Social Security and Baby Boomer's

[MsConduct]

Okay Boomer's,

Do you think the 'b' word will suck the system dry before you get yours? I'm on the back end of boomerville and I'm completely PISSED! I paid in for over 30 years and the thought of some raving lunatic a**hole using money I worked for is enough to send me screaming into the streets. (that would not be a pretty sight, LOL)

What do you all think?

Peace

[MichiganVote]

1. Kiss it good bye

[fabius]

2. I'm extremely PO'd!

Greenspan and Dubya have conspired to rip off 80 million Americans. They are talking toward abrogating a solemn contract between the US Government and our generation. This will not stand! I've paid into the system for over 30 years. Now they're just raiding it to finance tax cuts for the rich.

A couple of "political reality" things:

(1) Boomers are generally selfish.

(2) Boomers want their damn money.

(3) Boomers mostly vote and know how to organize.

I don't see them getting away with this crap.

&###%!!@&*#@###*! Pirates! Actually the word "pirate" is too good for them.

[UTUSN]

3. Scream Away

***********QUOTE***********
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/08/25/bush_second_term/index.html

And you thought his first term was a nightmare
What Bush has planned for America if he wins.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Charles Tiefer

Aug. 25, 2004 | .... Under Bush's slogan of an "ownership society," the Republicans intend a long-term effort, using changes in Medicare, Social Security and taxes to pit better-off and worse-off Democrats against each other, offering all-but-irresistible incentives for some to desert the others -- and any progressive national coalition. .... A second-term Bush agenda will constantly impale Democrats on the dilemma of abandoning their poorer, sicker, older and minority groups, or seeing their better-off, healthier and younger members lured off to the other party. If it sounds like a political nightmare for the Democrats, that's because that's what it is planned to be. ....



http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040906fa_fact

.... When the President pledges to create an “era of ownership,” he is not talking merely about encouraging people to buy their own homes and start small businesses. To conservative Republicans who understand his coded language, he is also talking about extending and expanding the tax cuts he introduced in his first term; he is talking about allowing wealthy Americans to shelter much of their income from the I.R.S.; about using the tax code to curtail the government’s role in health care and retirement saving; and, ultimately, about a vision that has entranced but eluded conservatives for decades: the abolition of the graduated income tax and its replacement with a levy that is simpler, flatter, and more favorable to rich people. ....

...the theme of ownership. He may well talk about establishing investment accounts within Social Security, as well as Retirement Savings Accounts and Lifetime Savings Accounts outside of Social Security, and health savings accounts, which his economic advisers view as a step toward individual, portable health-care coverage. .... “The biggest demographic shift in the past thirty years is not the number of people who speak Spanish; it is the number of Americans who own stocks,” Norquist told me. “It was twenty per cent of adults when Reagan was elected. Now it is sixty per cent, and seventy per cent of voters.”

...returning to a balanced budget will be even harder this time around. A decade ago, it took “tax hikes, a sharp contraction in military spending, and an unprecedented economic expansion to achieve fiscal consolidation,” the I.M.F. noted. None of those things are on the horizon now. ....

“It is the height of deception to say we can only budget till 2009 but we are going to have massive tax cuts from 2010 onward,” Gale said. “That is what the Administration has done.” ....

...a historic restructuring of the American system of government. .... If Bush’s economic agenda was fully enacted, the vast bulk of these payments wouldn’t be taxed at all, and labor would end up shouldering practically the entire burden of financing the federal government. ....

********UNQUOTE*******

[SharonAnn]

4. Yep, they've stolen our money to run the government so they

wouldn't have to pay taxes. And they don't want to pay our money back to us.

We're the first generation that paid for its elders AND paid extra for ourselves and they've taken it all and don't want to give it back.

According to James Carville:
"Enough of this pussyfooting around, taking the high road shit. I wanna see some bloody shivs, brusied knuckles and Republican bodybags three feet deep. I wanna see the Republicans cry for mercy and then not give them any. I wanna see their heads on pikes planted outside the proverbial city walls, with signs hanging on them that say "Liars. Thieves. Cowards."

[shanti]

10. how about this??

"Bush's vision of a so-called ownership society is code language for dismantling not only Medicare, but also the existing Social Security system and replacing it with a system by which individuals' contributions go into personal accounts."


so if one has no "contributions", they are essentially screwed?

this is very disturbing. :-(

[cosmicvortex20]

5. I think retirement plans are great... I just dont want to be a part of

that one... I can easily invest my money with much better returns myself in a bad market without trying.

