carroll Quigley, that the distinguishing characteristic of Western civilization in general and the United States of America in particular is what he called future preference -- the idea that the future can be better than the present or the past; that each of us has a personal, moral responsibility to work to make it so, to plan for it, to work for it, to invest for it.

There is no better example of that principle for the strength of America than the opportunity and the duty all of us as Americans have now to save Social Security for the 21st century. So today I return to discuss what we have to do to achieve that and why it is so important.

You know, there was a recent poll which said that young people in the generation of the students here felt it was far more likely that they would see a UFO than that they would draw Social Security. (Laughter.) And others may think that it's a long way off, as Mannone said, and the Vice President said he thought it was a long way off.

A couple of days ago I went to New Mexico to visit our national labs -- you may have seen the story. And our national labs at Los Alamos and Sandia and Lawrence Livermore, where we do a lot of the research that not only helps us to preserve the security of our smaller and smaller nuclear arsenal, but helps us to deal with our environmental questions and a lot of other fascinating challenges of the future. But anyway, after I finished this, I had lunch with a few of my friends, including a man that I went to Georgetown with. And at the end of the lunch, he whipped out this photo and gave it to me, and we were sitting in a park together, about a week after I graduated in 1968. And I looked at that photo and I said, my goodness, where did all the time go? It seems like it was yesterday to me.

I say that to make this point: It may seem a long way away from the time you now -- where you are until you will need retirement. It may seem a long way away before most of your parents need retirement -- but it isn't. And great societies plan over long periods of time so that individual lives can flower and take root and take form. And that is what we have to do today.

Social Security is a lot more than a line in the budget. It reflects some of our deepest values -- the duties we owe to our parents, the duties we owe to each other when we're differently situated in life, the duties we owe to our children and our grandchildren. Indeed, it reflects our determination to move forward across the generations and across the income divides in our country, as one America.

Social Security has been there for America's parents in the 20th century, and I am determined that we will have that kind of security for the American people in the 21st century. We are entering this new millennium, the new century, with restored confidence -- the Information Age, a growing global economy, they're changing the way we live and work. And the scope and pace of change, well, it may seem commonplace to those of you who have grown up with it, but to people my age it is still truly astonishing. And I can tell you, it is without historical precedent.

For a long time our country failed to come to grips with those changes and we paid the price in a stagnant economy and increasing inequality among our working families, in higher child poverty, in record welfare rolls, higher crime rates, other deepening social problems. Before the present era we had only run budget deficits, and the deficit I think came to symbolize what was amiss with the way we were dealing with the changes in the world. We had only run budget deficits for sound economic reasons -- either because there were some overwhelming need to invest or because there was a recession that required stimulation of the economy, or because there was a national emergency like war. The idea that we would just simply have a structural deficit and run one year in and year out was unheard of. But that is exactly what has happened throughout your lifetime.

And it got so bad in the 1980s that between 1981 and 1992 the total debt of the country was quadrupled -- quadrupled -- in a 12-year period, over and above the previous 200 years. That raised interest rates. It took more and more tax money away from investments in education, for example, or the environment to pay interest on the debt. It slowed economic growth and it definitely compromised your future.

Five years ago I determined that we had to set a different course, to move past the debate that was then paralyzing Washington and, frankly, didn't have much to do with the real world, between those who said government was the enemy, those who said government was the solution and as long as you can fight about something, then you don't have to get down to the nitty-gritty of dealing with the real problems.

When the British Prime Minister was here last week, Tony Blair, we stressed that we both think, and many other leaders increasingly around the world are beginning to think that this debate is fruitless and that there has to be a third way -- that 21st century government, Information Age government, must be smaller, must be less bureaucratic, must be fiscally disciplined and focus on being a catalyst for new ideas and giving you and all other Americans the tools they need to make the most of their own lives.

For five years we have reduced the size of the deficit, reduced the size of government, dramatically reduced the budget deficit by over 90 percent, but continued to invest in your future. And in very dramatic ways that's changed the experience of going to college.

