This story is archived

Boomer Generation Is In A State of Denial »

Posted by: stephen-johnson 2 years, 10 months ago

Archived 18

By Robert Samuelson - Born in late 1945, I say this to the 76 million or so subsequent baby boomers and particularly to Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, our generation's leading politicians: Shame on us. We are trying to pillage our children and grandchildren, putting the country's future at risk in the process. On one of the great issues of our ti

Read Full Story at realclearpolitics.com »

Submitted By:

stephen-johnson

Out to lunch without a sandwich

This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed

Comments: 17

Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
bubba2
Jan. 11, 2007, 12:19 a.m.
Social security is not a 'pyramid scheme'.
You get out of it what you pay into it, and that depends on how many years YOU work and how much money YOU contributed to the fund which is then interpreted to how much benefit you get when you qualify.
Abortion has absolutely NOTHING to do with, nor is related in ANY way to, Social Security. Where did you get that balderdash from?

5 Replies
- Avg rating: (+0/-3 -3)
  bubba2
  Jan. 11, 2007, 10:49 a.m.
  There is NO "Pyramid" to social security! MY contribution to the fund is for ME - it is NOT for someone else's retirement, it is for MINE.
  Where are you getting that 'stuff' about SS being a "pyramid"?
  Abortion has ALWAYS been going on. Whether or not it is legal has NO bearing on Social Security and how many people contribute to it! The population of this country has steadily GROWN and abortion rates are NOT stopping MORE babies from being born.
  
  2 Replies
  - Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
    newsquew
    Jan. 11, 2007, 3:01 p.m.
    Visit the projections as to how many workers from at the programs inception supporting retirees as to now & worker to retiree in the future and one see the tremendous burden of the worker to retiree ratio.
    It's a pyramid program that you & I would be in jail should we do it in the market place ourselves.
    
    1 Reply
    - Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
      newsquew
      Jan. 11, 2007, 5:03 p.m.
      Wow, I must be on drugs & not even know it... Duh...
      The above rambling makes little to no sense to me & I wrote it!
      Confused?
      Let's try this:
      The worker to retiree ratio has greatly decreased; approaching a 1 to 1 ratio.
      Not good.
- Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
  Mintyfunk
  Jan. 11, 2007, 10:45 a.m.
  Actually, you get out of it what the current generation puts into it. And with the bubble created by baby boomers and longer life expectancy vs declining birth rate you now have a greater burden place on the next generation to support swelling costs and an increase of use on the system. It means more taxes on the younger generations to support tha fact that we refuse to reform a bloated system.
- Avg rating: (+18/-0 18)
  newsquew
  Jan. 11, 2007, 2:32 p.m.
  Abortion has EVERYTHING to do with it... an estimated 180 MILLION since Roe v Wade. These non exixting citizens are not here to participate in the economy.
  Regardless of any political or religous beliefs or dogmas THE FACT IS: it's a SOCIAL DEMOGRAPHER'S NIGHTMARE.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
bubba2
Jan. 11, 2007, 12:07 a.m.
"Social Security and Medicare benefits must be cut to keep down overall costs."
Brilliant idea ... not.
That's great - as the population increases and the numbers of retirees and elderly increase, we should DECREASE these two programs? What a load of baloney.
And ... it is NOT a 'myth' that the Social Security fund is being plundered. The government HAS BEEN and IS dipping into the Social Security funds.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/sschanges.asp
"The Social Security Act specifies that the monies in the fund may only "be invested in securities backed by the full
faith and credit of the Federal government," such as treasury bills, treasury notes, and treasury bonds, as well as special issue bonds. So, essentially, the government can "invest" Social Security funds by lending them to itself, then spending that money on programs not related to Social Security (e.g., defense, foreign aid, education)."

1 Reply
- Avg rating: (+4/-0 4)
  bubba2
  Jan. 11, 2007, 12:49 p.m.
  While I do NOT agree with your assessment that the problems with D.C. are from "Red Communists" (and you mean DEMOCRATS) - because REPUBLICANS have controlled most of our government for most of the last 30 years -
  I otherwise agree that our federal money/budget is getting too far a way from the people and that the current state of the federal government is a disaster in the making.
Avg rating: (+3/-0 3)
geographer47
Jan. 11, 2007, 12:23 p.m.
The only thing that can keep Social Security afloat is increasing the number of workers funding retirees. But the administration has made an agreement with Mexico that effectively increases the number of workers who will be able to claim benefits in the future.
http://news.netscape.com/story/2007/01/03/social-s

2 Replies
- Avg rating: (+4/-0 4)
  bubba2
  Jan. 11, 2007, 12:50 p.m.
  Bush hasn't signed that agreement yet.
  Also, the Senate has created a bill that will require ALL such agreements like this one to be ratified by Congress - if Congress doesn't ratify it, it doesn't happen.
  Call or write your D.C. reps and tell them to SUPPORT the Senate legislation (S. 43) that will change current law to treat all Totalization Agreements as bilateral trade agreements.
  
  1 Reply
  - Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
    geographer47
    Jan. 11, 2007, 1:41 p.m.
    Great suggestion, bubba2.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
newsquew
Jan. 11, 2007, 2:51 p.m.
The FDR model of SS was based on a straight line projection with retirement age of 65. At the time he signed the bill "that would endear the American public to the Democratic Party for generations" the average life expectancy of the white male factory worker was 64 1/2. (Exact ages may be incorrect but, do the math, the fact remains that life expectancy was 1/2 year less.) .
SS has acted as a deterrent for people to save for their own protection. Over the years politicians have used this program to buy votes, bastardizing it as a lifestyle entitlement as opposed to a basic security plan.