• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

SS Fix?

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I have mixed feelings about this plan. On one hand, low income people don’t have enough to live on with just SS alone, and could use an increase. On the other hand, wealthy people paid more into SS, so why should they be penalized because they earn too much when they retire. What do ya all think about it? Could this be a good solution?
Apr 28, 6:06 PM (ET)

By DAVID ESPO
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush intends to prod Congress to consider raising Social Security benefits for low-income retirees while curtailing them for others as part of a plan to shore up the program's finances, Republican officials said Thursday in advance of Bush's prime time news conference.
Nearing the end of a 60-day campaign for Social Security overhaul, Bush had no plans to back down from his insistence that legislation include voluntary personal accounts for workers under 55, these officials added.
Source
 

Nebraskaboy

New member
Joined
Apr 28, 2005
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yes you make a good point Squawker, the question is should the rich be penalized for making to much money, and the poor be awarded for not making enough. It just comes down to basic reasoning, this situation could go either way and it would make sense but with my own belief I would say the poor would deserve more, so they would make enough to make ends meat.

You could also argue for they other side and it would make a perfect amount of sense.
 

Nebraskaboy

New member
Joined
Apr 28, 2005
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I also don't believe anyone has a plan to completely fix social security but at least Bush is trying to fix the flaws. We cannot leave the system the way it is, it needs to be fixed. If we were to just let SS play out by the time I am able to taste that money, it will be gone. Also I doubt I will ever be able to grab it since the age will be at least 80 before I am eligible to get it.
 

Arch Enemy

Familiaist
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2005
Messages
7,470
Reaction score
2,085
Location
North Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I doubt there is a solution to this problem.

Low-Income people are usually those who haven't really had a chance at a good education. If School Tests are on the rise and people are actually doing better in schools (know this is a fact in North Carolina) then low-income should sort itself out with time. I think raising Social Security is good though, most of the retirees came from a time when schooling wasn't so honorable.. and most made low-incomes, just because they're poor then the Government should provide money for their food.. and not use money for Wars.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
Squawker said:
I have mixed feelings about this plan. On one hand, low income people don’t have enough to live on with just SS alone, and could use an increase. On the other hand, wealthy people paid more into SS, so why should they be penalized because they earn too much when they retire. What do ya all think about it? Could this be a good solution?

Source


This was the first time I’ve heard Bush speak about any plan that would actually address the systems funding short falls. Personally I believe we need to move forward in two directions at once. One being the Bush plan of giving more to those with less. Some people will work hard their entire lives and still have very little to show for it. I’m all for helping those who have actually put into the system consistently over the years and still need help staying above the poverty level. And I’m in favor of paying them more than I’ll get. Personally I think if you earn over 200K a year you shouldn’t get anything. And I’m not opposed to paying in to it and not getting any thing out either. As long as I know my money is going to good use. I was pretty surprised to hear Bush go this route. It’s a non-conservative move to say the least. Having some people pay more and get less. Maybe he’s seen the writing on the wall in regards to his private accounts idea and knows without a trade off of this value there no way? I don’t know.



Second, I feel we need to ensure those being paid deserve what they’re being paid. I’m not in favor of paying out to people who, for whatever reason, didn’t pay into it. Some of these people are engaged in black market activities that hurt our economy. While other’s scrape by doing little to contribute to our communities often draining the system of resources as they age. Then when they reach retirement age they expect Social Security. If you’re able to work you should work. Those people are draining the system for those who truly can’t work. I saw a morning network news show this AM about cheaters scamming the system. Makes me mad. But the reality is they are few in numbers compared to the people who really need the system. We’re always going to have people trying to get a free ride. We shouldn’t let that stop us from taking care of those who need and deserve.
 

HighSpeed

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
72
Reaction score
1
Location
Chicago, IL
Currently, let's say the husband is the only source of income, having a stay at home wife and 3 young kids. If something was to happen to the husband, like pass away for what ever reason, the family would be cared for by SS, especially the kids up to the age limit of I think 21. It may not be much, but its SOMETHING to help live on.

With the Privatized Plan by GW, the same family above will get nothing if somethin was to happen to the income provider. This is one of the flaws with his plans. How many people fall into the category mentioned above in the U.S.?
 