Student loans that are guaranteed by the government have been made less expensive and easier to repay. There are hundreds of thousands of more Pell Grant scholarships, 300,000 more work-study slots. AmeriCorps has allowed 100,000 young people to earn money for college while serving in their community. There are now tax-free IRA accounts for college education. Last year we enacted the HOPE Scholarship, which is a $1,500 tax credit for the first two years of college. And then there's a lifetime learning tax credit for junior and senior years for graduate schools and for adults who have to go back for further training. For the first time in history, while reducing the deficit by 90 percent, we can honestly say if you're willing to work for it, whatever your circumstances, you can go on to college in the United States, and that is a very important achievement.

Now, all of these things have worked together to give us the strongest economy in a generation -- almost 15 million new jobs, the lowest unemployment rate in 24 years, the lowest inflation rate in 30 years, the highest homeownership in history, average incomes rising again. I've submitted to Congress for 1999 the first balanced budget in 30 years. All that is a remarkable achievement. But, as I said, we have to be thinking about the future. And all of you know to a greater or lesser degree of specificity, every one of you know that the Social Security system is not sound for the long-term, so that all of these achievements -- the economic achievements, our increasing social coherence and cohesion, our increasing efforts to reduce poverty among our youngest children -- all of them are threatened by the looming fiscal crisis in Social Security.

Today I want to talk about what it is and how we propose to deal with it. And as the Vice President said, we should use the economic good times. That old saying that you don't wait for a rainy day to fix the roof is good for us today; it's very sunny outside. And on this sunny day, we should deal with Social Security.

In very specific terms, we've got a great opportunity because it is projected that we stay with the present budget plan, that taking account of the fact that we won't always have the greatest economic times as we've had now -- there will be times when the economy will grow faster, times when it will grow slower, we may recessions -- but structurally, we have eliminated the deficit, so that over time we should have a balanced budget, and over time, most times we should be running a surplus now if we stay with the discipline we have now over the next couple of decades.

Now, if that's so, it is now estimated that with normal ups and downs in economic growth, over the next 10 years, after 30 years of deficits, that the United States will have a budget surplus in somewhere in the range of a trillion dollars in the aggregate over the next 10 years. I have said before we spend a penny of that on new programs or tax cuts, we should save Social Security first. I think it should be the driving principle of this year's work in the United States Congress -- do not have a tax cut, do not have a spending program that deals with that surplus -- save Social Security first.

That is our obligation to you and, frankly, to ourselves. And let me explain that. This fiscal crisis in Social Security affects every generation. We now know that the Social Security trust fund is fine for another few decades. But if it gets in trouble and we don't deal with it, then it not only affects the generation of the baby boomers and whether they'll have enough to live on when they retire, it raises the question of whether they will have enough to live on by unfairly burdening their children and, therefore, unfairly burdening their children's ability to raise their grandchildren. That would be unconscionable, especially since, if you move now, we can do less and have a bigger impact, especially since we now have the budget surplus.

Let me back up just a minute, mostly for the benefit of the young people in the audience, to talk a little bit about the importance of this effort. It's hard for even people in my generation to understand this, much less yours. But early in this century, to be old meant to be poor. To be old meant to be poor. The vast majority of people over 65 in America early in this century were living in poverty. Their reward for a lifetime of work, for doing right by their children, for helping with their grandchildren, unless their kids could take care of them, was living in poverty.

If you ever have a chance you ought to read some of the books that have thousands of letters that older people sent to President Roosevelt, begging him, in the words of one typical letter writer, to eliminate -- and I quote -- "the stark terror of penniless, helpless old age." That's what prompted President Roosevelt to launch the Social Security system in 1935, to create what he called the cornerstone of a civilized society.

Now, for more than half a century Social Security has been a dramatic success. If you just look at the first chart over here on the right, you will see that in 1959 -- I don't see as well as I once did -- (laughter) -- the poverty rate among seniors was still 35 percent. As recently as 1959, still over a third of seniors lived in poverty. By 1979, it had dropped to 15.2 percent. By 1996, it had dropped to 10.8 percent.

To give you an idea of the profound success of the program over the last 30 years -- as you know, there have been increasing number of children being raised in single-parent households, where the incomes are not so high -- the child poverty rate in America is almost twice that. But no one can begrudge that. So the first thing we need to say is, Social Security has succeeded in ending the stark terror of a penniless old age. And that is a terrific achievement for the American society.

