What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
259 Comments
- hoobied, on 05/26/2009, -13/+95Social security WAS a viable system for many decades. The reason it didn't work is that many presidents (mostly republican but some democrats as well) borrowed money from social security for other things.
The funding was fine, until politicians used it as a piggy bank. - inactive, on 05/26/2009, -16/+76AT LEAST GAYS CAN'T MARRY!!
Right before the re-election George W. Bush, I talked with one of my elderly neighbors and tried to persuade her not to vote for Bush. She said, "I don't care, I am just so disgusted at the thought of those gays getting married, there's nothing that would make me not vote for Bush."
A couple of days ago, she was complaining about the rise of her insurance costs, prescription costs, gas pricess and that her son's job was outsourced and he was in foreclosure and now bankruptcy because he couldn't sell his home for what he paid for it. I looked at her and said, "Well, I'm sure the fact that gays can't marry makes it all worth it."
She just looked at me, went into the house and slammed the door!
I'm glad the old bitch got what was coming to her as will a lot of other fvckers that thought stopping queers from getting married was more important than getting that stupid prick out of the White House! - Lightstab, on 05/26/2009, -19/+64Hey, ***** this guy. Both of my parents are on Social Security. They paid their taxes on time.
- eastwood24, on 05/26/2009, -28/+70Social Security is kinda of like a Ponzi Scheme you are forced to pay for. The chances that S.S. will exist when I 'retire' is a joke and yet me and millions of other twenty-somethings continue to put thousands in the fund every year only to see it go belly up before we can 'collect'
- solboldi, on 05/26/2009, -21/+62When will the Pentagon go bankrupt?
Too much tax money goes to our military. - rotundo, on 05/26/2009, -10/+44You know, I hear that all the time, but it's simply untrue. It's the common uninformed opinion about how Social Security works. It is not a ponzi scheme because people enter _and_ exit the system, and the payouts are balanced to the amount coming in. As long as they adjust the retirement age, the pay-in and the pay-out, it is a completely maintainable system.
The reason it's going bankrupt is because the government loots the Social Security fund to pay for _other_ projects. If the government stopped looting it, it would be totally self sufficient. In fact the reason it got looted is because it was one of the few divisions in government that had enough money.
What's worse is the people who clamor to make retirement entirely self managed. Here's the deal: we had that before, and then when the market crashed everyone was screwed. So they put social security in place as a safety measure. Sure: we haven't needed it quite as direly in the past seventy years, but we very well might in the next ten.
Retirement must be redundant. A tripod is good: a company pension, a personal retirement account, and social security. That way, if any one or two fail, you're not SOL. These days everyone is pushing to have just personal retirement accounts. Well that's great in a boom, but when the inevitable lean years come, everything goes to hell.
Please, please -- stop repeating this misinformed notion that SS is a ponzi scheme and that all people need is a 401K. - Malchiah, on 05/26/2009, -10/+39I am 31 and self-employed. This means I pay both the employee portion and the employer portion of the payroll tax. I sometimes end up paying more for social security than in federal taxes. I also don't expect to see a single dime from social security when I retire.
I want an opt out provision. I will voluntarily give up all benefits I would otherwise be expected to receive in return for only putting in half of what I currently pay to cover my obligation to the previous generation who so wisely stuck me with the bill. :) - catbeller, on 05/26/2009, -4/+28Because all that money should be invested in stocks, bonds, and derivatives. Because that way, the money would be safe.
Idiots. You're being played by the same thieves who blew up the world's economy less than ten months ago. They want to steal all those trillions of dollars, dump it into their meat grinder, take a percentage of the top, and eat all the profits from loaning and investing out that cash. You do know that banks make more than .05% on your money in your checking account, no?
And we know how well the HMOs played us for fools when we let them take our monies into private hands to streamline health care. They now take 25% off the goddamned top. Social Security only takes about 2% for admin costs. Do the math. You're asking to be raped here. So many countries have done this and failed. But don't worry, only the poor people suffered. By definition. Of course a very few became billionaires sucking up the percentages.
How big of a stake do I need here to kill this damned vampire? - maz2331, on 05/26/2009, -4/+24And expanded the eligibility to collect from the fund to non-retired people via programs like SSI. But that is minimal.