[bookman]

6. Missed the point...

..if you think of SS in terms of a retirement investment you're missing the point. SS was designed as a safety net. I venture to say many would "invest" poorly and a whole new crop of slimy investment outlets would arise.

And I hate to think that any investment would survive what my retirement savings have went through in the past 3 1/2 years.

[cosmicvortex20]

8. I want to make my own safety net...

and you most certainly can build investments that are less likely to implode everytime the market hiccups.

There are certain things that balance out the stock market - gold for one. They have an inverse relationship, but its not the only one... Theres TONS of ways to balance a portfolio.

[Cleita]

14. And what if something unforseeable happens that you can't

pursue your investment plan? Remember the stock market only perks up when common people have money to spend on necessities and a few toys. If that is stripped away from the working class and the middle class, there won't be any profits to gain from, will there? Also, what if something happens that cuts your productive life short? Then what do you do. Safety nets help for the unforeseeable curve ball life throws at you and believe me life does that to you. Old age is actually predictable and the results verifiable. Why do young people refuse to acknowledge that?

[cosmicvortex20]

15. two concepts... insurance and balanced investing.

As I mentioned before, there are things that you can invest in to offset the stock market -- meaning, when the stock market drops, certain things go up. They are locked into an inverse relationship. The trick is to balance investments across these type vehicles. If you do, then the only thing that can take you out is a total collapse, which if that happens, social security will fail as well.

[Cleita]

17. Insurance, you mean the guys who like it when you give them

money, but aren't so crazy about you when you want to collect? Those guys? Oh and that market that just doesn't do well when only a few people have money? Wake up bub, the only guys who make money with those retirement ideas are the ones who want you to shell out your money while you are young and able to work. When your payday comes they will be long gone with your money and your retirement.

[cosmicvortex20]

20. youve got a small problem there...

Insurance pays people daily - my nieghbor is one of them. He had a serious back problem and now hes on long term disability. According to your view, that would be impossible. Insurance companies NEVER pay right?

As for the investing, it sounds like you didnt grasp what I was saying, so Ill just leave it be. If you cant grasp the concepts of inverse relationships in investing, its pointless to continue. It has nothing to do with "schemes" and everything to do with pure economics.

[Cleita]

21. Oh, I get the concept all right and when you live as long as

I have, so will you. It is inverse and not in your favor. If you let those who stand to gain the most from your money define the rules, then you deserve what you get. Remember these people are not honest. They make the rules but only play by them when it benefits them.

[cosmicvortex20]

24. you didnt address the insurance issue though.

You state insurance doesnt pay - yet my neighbor is presently drawing insurance (and Im sure millions of otheres are as well). You dont see how your view differs from the reality of the situation there?

[Cleita]

29. Yes, it does pay when it has to, and then it cancels you.

Once your neighbor's benefits run out, he will never be able to buy that kind of insurance again and if he can it will be prohibitively expensive. I don't think millions of others are collecting as well, because the job of actuaries is to crunch these numbers so claims are very far and few between. If millions are collecting benefits then all those actuaries will lose their jobs.

You aren't really clear as to what kind of insurance this person is collecting, why he is collecting it and for how long, so I don't think this is a very good argument on your part unless you can come up with concrete evidence and figure. I think insurance sucks myself. I would like to see a government program that one can buy into to cover catastrophic occurrences. Who needs the middle man anyway? The government always has to step in for disasters because the insurance guys really don't deliver.

[Kool Kitty]

51. I'd like to invest, too, but since we are

basically living paycheck to paycheck, I don't see how I could this. Not at the present time, anyway. So I guess I will have to depend on SS.

[Eloriel]

9. Nothin' stoppin' you, bud

You just go right ahead and take whatever portion of your income that you'd like to invest privately and do so. More power to ya!

Social Security isn't a "retirement plan." It's a social safety net. It has never included means testing because that would cause it immediately to be considered another "welfare" scheme for the "poor" which would be the death of it.

Nor does it work that the money we have all paid into the system equals the money we get out, or will be waiting for us when we retire -- yet another way it's not a "retirement plan" or even a "savings plan." ALL of us have been subsidizing those recipientsalive during our paying years, from its inception.