Now, it's also known, however, that the changes that are underway today will place great stresses on the Social Security safety net. The baby boomers are getting grey. When my generation retires -- and I'm the oldest of the baby boomers; I was born in 1946, I'm 51 -- and the generation is normally held to run for the 18 years after that, that's normally what people mean when they talk about the baby boomers -- it will dramatically change the ratio of workers to earners, aggravated by increasing early retirements and other things, offset by gradual increase in the Social Security retirement age enacted back in 1983. So if you look at that, that's the second chart here.

In 1960, there were 5.1 Americans working for every one person drawing Social Security. In 1997, there's still 3.3 people working for every one person drawing Social Security. In 2030, the year after the Social Security trust fund supposedly will go broke unless we change something, at present projected retirement rates -- that is, the presently projected retirement age and same rates -- there will be two people working for every one person drawing Social Security.

Now, if you look at that plus the present investment patterns of the funds of which are designed to secure 100 percent security and, therefore, get a somewhat lower return in return for 100 percent security for the investments, that's what will cause the problem. So if you look at the presently projected retirement and the presently projected returns, that will cause the problem.

It's very important you understand this. Once you understand this, you realize this is not an episode from the X Files, and you're not more likely to see a UFO if you do certain specific things. On the other hand, if you don't do anything, one of two things will happen -- either it will go broke and you won't ever get it; or if we wait too long to fix it, the burden on society of taking care of our generation's Social Security obligations will lower your income and lower your ability to take care of your children to a degree most of us who are your parents think would be horribly wrong and unfair to you and unfair to the future prospects of the United States.

So what's the bottom line? You can see it. Today, we're actually taking in a lot more money from Social Security taxes enacted in 1983 than we're spending out. Because we've run deficits, none of that money has been saved for Social Security. Now, if you look at this little chart here, from 1999 forward we'll be able to save that money -- or a lot of it, anyway. We'll be able to save a lot of it that will go into pure surplus in the budget. It can be invested. But other things will have to be done, as well. That will not be enough.

And if nothing is done by 2029, there will be a deficit in the Social Security trust fund, which will either require -- if you just wait until then -- a huge tax increase in the payroll tax, or just about a 25 percent cut in Social Security benefits. And let me say today, Social Security -- I want to put that in, too, because I want you all to start thinking about this -- Social Security was conceived as giving a floor for life. It is not enough to sustain the standard of living of almost any retiree retiring today.

So you also will have to make provisions for your own retirement savings, and you should start early when you go out and go to work, with a 401(k) plan or whatever. But this is what is going to happen unless we change. if we change now we can make a big difference.

I should also point out that Social Security also goes to the spouses of people when their widowed. Social Security also goes to the disabled. There's a Social Security disability program. Cassandra Wilkins, who's here with us, who the Vice President recognized, ran the Social Security disability program for me when I was governor. It's a very important program. But all of these things should be seen in terms of these economic realities.

Now, again I say, if we act soon, less is more. If we can develop a consensus as a country to act soon we can take relatively modest steps in any number of directions to run this 2029 number well out into the future in ways that will keep Social Security's role in providing some retirement security to people without unfairly burdening your generation and your ability to raise your children to do that. And I can tell you, I have had countless talks with baby boomers of all income groups and I haven't found a single person in my generation who is not absolutely determined to fix this in a way that does not unfairly burden your generation. But we have to start now.

We have to join together and face the facts. We have to rise above partisanship, just the way we did when we forced the historic balanced budget agreement. This is -- as you can well see, this is reducible to stark mathematical terms. This need not become a partisan debate. Oh, there ought to be a debate, a good debate on what the best way to invest the funds are. There ought to be a good debate on what the best trade-offs are between the changes that will have to be made. But it ought to be done with a view toward making America stronger and, again, preserving the ties that bind us across the generations.

I have asked the America Association of Retired Persons, the AARP, a leading voice for older Americans, and the Concord Coalition, a leading voice for fiscal discipline, to organize a series of four nonpartisan regional forums this year. The Vice President and I will participate. I hope the Republican and Democratic leadership will also participate. I was encouraged that Speaker Gingrich said the other day that he felt we should save the surplus until we had fixed the Social Security first.

The first forum, which will set out before the American people the full nature of the problem -- essentially, what I'm doing with you today with a few more details -- will be in Kansas City on April 7th. Then in subsequent ones we will hear from a variety of experts and average citizens across all ages. It is very important to me that this debate involve young people -- very important, because you have a huge stake in it and you need to imagine where you will be and what kind of investment patterns you think are fair for you and how you think this is going to play out over the next 20, 30, 40 years. We want people of all ages involved in this.