The problem is that it was designed only to cover those too old to work. The original elibibility age was past the average life expectancy. It can't work if people can collect from it for 20+ years. - aufte, on 05/26/2009, -5/+25Ever heard of rioting, protesting or speaking out? It's what people do in countries where they aren't afraid of their government when they want change.
- Paulish, on 05/26/2009, -13/+32I dunno what to say man. They should have payed more attention to what the politicians were doing with the money in their time. I am 18 and relatively new to the workforce. I didn't sign up for this social security crap. I want no part in this doomed system. And just because your parents payed their taxes doesn't mean they are entitled to the money I earn.
Lets make a deal. I want nothing to do with social security. Thus, I don't pay in, and in turn I don't ever collect a dime. Alas, I cannot make that deal, because YOUR parents made it for me. That doesn't really sound fair. Your parents are NOT the victim my friend. They are the ones who had the power to change the system. - PhillyMJS, on 05/26/2009, -3/+20I wish I could digg this twice. Nothing makes me chuckle with vicious glee than someone getting their comeuppance in so glorious a manner.
It makes living the the shambles in which Bush left this country that much more tolerable. - PeachesTheCow, on 05/26/2009, -4/+17Social security needs to be changed, not dropped. Keep it as-is for anyone over, say, 55 right now. The rest get progressively less of it down to the 30s where you basically get your investment refunded. Read Galbraith: -http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/05/securi ...
- AZRoboto, on 05/26/2009, -3/+16They aren't entitled to your money, but their entitled to the money they paid to SS while working, too.
- rotundo, on 05/26/2009, -2/+15The problem with this plan is that if your personal retirement account fails, like most did in the 1930s and many are doing now, you are not going to willingly starve to death in the street. And even if you would, your neighbors won't let you. No: if your macho IRA tanks when you're 70 you're going to cause problems for everyone else by becoming a nuisance and/or taking a government handout.
That is what SS is for. It's an emergency backup plan since no individual has the resources to guarantee their own retirement. You should have a 401K and/or an IRA and you should also have SS. That way you've got a backup plan. Don't be short sighted.
You might make it. You might not. Refusing to acknowledge that does not make for a stable society. - Bloodwine, on 05/26/2009, -1/+14SS is so easy to fix too, just make it adjust with the average lifespan of the population.
SS was meant to give 3-5 years worth of benefits as a maximum. FDR just didn't have the foresight to think that one day people would b living 10 to 20 years longer.
I mean, it won't fix everything, but would definitely wrangle it under control. - ammundsen, on 05/26/2009, -2/+15I dont care for either party. But this is not a partisan problem. Clinton balancing the budget was a myth. He called it balanced because they count SS payments as general revenue. If a company paid its bills from their pension plan someone would be in jail (by someone I mean a low level scapegoat).
- ammundsen, on 05/26/2009, -1/+12The whole employer/employee portion gimmick is just that. It is designed to hide how much money we are gouged. The average person, not understanding basic economics, thinks that the employer portion is some gift. They dont realize this is money they would otherwise be paid. A 7.5% raise would be a nice boost for most people, particularly families with children.
- bmcnally, on 05/26/2009, -2/+12I could've sworn this has been posted 10+ times before on random articles . . .
Yup. http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Adigg.com+&qu ...
Seems like most of those accounts are inactive now. And it also looks like it was 169 times, not 10.
Honestly, can't you figure out something better to talk about? Or are you so hung up on this single moment of glory that you need to repeat it whenever possible? - inactive, on 05/26/2009, -19/+29America is Bankrupt.
- nsapra, on 05/26/2009, -1/+10Well, problem with making the "rich" pay is you make them pay too much, they go somewhere else. They became "rich" because they understand money.
- Willravel, on 05/26/2009, -1/+10This man doesn't understand the incredible pressure that an impoverished baby boomer generation would have on an already unstable economy. Talk about self-defeating.
- solboldi, on 05/26/2009, -12/+21The gov't is your friend :)
Now pay up, and head to the back of the line. - magamiako, on 05/26/2009, -8/+16Bear with me here, as I know it's difficult for some of you to understand.
A. For 2009, DOD funding is at $799,000,000,000 in funding.
B. For 2009, SS is at $644,000,000,000 in funding.
One of these is funding for killing people, the other is there for keeping people alive. Think about what a more worthwhile expense should be.
