Is social security in crises

[Clarkie1]

Members of both political parties are calling for some for of social security reform. While there is disagreement on how long social security will remain secure, or the size of the real crises, my perception is most of our political leaders from both sides believe there is a real problem with the future of social security. What is your opinion the future of social security. Is there a need for reform?

Edited to add: Reform does not necessarily mean privatization in any way.

[InvisibleBallots]

1. the only reform needed in Social Security

is lifting of the income cap - other than that, any messing around with Social Security should be considered the GOP/corporate theft that it is. Any Democrat who collaborates should be expelled from the party. No, seriously.

[Clarkie1]

2. I agree on lifting the income cap

As far as I am concerned, morally there should be no cap. That should be the first reform if reform is needed to keep the system solvent.

I just don't know how big this "problem" really is. Also, I am part of the state teachers retirement system in California, which has done quite well with private investments, which of course makes me more open to the word "privatization," I suppose.

That doesn't mean I think privatization of social security in any form is a good or even needed idea. I'm still forming my opinions, but I agree the first thing to do is do away with the cap before throwing the baby out with the bathwater (so to speak).

[InvisibleBallots]

3. private investments are great

Social Security is an insurance program. The state teachers retirement system in CA is great - all Americans should have something similar.

[Yupster]

19. I disagree that all should have a system like Cal TRS

I go completely the other way. I think social security should be mandatory for everyone.

To me it's ridiculous that most teachers in 12 states including California and Texas should be allowed to not pay into social security.

What makes them so special that they should be able to peel themselves away and set up their own system?

I'm a stockbroker. You don't think we wouldn't like to say screw social security, we'll make our own system to take care of ourselves?

For social security to work properly, it should be for all workers, and that means school teachers too.

[InvisibleBallots]

22. I didn't realize they were exempt from SS?

I just meant that they have a solid retirement/pension system, and all Americans should be so lucky. I did not realize they were exempt from SS?

[tsuki]

24. But talk to people who watched their 401K lose 50% of its value because

the investment councilors invested in one mutual fund, like Fidelity Investments. Or the Enron people.

Is the state teachers' retirement system in CA backed by the state? If the investments go to hell, does the state say so sorry?

Throwing wall street a bunch of money to shore up the stock market will only end up with the same tired phrase that investors are being told now. It's not a savings or insurance plan; it's an investment with calculated risks...translation, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, but the brokers win all the time.

[MercutioATC]

6. As much as I like the cap personally, I agree with you.

I haven't seen the numbers, so I don't know if that would solve the entire problem, but it sure couldn't hurt...and it would certainly be a fair way to address the issue.

[Guaranteed]

9. I agree. This is such an important issue that

I think it's a deal-breaker as far as Democrats are concerned.

[DemBones DemBones]

4. I don't think Social Security is in crisis -- but if George W. Bush gets

his way, it will be.

Don't buy into all the bullshit they're slinging. Insist on keeping the retirement age as it is -- or, better yet, moving it back to 65, where it should be. Insist on not cutting benefits.

Most of all, insist on removing the income cap so all income is taxed for Social Security purposes. There's no good reason for the rich to have untaxed income and the program would benefit.

[hfojvt]

7. Exactly

The crisis is the severe threat from Bush and the Republican party.
However, I am puzzled about the retirement age you mentioned. According to my last SS statement, I can retire at age 62. Maybe because I am a geezer. Or maybe because I do not get full benefits.
Still, I think it pays to retire at 62, especially if you hate your job.

[Been Fishing]

17. Raise the SS cap on earned income

and you can bet that the Republicans will fight for a tax exemption on capital gains, inheritances, gifts, prizes and any other unearned income.

If any of your regional representatives fail to protect SS, it is time to vote them out of office.

[Yupster]

20. As long as the social security surplus

is being spent in the general budget, there's a crisis.

In 2018 the system will start paying out more than it takes in.

That should be okay though because we've been overpaying to save for that rainy day coming.

But, the saved money has been looted. It ain't there. As long as that is allowed to continue, we have a crisis.

If anyone is interested, I think I know how the crisis will be solved.

In 2018, congress will vote to unify the budget making social security part of the general budget and general obligations without any charade of a trust fund. With that vote the hundreds of billions of dollars of bonds looted from the trust fund will disappear as the general budget can't owe money to itself.

Then the congress will decide what it can afford and vote to either raise the retirement age, cut benefits, raise taxes or all three.

So, I don't know if crisis is the right word, but something will have to be changed in the social security system for it to be functional past 2018.

[A Simple Game]

5. I couldn't vote, my pick wasn't listed.

The social security system is in crisis, but not for any reason that this administration has stated. The social security system is in crisis because of this administrations attempt to dismantle it!

[priapis]

8. No WMD There, No Social Security Crisis Here. No WMD, No SSC.

same strategy by the bushites (he's not an innovator). decide what you want to do, then invent an emergency to justify it. "fool the fools" may not work again tho.

[Jack_DeLeon]

10. I think SS is fundamentally flawed...

Isnt it after all just a big Ponzi Scheme?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme

People are paying in money, thier money is paying out to the older people who already paid in, and people in the future are going to pay the current generation.

Yes it works for the meantime because we are in a period of growth and there should theoretically be more people in the future than there are now but how long can we sustain that?

View this in conjunction with Peak Oil stuff and whatnot, humans cannot sustain constant growth forever.