Most Democrats believe that we all have a responsibility (moral, ethical, practical, humanitarian, compassionate) to pool our resources in order to provide for the weaker and more vulnerable among us. "Every man for himself" and "I've got (or can get) mine, you're on your own" are hallmark sentiments of the right.

There was a time when Social Security wasn't needed as much, IMO. In today's climate with the raiding of pension funds (and other fraud involved with them), downsizing and outsourcing, a general re-organization of the workforce into lower-paying, non-union and service jobs, a greatly expanding gap between the rich and the poor (largest among all industrialized nations), a diminishing middle class, the elderly living longer (and often needing expensive medical and related care, such as for Alzheimer's), rising medical and pharmaceutical costs including for catastrophic illnesses, and so on, Social Security is needed more than ever.

Please also don't forget that many Social Security recipients aren't old people. As I said, it was designed as and continues to be a social safety net.

And oh, another thing. Women are more likely to live in abject poverty in their older years than men or couples, even WITH Social Security. Many of them are already having to choose between food and meds, or taking half their doses (or less) in order to be able to avoid malnutrition (or starvation) as an additional medical problem.

I'm really glad you can take care of yourself and your financial needs. I hope it always remains true for you.

[cosmicvortex20]

11. and you missed my point.

and its true MOST democrats beleive this, but not all...

I would not like to participate in a safety net because I dont need it for one, and I also know that charity loses its moral import when its forced. Forcing people to do your bidding = bad.

[unkachuck]

12. and I get your point...

and it's true MOST Democrats do not believe you, but not all...

I would not like to participate in the support of the military because I dont need one, and I also know that giving tax breaks to the rich loses its moral import when it's forced. Forcing people to support your right-wing agenda = bad.

[cosmicvortex20]

13. Look here righty, im the one that doesnt want the poor to pay ANY

taxes... so dont hand me any crap about being righty. As for your not wishing a military, I think its MUCH more likely a country exist without social security then a military - so go buy what you want.

And it sounds to me like you have no clue what moral import even means.

[Cleita]

16. Really, you don't want the poor to pay any taxes?

It's actually an attainable dream. If SS lifts the $86,000 cap on contributions so that all income is taxed, then maybe the lowest income earners could be given a pass on paying those taxes.

[unkachuck]

18. please don't pick on me....

...sir, I'm just am old man with very little patience for fascism....

[cosmicvortex20]

19. oh dont worry...

If you think exempting the poor from paying taxes is a fascist right-based idea, you got bigger problems then me - mostly educational problems.

[unkachuck]

23. yep, you're right....

....uneducated people like me would much rather have a government-back sure-thing than a Wall-Street shell-game.....I've yet to buy my first lottery ticket....proud of me?

[cosmicvortex20]

25. government back sure thing eh?

If your an old guy, then you should have learned theres NEVER a sure thing...

Most people dont even expect it to be around when they retire - so how can you call it a sure thing?

What if we go through hyperinflation? What if the benefit levels change, or the retirement age changes?

Its hardly a sure thing... Ill take my own judgement any day of the week over those morons in washington.

[unkachuck]

26. depends....

....which morons are in Washington....

[cosmicvortex20]

28. you get to ask questions after you answer the ones already on the table

Like all the possible problems that can (and probably will) occur with SS. Do you really think its a sure thing? or are you just shifting your responsibility?

[unkachuck]

32. I expect Social Security....

....to be kept in tact and/or improved upon.....if we can fine trillions of dollars to fund rich people tax-breaks and needless wars around the globe, then we certainly should be able to fine a few trillion dollars to fund a much needed program supported by most people in this country....

I'll leave the details to you educated people.....and if you can't find the proper solution, then we'll hire educated people who can....

[Cleita]

33. Social Security has worked fine for over sixty years.

I don't even understand why the neo-con assholes have a bone to pick with it because they aren't the ones who have paid proportionately into it what the working class has, and now that it's time for the next generation of working class to collect their benefits, they don't want them to have those benefits.

If they improverish the next generation of retirees, you can be sure those guys aren't going to be enjoying their money with all the security they are going to have to buy to keep it. The boomer's were the fighters of the counter revolution. Don't think they still don't have a big fight left in them.

[skooooo]

35. I find this whole thread rather bizarre..

...but hey, that's just me.