This national call also will spread to every corner of the country, to every member of Congress. There are other private groups which have to play a role. The Pew Charitable Trust has launched a vital public information campaign -- Americans Discuss Social Security. On March 21st, I will help kick off the first of many of their town hall meetings and teleconferences.

Now, when we go out across the country and share the information and get people's ideas -- then, at the end of the year in December, I will convene a historic White House Conference on Social Security. And then, in a year, I will call together the Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and Senate to begin drafting comprehensive, bipartisan landmark legislation to save the Social Security system.

This national effort will require the best of our people -- and I think it will get the best of our people. It will ask us to plan for the future. It will ask us to be open to new ideas, not to be hide bound and believe that we can see the future through the prism of the past. But it will ask us to hold on to the old values that lifted our senior citizen from the burden of abject poverty to the dignity of a deserved good, solid old age.

Keep in mind, most of you who are sitting out here can look forward to a life expectancy well into your 80s. Most of you, by the time you get to be my age, if you live to be my age, your life expectancy will probably be by then 90 or more. We're going to have to rethink this whole thing. But we have to do it with a view towards preserving the principles and the integrity of our society, binding us together across the generations and across the income divides.

We can do this. President Roosevelt often called us to the spirit of bold, persistent experimentation. We will have to do that. But he also reminded us that our greatest challenges we can only meet as one nation. And we must remember that. With our increasing diversity, and the way we work and live, and our racial and ethnic and other backgrounds -- religious backgrounds -- we still have to be, when it comes to treating people with dignity and fulfilling our obligations to one another, one nation.

Acting today for the future is in some ways the oldest of American traditions. It's what Thomas Jefferson did when he purchased the Louisiana Territory and sent Lewis and Clark on their famous expedition. It's what Abraham Lincoln did when at the height of the Civil War, he and the Congress took the time to establish a system of land grant colleges, which revolutionized the future of America. It's what we Americans did when, in the depths of the Depression, when people were only concerned about the moment, and 25 percent of the American people were out of work, our Congress and our President still took the time to establish a Social Security system, that could only take flower and have full impact long after they were gone.

That is what we do when we do best -- what Professor Quigley called "future preference." What I prefer is a future in which my generation can retire, those who are not as fortunate as me can retire in dignity, but we can do it in a way that does not burden you and your ability to raise our grandchildren. Because I believe the best days of this country lie ahead of us if we fulfill our responsibilities today for tomorrow.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)
 
Set aside whether ya like Dubya or not. Forget whether you happen to be Repub or Dem.

It makes eminently good sense to grandfather in the capacity for younger folks to place a small percentage (on the order of 10 to 20 percent) into a balanced sort of fund.

How would it function? Could it succeed? Answers to such questions are not utterly unknown. The federal govt has two decades of experience with something along those lines. The TSP is not absolutely identical, obviously, but sufficiently close to permit some sensible extrapolations.
 
landslider said:
Set aside whether ya like Dubya or not. Forget whether you happen to be Repub or Dem.

It makes eminently good sense to grandfather in the capacity for younger folks to place a small percentage (on the order of 10 to 20 percent) into a balanced sort of fund.

How would it function? Could it succeed? Answers to such questions are not utterly unknown. The federal govt has two decades of experience with something along those lines. The TSP is not absolutely identical, obviously, but sufficiently close to permit some sensible extrapolations.

I am a US Government employee and I know the Thrift Savings Plan well. I would think that a TSP type arrangement would suit modern Americans well. I am certainly doing nicely in my account. I would point out so are all of the members of the Congress regardless of affiliation.
 
The biggest problem is they spent all the years of SS surplus on other things. The concern now is that we will not be able to spent that money any more. We have been duped and still are being duped by the government. WE are being over taxed for SS, and we have been for years. It is a mess.
 
LordLucan74 said:
I am a US Government employee and I know the Thrift Savings Plan well. I would think that a TSP type arrangement would suit modern Americans well. I am certainly doing nicely in my account. I would point out so are all of the members of the Congress regardless of affiliation.