[IStriker]

16. Yes, it's always been a Ponzi scheme and we're getting down to the...

bottom of the triangle where the big numbers of people can only get back less than what they paid in or nothing. When I got my first well-paying job where my salary maxxed out and I no longer had to contribute to SS for the last month or two of the year, I started looking at SS and did some checking. That's nearly 40 yrs. ago and I realized with the bulge in the population of boomers (which has only gotten a lot worse since then) I was very unlikely to get back anything like what I was going to pay in over my working lifetime. I don't believe it can be fixed by partial privatization, longer time to retirement, lifting the cap on maximum and having largest earners continue to pay and cutting benefits, etc. It can be stretched out farther, but not fixed.

[greenohio]

23. I don't know if I would use the term Ponzi scheme...but

it is structured assuming the working class can support the retired class. With low birthrates, you simply cannot "guarentee" that system is always going to work....as much as we'd like it to.

[IStriker]

26. And if you look at the huge bulge of the Boomers at the top...

the soon-to-be retirees, and the smaller and smaller number of workers at the bottom of the inverted triangle, it's easy to see that we are fast approaching the point of CRASH. (Don't believe any of that 2042 stuff that is being floated; 2012 is more like it or 2022 with lower benefits, higher retirement age and higher taxes, etc.)

[greenohio]

28. I wouldn't use the term CRASH either.

It is true that the problem begins in 2018. At that point, SS starts taking in LESS than promised benefits. We revert to the trust fund at that point, so the government now has to start to pay itself back with interest. To pay itself back, the money has to come from somewhere, either higher taxes or cuts in programs. The other option is to reduce benefits. None of these options are appealing.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

11. Allow the CEO’s and the wealthest to pay their fair share like…

every good American should by eliminating the salary cap and they would then probably be able to reduce the SS tax rate for everyone and that would benefit the working poor. Oops, if that is the case it will never happen under a repuke administration.

I agree that the only crisis is this blatant attempt by the neocons to begin the their subtle (or not so subtle if anyone chooses to pay attention) destruction of Social Security by their usual modus operandi. By Using the always willing MSM to propagate another “Big Lie” and their deadly effective spin machine will win again unless the Democratic Party finally refuses to sell out the vital interests of the working class.

[tsuki]

25. Raising the salary cap will only result in more dividends being taken.

Right now, if you incorporate, you can pay yourself a salary less than the cap, and boost your income by taking dividends (capital gains.)

Capital gains are not subject to social security or Medicare.

[LynnTheDem]

12. bush's first SS "crisis" was in 1978 and SS would be "bankrupt" by 1988.

As always, bush was lying then. And he's lying now.

SS can easily be funded into the 22nd Century for LESS than what we're spending every month now in Iraq. Or for the tax cuts bush gave the richest 1% of Americans.

bush managed to dupe & con half this country into his war of aggression on a pack of lies; will bush manage to dupe and con Americans yet again?

[Poppyseedman]

13. I hope all of you who voted

there is no crisis aren't depending on it for your social security retirement if you are under 40 years of age.

Bush or no Bush, there still is a problem. If Kerry was elected, there still would be a problem, If Bullwinkle the Moose was elected there still would be a problem.

The facts are as plain as day. Today, right at this very moment, SS has a problem. In or around 2018 SS will need to tap into the trust fund, which is full of treasury bills to pay for outgoing money. To redeem those bills you need money. You have a choice, raise rates, cut benefits, change the cap on income.

Read Patrick Moynihan reports before he died.

[rman]

14. who believes anything the * administration says?

-

[hoosierblue]

15. I don't think Social Security itself is in crisis, but

* and Co. with their ideas of privatization are working hard on its coffin. They are putting it "in crisis," trying to make it go belly-up well before 2050, when the SS trust is expected to run out.

Why don't we just stop giving SS to billionaires and millionaires?

[blackangrydem]

18. No, but education might be in a state of crisis.

[Is It Fascism Yet]

21. There would be no real crisis if they'd stop stealing from it

they keep "borrowing" money from social security and never paying it back, if they'd stop stealing it, and invest it, it'd be viable for decades.

[IStriker]

27. It's way too late to make them "stop stealing..."

and there is no way on earth that they can pay back what is already stolen (our economy is not that big if we took it all for unfunded SS.) If you look at the numbers of retirees approaching and the number of workers in the workforce, it looks like an inverted triangle. With all the fixes which will never happen (higher taxes, lifting cap, higher retirement age, young people allowed to invest 2% of their money, deduct pensions from benefits, etc.) I'm not sure that the present system still wouldn't crash, just farther out.

[katinmn]

29. From my congresswoman, Betty McCollum:

(I wrote her about privatizing SS)

I agree with you that we should not privatize Social Security. Currently, the Social Security trust fund collects more money from payroll taxes than is needed to distribute in benefits. However, by the time the "baby boom" generation begins to retire, the trust funds will be taking in less revenue each year than is needed to meet its obligations. By the year 2034, the trust funds will be depleted and will not have sufficient income after that date to cover their expenditures.

-snip-
Certainly, those who work their entire adult lives, invest well, and are able to retire when the stock market is doing well will benefit greatly from private investment accounts. However, many Americans will fair far worse with private investment accounts than they would with traditional Social Security. Among those who would be harmed are: those who retire during a market downswing; those who do not invest their resources well; those (especially women) who interrupt their earning years to raise children; and those with disabilities who may have significant periods of unemployment.

We must be certain that nothing puts the future of Social Security at risk. It is an important social safety net, and everyone who has worked hard to contribute to the system should receive their fair share when they retire.

-close-
I like her response but I wish the Dems were on the spot with an alternative solution for SS.