Source: http://www.wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/ - EndouOuto, on 05/26/2009, -4/+12Kinda? Only the government can legally pull off such a scheme
- MidnightTide, on 05/27/2009, -1/+9they have to keep on taking money from SS cause the government has no clue to run on a fiscally sound budget
- mrseptic, on 05/26/2009, -0/+8"but at least I have ideas"
Ya, but they're retarded. - Suricou, on 05/26/2009, -0/+7In the long term, the ageing population and increasing average life expectancy will have to be accounted for, and the only way to do that is to raise the retirement age. But to do that would be political suicide - all the people who see a party calling for another decade of working life to be put into their future would immediatly turn their vote elsewhere.
- TheAngryMob, on 05/26/2009, -8/+15Can I have the thousands of dollars I was FORCED to pay into it back first?
- chronopublish, on 05/26/2009, -3/+10I'm not convinced that every single dollar DOD spends counts toward killing people. Some of it keeps people alive.
Also some of the people it kills are pirates. - rotundo, on 05/26/2009, -1/+7Um, did you miss what just happened in the past 12 months? Many people who saved very carefully for their retirement are now completely screwed. What kind of ignorance or ideology would allow you to completely miss that very important point?
SS was put in place the last time this kind of thing happened. Because it was then that we learned that a individual retirement plan is not sufficient. You need multiple redundant plans. SS is a part of that. - rotundo, on 05/27/2009, -1/+7That's about the only fundamental change needed for SS. However a more critical change has nothing to do with SS itself:
Stop looting it!
Social Security funds should only be allowed to pay for Social Security. The idea that if there is excess funds that we should skim them off is ludicrous. The fact that it had extra funds to skim should shut the mouths of everyone who thinks it's just a Ponzi scheme. - scgirl212, on 05/26/2009, -2/+8Social Security doesn't get fixed because guess who votes? Old people! They vote more than any other age group.
Also guess which interest group is the largest and most powerful? AARP (American Association of Retired Persons)!
Us young people seriously need to vote..so that we don't get screwed later on when we are old. - shawnfromnh, on 05/26/2009, -4/+10Social security would be fine if the rich contributed to it. If you make more than a certain amount and I think it's 50K then you only pay to that amount and then you don't have to. If the rich would pay for every dollar they made there would be a ton more money in it. If they complain since social security is capped per month so they'll never get what they paid in, tough, you live in the USA and got rich here so give back some for the people that may very well have worked for you to make you rich you cheap bastard.
Also if someone works overseas and they are an american citizen they should have to pay into social security even if you're out of the country for 10 straight yrs.
We need to raise the age to 75 for retirement. When it was first enacted most people didn't live past 70 even but now with healthcare the way it is people can live past 90 or 100 so we need to keep people working longer if they live longer since social security was made to last people 10 or 15 years usually when first enacted.
Quit giving out social security for everyone with a lawyer that says they can't work. If I remember right people over 400lbs could go on because they were considered to fat to work "time for forced diet", alcoholics because of mental problems "forced detox or better yet just get lost", and other self inflicted problems were getting on Social Security for a while. Unless you are disabled enough that you can't even stand for an hour, you're 1/2 paralyzed or something like that, something really serious you shouldn't be on it.
Finally congress and the administration have been stealing from Social Security for years to fund wars and give corporations tax breaks and still fund the budget. This has to stop. It did with Clinton, he actually shut down government services or just cut hours and if we have to do that again and follow his example then so be it. If we were a business we would have to and a government should be no different.
- FredFredrickson, on 05/26/2009, -7/+13God forbid us young people do something to ensure that older people in this country have something to fall back on when they can't work anymore.
- mysql101, on 05/27/2009, -4/+9It doesn't matter if your parents paid their taxes on time. Your parents receive FAR more benefits from SS than they ever put in. THAT IS THE PROBLEM.
- SOS84, on 05/26/2009, -12/+17If you want to fix these programs, go tell the GOP to go ***** themselves, tell the Democrats to start putting their money where their mouth is and we can fix it. It is not that hard. Medicare is easy. We have known how to fix that for thirty years. The GOP continues to stand in the way. As another poster said, many presidents have dipped into the money, most notably Reagan and his VP's retarded son.