Agreed. The problem with that, though, is that Congress can't spend those funds.
It's pretty clear than in 2018 SS is going to be shelling out more than it's taking in. Doing something about it now would, indeed, be painful. Doing something about it in 2015 (benefit cuts, much higher paycheck deductions for current workers) would be criminal.
 
LordLucan74 said:
I am a US Government employee and I know the Thrift Savings Plan well. I would think that a TSP type arrangement would suit modern Americans well. I am certainly doing nicely in my account. I would point out so are all of the members of the Congress regardless of affiliation.

The TSP has an equivalent available to many non-Government employees. It's called the 401(k).
 
No Crisis???

Democrats are claiming there is no crisis in Social Security at all. I believe Rep. Pelosi claims it will be solvent until mid-century. However it is abundantly clear that the Democrats are not correct. They are on the wrong side of this issue. Curiously, it was President Clinton and Vice President Gore who first sounded the alarm. That was before the 1999-2000 Recession and before September 11, 2001. Certainly recent events have not made Social Security more secure. If anything Social Security is more endangered now. If it was in trouble in 1998 and 1999, certainly given the state of affairs today, it is more in trouble today. Pelosi and the Liberals are wrong. Democrats in blind opposition to the current administartion is keeping them from being on the right side of any current issue. They keep under estimating President Bush.
 
RobDownSouth said:
The TSP has an equivalent available to many non-Government employees. It's called the 401(k).

I know and you are correct. I believe this sort of account should be a universally available option under the Social Security system.
 
LordLucan74 said:
I know and you are correct. I believe this sort of account should be a universally available option under the Social Security system.

If it's good enough for government workers, certainly it's good enough for the rest of us.
BTW, do government workers pay into Social Security every paycheck like us regular drones, even though they already have a plan? I think they should. Then it would be just like a 401(k).
 
LordLucan74 said:
Democrats are claiming there is no crisis in Social Security at all. I believe Rep. Pelosi claims it will be solvent until mid-century. However it is abundantly clear that the Democrats are not correct. They are on the wrong side of this issue. Curiously, it was President Clinton and Vice President Gore who first sounded the alarm. That was before the 1999-2000 Recession and before September 11, 2001. Certainly recent events have not made Social Security more secure. If anything Social Security is more endangered now. If it was in trouble in 1998 and 1999, certainly given the state of affairs today, it is more in trouble today. Pelosi and the Liberals are wrong. Democrats in blind opposition to the current administartion is keeping them from being on the right side of any current issue. They keep under estimating President Bush.

I disagree with several points you make above.

First of all, there is no crisis. 50 years from now the system will not be able to pay out 100% of benefits IF nothing changes...it would still be able to pay out 73% or so, though.

And even that could be remedied very simply, in one sentence actually:
Remove the artificial cap on Social Security withholding.

Secondly, there was no recession in 1999. 1999 was during Clinton's eight years of peace and prosperity. The recession showed up on Bush's watch.

Third, Clinton/Gore proposed AUGMENTING the Social Security system by investing government surplus (remember the surplus?) in stocks to further strengthen the system. Bush frittered away the surplus with reckless tax cuts and huge deficits.

Fourthly, let's be honest. Bush doesn't want to "save" social security, he wants to dismantle it. More and more Americans are seeing that Bush's ill-conceived plan to save Social Security is a fraud. His numbers just don't add up. Democrats rightly don't want to be a party to his financial mismanagement.
 
Ham Murabi said:
If it's good enough for government workers, certainly it's good enough for the rest of us.
BTW, do government workers pay into Social Security every paycheck like us regular drones, even though they already have a plan? I think they should. Then it would be just like a 401(k).

Since the establishment of "FERS" (Federal Employee Retirement System) in the 1980s, employees do pay into Social Security System. Under the old Civil Service Retirement System, employees did not pay Social Security tax and did not receive it on retirement.
 
RobDownSouth said:
I disagree with several points you make above.

First of all, there is no crisis. 50 years from now the system will not be able to pay out 100% of benefits IF nothing changes...it would still be able to pay out 73% or so, though.

And even that could be remedied very simply, in one sentence actually:
Remove the artificial cap on Social Security withholding.

Secondly, there was no recession in 1999. 1999 was during Clinton's eight years of peace and prosperity. The recession showed up on Bush's watch.