[LincolnMcGrath]

22. A Lil' 401k story for ya

About 8 years ago when I was working at a steel mill, a perfect case study of your idea happened. At the time we had had a 401k in place for about 8 years. Being UNION we made good money so many folks had quite a bit of money in their plans. Just prior to a contract vote, rumors flew that the stock would soar after a yes vote. Well guess what, 60-70 percent of the armchair investors put their entire accounts in company stock. The day before the vote the shares were selling for 4 dollars piece. After the contract was ratified the stock price dropped immediately to 2 dollars for a few months then started a gradual decline into nothing. Five or so years later the company went chapter 11 and closed. These folks lost everything. Some cut their losses and sold right away, but most stayed in thinking they might recoup someday.

The Pension fund had been raided thanks to repug rule changes, so now most get half what they earned. My uncle put in 35 years and lost 55% of his retirement and also the medical. The last CEO still gets $18000 a month though!

DO what you want with your excess cash. Don't F with the SS program though. Everyone of these Ex Steelworkers is costing you and I money right now.

[cosmicvortex20]

27. I can sympathize...

and I said retirement plans are fine - just not for me...

As for the poor investing these people did, I see no reason why I am now liable for their bad choices. Do you think its fair that I can gamble away money on risky investments and if they fail, just have some other smarter saps bail me out?

Doesnt make a lot of sense.

I can go a long way with the party ideals, but this one never made sense to me.

[LincolnMcGrath]

30. Look up

Apparently my post went clear over your head.


These folks are poor now! We take care of poor folks in this country.

AS ANY COUNTRY SHOULD!!

Had they not been misguided, and ripped off of their pensions, they would have a fat retirement like I am building. Since they DO NOT, IT COSTS YOU AND ME MONEY! Do you honestly think Joe six pack can plan their retirement wisely? FULLY funded pension plans and the SS program will cost YOU and ME less money!

[MsConduct]

43. I understand what you're saying

there are circumstances that people can't control. It happened to me....I did plan my retirement, it tanked.

I'm not happy that * thinks the money I paid in should be used for anything or anybody but me.

Peace

[Yupster]

49. The money you paid in is

long gone. It was given out to a retired person the same month you contributed it.

You're depending on your kids and grandkids money that they paid in.

[MsConduct]

52. From what I understood

I was paying in for my parents and paying in extra for myself. I know I paid plenty, fer sure.


Peace

[Lydia Leftcoast]

46. Oh man, another "I'm all right so the hell with everyone else" post

:eyes:

We're supposed to be better than that.

[MsConduct]

48. Yes were are

supposed to be better than that. Maybe he or she was having a bad day?


Peace

[meti57b]

40. There was a time when people could work for themselves,...........

start a small business, have a small farm, grow their own food. Those times no longer exist. Virtually all of us are forced to work for someone else, who generally screws us. Perhaps the younger generation has not heard of the expression "WAGE SLAVES". Most jobs simply don't pay enough for people to save much of anything.

It also figures into the mix, that to get a job we are often forced to relocate. Once we have a job, the employer forces us to relocate. As a result of relocating we have no close family`to hslp us through the bad economic times.

This thread so far, is already starting to illustrate the bush concept of pitting Democrats against each other.

[salin]

42. Only works if one earns enough money to be able to save.

Paul O'Niell was of the opinion that SS was unneeded because people should be able to save over their lifetime for retirement and medical insurance.

But, if one is stuck in low income jobs (and this is becoming even more common as more of the "new" jobs are low level service economy jobs), and living in an area where the cost of living isn't dirt cheap, and one has a family - there isn't much money to invest. And even scrimping $10 a week over the long haul is not going to yeild a big retirement safety net.

Personally, I have just begun a more serious investment plan - because I do not trust that Social Security will be available when I retire (I, too, am at the end of the babyboom generation and beginning of the gen x - depending on which years one looks at as the dividing line.) But more than my fear for myself (I do earn enough to be able to try to save more than I live on - in part because I choose to continue to live as cheaply as possible), I fear what the bush plan will do to people who are currently in retirement or close to retirement who do not have the time to invest. Or those who believed, until the past two years or so, that the pension plan at work was really viable and going to provide income after retirement. Siphoning off SS reciepts (what we pay in) now - will, I predict, quickly result in greatly reduced payments. Are we really able, as a society, to either absorb the costs or to stand idly by as more of our parents and their peers are thrust into a poverty they did not live in when they were younger? Then you have the insane Allen Greenspan telling people to put more money into refinancing one day and then chastizing people into saving more (and suggesting we cut SS payouts) the next. Hey Allen - your policies and proclamations have had a direct impact on the current situation - why do so many people give you and your greedy/wealthy only count view on the US Economy a pass?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

