wyldwolf
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-23-05 04:02 PM
Original message |
New Social Security report: Will go bust in 2041 |
|
Just on the news.
What say the Bushies?
|
Darkhawk32
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-23-05 04:03 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Is that meaning bankrupt or not being able to pay 100% benefits? n/t |
Inland
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-23-05 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
4. Not pay 100% benefits, although the repugs will never mention |
|
that the system will be able to pay 70% forever, under the worst case scenario, and under the best case, pay 100% forever.
|
Darkhawk32
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-23-05 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
6. Remove salary cap and ding, fixed. n/t |
Inland
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-23-05 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
7. Maybe, but frankly I am against that. |
|
1) raising taxes on wages to let Bush or the next conservative steal it? No thanks. Let him propose it if he wants it. Right now, I think he is waiting for some dem to propose it so they can rule it out a tax increase. Why else all the pressure for a dem fix BEFORE Bush suggests one?
2) For SS to run out of money in 2041, we would have to have thirty years of growth at an annual rate of 1.6%. That's about half of the rate of annual growth since WWII. If we have such shit growth, the least of our worries is going to be SS, since the entire nation will be broke and suddenly cutting pensions along with everything else we can't afford as the US is on the downward spiral will make sense.
I say do nothing.
|
Darkhawk32
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Mar-25-05 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #7 |
8. I concur completely, was just trying to illustrate that if he DID truly... |
|
want to fix SS, then that would be the simplest answer. But like you said, let HIM do it.
This way, we can say..."Republicans are tax-and-spenders." ;)
|
TwilightZone
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-23-05 04:03 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Oh, my goodness. That's ONE YEAR EARLY!! |
|
Alert the media! Release the hounds! The end is near!
Hehe.....
|
ulTRAX
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-23-05 04:04 PM
Response to Original message |
3. please don't use the term "go bust" |
|
Edited on Wed Mar-23-05 04:05 PM by ulTRAX
It implies it will be out of money. In reality it will be insolvent... not having enough money to meet TODAY'S obligations at TODAY'S funding levels.
|
Vinca
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-23-05 04:13 PM
Response to Original message |
5. Not to worry - for me anyway. |
|
I'll be dead by then for lack of health care. Maybe that's why they never do anything to help the uninsured. It's sort of a social security "plan B."
|
kentuck
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Mar-25-05 11:42 AM
Response to Original message |
9. If the fund will only grow at 1.6%, what will your private fund grow? |
|
They have downplayed the growth of SS as per the growth of the past. With their most dismal, conservative numbers, it is 2041...
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sat May 11th 2024, 09:27 AM
Response to Original message |