- skneils, on 05/26/2009, -0/+5this seems to be from the "we hope things fail" school of commentary. he doesn't offer any solutions to the "problem" of social security. probably because the usual right-wing solution (their only idea?) involves a private account scheme that invests heavily in the stock market -- i guess telling people to trust in the stock market for their retirement income isn't very popular right now. should social security just die? should old people and people with disabilities live off their families or just be homeless?
- MacEnvy, on 05/26/2009, -1/+6This must be that compassionate conservatism I keep hearing so much about.
- rotundo, on 05/27/2009, -3/+8Basic comprehension fail.
You have been here for the past 12 months, right? You are aware what happens to personal retirement funds in a recession? - offrdbandit, on 05/26/2009, -2/+7It's not xenophobia. It's simple math. If you drastically increase the supply of labor (that is, instantly increase unemployment through such legislation) labor prices will fall. Employers will lay off employees being paid current market rates and hire new employees at lower rates (or simply initiate pay cuts).
This would only help businesses seeking cheap labor. It would do nothing to solve the social security problem and would probably make the situation worse. - Suricou, on 05/26/2009, -2/+6Correction: They'll have noone to *accuratly* blame but themselves. You can be quite sure they'll blame someone else - anyone else - even if the person they choose to blame is in no way responsible.
- firesphotons, on 05/26/2009, -8/+12Republican answer to all business woes, let them all go belly up. Apparently thinking ahead about the ramifications of these stupid idioms never takes place. All of you advocating just watching the collapse happen must think Americans will stand in mile long lines for a ladle of gruel. In a country where people shoot each other for talking in movies you can bet civility in a economic collapse won't occur. You better be prepared for war in the streets if you push that many in the population to ruin.
- CasualReader, on 05/27/2009, -0/+4You can plan and save all you want but ***** happens. I know a guy who had a good job, investments, kids in college that he paid for, etc. Then he looses his job due to some CEO's stupid gamble, and, with it, his health insurance. By bad luck he also gets cancer. Two years later, the family is broke, investments gone paying for medical care, etc.
Tell me smart guy, where he went wrong and why he and his wife should starve??? - inactive, on 05/27/2009, -1/+5To Akazukin,
I know what group of people you are talking about and I understand the sentiments. However, there's many variables you aren't accounting for. A lot of people have high school diplomas and they struggled just to get that. When the factories left, a lot of people found themselves beached. I come from a dying factory town. My great grandfather worked in a factory, as well as my grandfather. My uncles worked in the factory until it closed. My dad, a rebel of sorts, founded his own business and became a tycoon. I went to school for engineering. If it wasn't for my mom and dad feeding my curiosity, I could have ended up in a factory too, easy. It used to be a respectable career and now what?
Good luck going back to school when you're last class was Mrs. Margret's 12th grade English in 1974.
Really that's all I felt like responding to; your last few sentences are simplified beyond belief. Not only that, they scream emotion - a condescending attitude. That might be an even worse offense than either the dreaded straw-man or the disappointing non-sequitor. - offrdbandit, on 05/26/2009, -4/+8Great idea. To solve the social security problem, your plan is to put thousands of American workers with immigrants.
Idiot. - Princeamor, on 05/26/2009, -10/+14Thats what Ron Paul was saying.. why didn't people listen?
- pak314, on 05/27/2009, -1/+5You can't really sue the gov't at such a scale. Where do you think they get the pay if they lost the lawsuit?
- protogenxl, on 05/26/2009, -1/+5MATLOCK!
- rotundo, on 05/26/2009, -1/+5That's a pretty good article. So here's my question for all the people who want to completely phase out SS:
What do we do when all the 401Ks and IRAs tank on the next recession? What do we do with all the people who suddenly find themselves too broke for retirement and too old to work?
I'm only in my 30s, and I don't expect to have any problems with my retirement, but it's just so naively short-sighted to claim that personal savings solves everything. It simply doesn't. This is why SS had to be created in the first place: only the government, with the input of all citizens, can build a system large enough to buffer, say, a decade long recession.
The current SS system is busted _mainly_ because it gets looted for unrelated projects, which should be illegal. It also needs some adjustment to the retirement age, the withholdings and the benefits to stay viable, but there's nothing fundamentally broken with it. And some type of SS system like this is required for social stability through serious market fluctuations. I've never heard any reasonable explanation of what would cover that if not SS. -
Show 51 - 100 of 262 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is