Third, Clinton/Gore proposed AUGMENTING the Social Security system by investing government surplus (remember the surplus?) in stocks to further strengthen the system. Bush frittered away the surplus with reckless tax cuts and huge deficits.

Fourthly, let's be honest. Bush doesn't want to "save" social security, he wants to dismantle it. More and more Americans are seeing that Bush's ill-conceived plan to save Social Security is a fraud. His numbers just don't add up. Democrats rightly don't want to be a party to his financial mismanagement.

The finatial mismanagement has been going on in Washington since the inception of SS. This is not a new problem.

The question is why is their a surplus and what is being done with it? The fact is the surplus is being spent. That is the dirty little secret that ALL the politicians do not want us to know. If we stop spending the surplus then maybe there will be money for retirees in the future with out having to raise the amount we pay, or our kids will have to pay. We have been over taxed for years on this. It is a fraud. Furthermore there is a max one can pay in. That is so regressive it makes my skin crawl. If I was forced to invest the absurd amount that I pay as a self employed person, I would be able to retire and be quit comfortable. I would rather invest it myself then have the gov. spend it on something that is not SS.
 
RobDownSouth said:
And even that could be remedied very simply, in one sentence actually:
Remove the artificial cap on Social Security withholding.

Will you then raise the payouts for those who pay more into it.....or will you just call it social welfare because that's all it would be. I'm already going to make a -16% return on my "investment". It's a rotten return. I say do away with the whole thing and I'll just take the money that would otherwise go into social security and invest it for myself.
 
I don't give two hoots in hell if Pres. Bush is right or wrong.

What I do know is that with my 401K, Retirement, and social Security I am still anally invaded big time by the cost of everything if I live only a few years after retirement.

and my wife will be in worse shape after I'm dead.

I welcome any help in saving more money... It is never a bad ideal.
 
And no one has yet mentioned that if you die before you ever receive a SS check it's history. There is nothing to pass on to heirs (except the measly50 percent that goes to your spouse, if you're married).
Second, does anyone think a surge of investments in private companies will be good for the economy, as opposed to money just being sucked out of the economy and going to Washington?
That's why even most Democrats oppose getting rid of the earnings cap on Social Security contributions – it would be bad for the economy. That's the same reason only a handful of Democrats would vote for Kyoto.
 
RobDownSouth said:
I disagree with several points you make above.

First of all, there is no crisis. 50 years from now the system will not be able to pay out 100% of benefits IF nothing changes...it would still be able to pay out 73% or so, though.

And even that could be remedied very simply, in one sentence actually:
Remove the artificial cap on Social Security withholding.

Secondly, there was no recession in 1999. 1999 was during Clinton's eight years of peace and prosperity. The recession showed up on Bush's watch.

Third, Clinton/Gore proposed AUGMENTING the Social Security system by investing government surplus (remember the surplus?) in stocks to further strengthen the system. Bush frittered away the surplus with reckless tax cuts and huge deficits.

Fourthly, let's be honest. Bush doesn't want to "save" social security, he wants to dismantle it. More and more Americans are seeing that Bush's ill-conceived plan to save Social Security is a fraud. His numbers just don't add up. Democrats rightly don't want to be a party to his financial mismanagement.

I am not opposed to removal of the withholding cap.

The Recession did begin in 1999. President Bush's first budget went into effect in October/November 2001. The Recession, thus, was a Clinton phenomenon even if it happened in January 2001. Recall this: Bush was elected in November 2000 and took office in January 2001. It was only in late 2001 that his first budget was made law. And, in reality, no President's budget ever gets made into law....Congress always writes their own budget and then they negotiate with the White House.

Clinton on numerous occasions spoke of a looming crisis. Yes, Clinton had a different approach to Bush in regards to reform. Bush has said he wants all ideas on the table, not just his. I am certain that no administration would be able to eliminate this program. There is the separation of powers that gives Congress the responsibility in fiscal matters. Congress spends money. The administration only has the funds given it by the Congress. If money is being mismanaged, it is probably the Congress doing it.

The surplus was a projected surplus, not real cash in the bank....remember? And it is criminal in the extreme for the Federal government to tax people to the point they have a surplus. Funds not appropriated to carry on the Constitutionally mandated functions of government should be given back to those who were taxed.

We have to agree to disagree my friend.
 