44. So invest it already

Nobody's stopping you. If you're a such a hot shit investment strategist, having a small percentage of your income taken out beforehand shouldn't cramp your style. :eyes:

[kayell]

47. The point is that the government has been investing our money since we

started working. That money was guarunteed us as a safety net. Now * is taking that money and blowing it away. Good for you if you don't need the safety net, but millions of us likely will. A lot of the people who will need it have been gainfully employed for decades, often in jobs like teaching that are of high benefit to society, but relatively low paid.

[Eric J in MN]

7. Bush Tax Cuts for the Rich Today, Less Social Security for You Tomorrow

President Reagan signed into law higher taxes for workers to pay into Social Security on April 20, 1983, and we still pay those higher Social Security taxes from our paychecks today.

In 2001 and 2003, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan encouraged Congress to pass Bush's tax cuts for the rich. Bush signed these tax cuts for the rich into law.

Now we have a Social Security fund which should be solvent though 2042, but thanks to the tax cuts for the rich, we have a 2004 budget deficit of $477 billion (Congressional Budget Office.)

Greenspan's answer is to keep the tax cuts for the rich, but cut what recipients of Social Security get, he announced last Friday ("Greenspan's Social Security Alarm," CBS/AP, Aug. 27, 2004.)

John Kerry, by contrast, wants to reverse the Bush tax cuts for families making over $200,00.

We and our relatives probably won't receive the amount of Social Security we expect unless John Kerry is elected in November.

READ MORE at MOVELEFT MEDIA

http://www.moveleft.com/moveleft_essay_2004_09_02_bush_tax_cuts_for_the_rich_today_less_social_security_tomorrow.asp

[MsConduct]

31. I was mad enough

about tax breaks for the rich (why do they need any breaks at all?),
then I got bent when the medicare ripoff plan passed (my poor old Mom is getting the shaft on that now), this SS crap might really put me over the edge! If it does, I'll end up being one of those poor mentally ill street people, so I guess that's not a viable alternative...


I do get a pension from the job that I (unfortunately) had to medically retire from, but it's not enough. I had a 401K, but it tanked before I medically retired. I wasn't planning on living on my
SS because planned a healthy pension and some 401K dough. So much for planning. Now I'm going to need that money.

'b', the hole and his fat cat cronies can fall of the edge of the earth for all I care.

Carvelle's got the right idea, fer sure.

[Eric J in MN]

37. What did James Carville say? nt

nt

[MsConduct]

38. Sorry, I was referring to

post #4 in this thread by SharonAnn "yep, they've stolen our money...

[greblc]

34. Even sadder...

some boomers that are retiring now have Very Good Pensions in addition to
Social Security.
We Gen X ers will never see a pension the likes of our parents.

Does ALPO go with White or Red Boones Farm?

[LincolnMcGrath]

36. So start fighting!

The time for niceties has long passed. Are you volunteering for Kerry?

[Yupster]

50. True

Defined benefit plansd are a thing of the past. Basically if you want a pension, you need to work for the government.

[Tight_rope]

39. Welcome DU 0 tolerance!

SS is finished. People fail to realize that when you withdraw unemployment and you are taking the money from your SS.

[MsConduct]

41. Thanks Tight_Rope!

I like it here. It's really nice to be dealing with actual human beings. I'm a refugee from myway. LOL

[mbee]

45. The bushistas made sure all the boomers got mortgaged up to

the hilt over the past four years. Therefore, we will all be working through our retirements to pay our mortgage and, also, to pay into the Social Security System in order to get our checks. This is the dirty little trick these slimeballs have played on us. A lot of boomers are using the equity to either live on or to remodel, but they will probably be sorry later.

[MsConduct]

53. Very Good Point

is there anything else these lying greedy bastards can come up with to ruin our lives? I shouldn't ask, I'm sure there is....evil never sleeps.

Peace

[welshTerrier2]

54. generational warfare ...

whatever your generation, don't be suckered into being hostile towards other generations ...

those of us on the left must not allow the evil ones to divide us ...

most boomers have no more control over what happens with Social Security than any other generation ... it's a system that must be made to work no matter what it costs ...