Nebraskaboy

New member
Joined
Apr 28, 2005
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
HighSpeed said:
Currently, let's say the husband is the only source of income, having a stay at home wife and 3 young kids. If something was to happen to the husband, like pass away for what ever reason, the family would be cared for by SS, especially the kids up to the age limit of I think 21. It may not be much, but its SOMETHING to help live on.

With the Privatized Plan by GW, the same family above will get nothing if somethin was to happen to the income provider. This is one of the flaws with his plans. How many people fall into the category mentioned above in the U.S.?
I don't fall completely in this category but I don't fall short. My real mom died when I was seven we then went in to poverty and I had to stay with grandma for a year because my dad couldn’t pay to support all seven of us kids. My dad then eventually started to make a reasonable income to keep us all in a 2 room apartment, then my dad got remarried. She contributed a income for a certain time but then her self became handicapped. She had brain damage and they had to remove half of her brain making half of her body hardly work at all. So then, my dad had to give up his real job and is now currently a taxi driver. and occasionally works other various jobs. He is forced to drive a taxi so he can come home and help my mom and my new baby brother who is only 1. My dad has also had many medical problems though he has diabetes, he’s had many surgeries and he’s always getting sick.

So I think I can somewhat in that category of Americans.
 

zzzaaappp

New member
Joined
Apr 28, 2005
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Hi squawker........An earlier poster said that when low income people have access to good education, then SS will fix itself...I don't know . Here in Houston, the poorest performing schools are the ones with the highest budget.

It sounds cruel, but the REAL fix for SS is not so simple. It's getting minorities
and other low income people to buy into the American System. Stop having children out of wedlock, stop teaching your children that being successful is "acting white") Start showing sports figures with BOOKS in their hands instead of a basketball. Follow the Asian way and put a premium on education.
And most importantly.....stop listening to your leaders (charles rangle
sheila jackson lee, jesse jackson, hillary clinton) they are LYING to you.
They don't want you to succeed, they like you right on the Democratic plantation.


This will allow disadvantaged kids to succeed..thus making more Money...thus paying more into the system....plus planning for their own retirement.
You can't expect a piece of the pie unless you helped bake it.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
HighSpeed said:
Currently, let's say the husband is the only source of income, having a stay at home wife and 3 young kids. If something was to happen to the husband, like pass away for what ever reason, the family would be cared for by SS, especially the kids up to the age limit of I think 21. It may not be much, but its SOMETHING to help live on.

With the Privatized Plan by GW, the same family above will get nothing if somethin was to happen to the income provider. This is one of the flaws with his plans. How many people fall into the category mentioned above in the U.S.?
I honestly didn’t realize the Bush plan said this. Where is this sourced? I also think the cut off for support to dependants is 18. I’ll go try and wade through the SS site later today if I get time and see if I can find it.
 

HighSpeed

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
72
Reaction score
1
Location
Chicago, IL
Pacridge said:
I honestly didn’t realize the Bush plan said this. Where is this sourced? I also think the cut off for support to dependants is 18. I’ll go try and wade through the SS site later today if I get time and see if I can find it.
We both know that, he won't directly say that. Think about it, how many people will really invest in a private plan? It's safe to say that millions will not participate in this plan, so that said, millions will be basically screwed over at the end. People will rather put that money in their pockets. Only the financial savvy, financially educated and financially secured will follow up on it. The wealthy is also getting reamed in the behind on this, why should one be penalized for being succesful as well? Its a lost situation for everyone in any financial class over all.

Joe Shmoe with a family is living from paycheck to paycheck, which is not the best position to be in, but lots of people fall into this category. SS will help out in the long run, its a small amount but its something. With the private plan, Joe Shmoe is still in the same scenerio, instead of puttin money into SS, Joe Shmoe decides to use the money to feed the family or use for basic necessaties or, like most typical americans, drink it away, or even buy unneeded things. Get my drift? So the private plan is useless to the majority and on top of that, no more SS coming in. Basically Joe Shmoe is screwed like many other americans.

The SS money is there coming in, (or it was there, thanks GW for spending it for a cause you cannot justify). Does anyone have any idea how many millions of americans will be affected plus the cost to get this plan rollin'? Just leave it as! Don't tell me that GW almost tapped out the surplus, is this why he is so determined to get this plan passed?
 
Top Bottom