RobDownSouth said:
The TSP has an equivalent available to many non-Government employees. It's called the 401(k).

Very true, and if given the option to give the SS deduction to the fedgov, or place all the same deduction into a 401k.....

Savings rates increase, the retire receives more, and the fedgove can't spend what it can't touch....

Sounds better all the time!
 
As to whether fed employees are covered by Soc Security, yes under FERS, no under CSRS.

As to Soc Sec reform, why should it be an either-or scenario? Measures suggested by Dems and Repubs would help.

Ditch the cap? Sure. Raise the retirement age? Likely.

We all know about 401(k)s, but the setup under FERS is different. You would have three sources of retirement income -- annuity, Title II RIB, and TSP. And there are matching differences under CSRS and FERS. However, suffice to say that the fed govt has 20 years of successful experience in something close enough to suggest how personal Soc Sec accounts might function.

Look at the expense ratio. Excellent. Look at the index approach used. Bogle would approve even though Barclays is involved.

Upon retirement, you could just contact the TSP folks in New Orleans and get 'em to annuitize all or part of your balance. Or leave it in. Or roll it over into your other IRA/annuity accounts.

If the rumors are true, Dubya is contemplating 4 out of 6 as a possible amount for personal accounts. That sounds crazy (too large), but may just be a trial balloon.
 
RobDownSouth said:
I disagree with several points you make above.

First of all, there is no crisis. 50 years from now the system will not be able to pay out 100% of benefits IF nothing changes...it would still be able to pay out 73% or so, though.

Ya, right... Don't bother to figure in the loss due to inflation. I know seniors that can hardly make ends meet because they relied upon SS for their entire existance because the guberment was gonna take care of'em....

Aren't you of the same ilk that complains about seniors eating pet food?
And even that could be remedied very simply, in one sentence actually:
Remove the artificial cap on Social Security withholding.

So raising taxes is "your" plan?
Secondly, there was no recession in 1999. 1999 was during Clinton's eight years of peace and prosperity. The recession showed up on Bush's watch.

LMAO.....
Third, Clinton/Gore proposed AUGMENTING the Social Security system by investing government surplus (remember the surplus?) in stocks to further strengthen the system. Bush frittered away the surplus with reckless tax cuts and huge deficits.

I'll bet a CT scan would reveal a vacuum... The old "lock box" arguement? Phony shell game of accounting, just like Enron... For shame....
Fourthly, let's be honest. Bush doesn't want to "save" social security, he wants to dismantle it. More and more Americans are seeing that Bush's ill-conceived plan to save Social Security is a fraud. His numbers just don't add up. Democrats rightly don't want to be a party to his financial mismanagement.

Thanks for the brain dead commie/socialist propaganda.

Do the math. What gives you a greater return, a private savings account at compounded interest, or SS?

You have heard of compounded interest haven't you?
 
RobDownSouth said:
I disagree with several points you make above.


Fourthly, let's be honest. Bush doesn't want to "save" social security, he wants to dismantle it. More and more Americans are seeing that Bush's ill-conceived plan to save Social Security is a fraud. His numbers just don't add up. Democrats rightly don't want to be a party to his financial mismanagement.

The Repugs have Social Security on their agenda for a very good reason. A little tweaking here and there will totally screw it up and help them to achieve their long term goal of rolling back the "New Deal", a true Capitalists heaven where the unproductive elements of society lie starving in an alley after they have been exhausted and expunged from the workforce.

While Joe Public is being courted with heart glowing propaganda about ending terrorism, its own government in on track to perpetrate the worst kind of political terrorism on its gullible masses.

People are sheep and there is no credible opposition in the government or outside it, to prevent a dismantling of years of social service developments.
It will only be noticed when it is gone.
 
Well, Bill Clinton said it was broken, so Bush is being consistent.

I think what Throb doesn't like is the idea of personal ownership stripping power away from the government, that and a conservative is offering a solution instead of turning the problem over to Dean/Reid/Pelosi so that they can raise taxes and stimulate the economy thusly solving the problem.

The fact that it worked in Chile means nothing to him.

Galveston was a fluke...

;) ;)
 
Crisis? What crisis?

We have a stack of congressional IOU's that will keep the system solvent for years to come once we adopt Scandinavian taxing policy...

;) ;)
 
Back
Top