Social Security

**Calliander** · 10 May 2005, 09:24 AM

I just read Krugman's editorial about Social Security in the NY Times and I was wondering what the opinion on TNL was about the whole thing; not just the privatization effort, but the idea of Social Security in general.

My mother's a member of the AARP and they are furiously opposed to President Bush's plan, so she's probably been getting propaganda from them in the mail. The other day we were talking and she was really upset about the changes in Forest Services and then cursed the President over the Social Security thing. I brought up how she doesn't need to worry because she works for a company that has privately provided retirement savings plans to her. Her question to me was, "Well what if you don't have those benefits?"

The cold, evil part of me says, "Well, isn't that your fault?" The hippie liberal part says, "I guess we need to provide something for people who can't work at a place with benefits for their entire lives..."

As far as privatization goes, it seems like a contradiction - admitting failed tax cuts on the Republican side or admitting that the economy really won't collapse because of Bush policies on the Democrat side. I don't really have an opinion either way about the actual change, though.

So I guess the questions are, what do you think of Bush's plan and do you think the government has a responsibility to provide for retired folks who didn't save and invest while they were working?

**Melf** · 10 May 2005, 10:33 AM

Why would it be someone's fault if the company they work for doesn't provide pension benefits? The job market isn't such nowadays that one has the luxury of choosing jobs as much as before, so those with a decent, stable job that pays the bills will most likely stick with it even if there's no pension.

What is blame-worthy is going through life thinking that social security will be there and be enough to live on alone. Anyone with a brain today is working on some kind of personal investment plan, be it an IRA or 401k.

I personally think that SS is a great idea and deserves to be saved. It shouldn't be considered the only thing needed to live on, but Americans should at least have the security of knowing that there will be some help in their later years. It's kind of like a "thank you" for being productive to society for so many years. The government can't be expected to pay for everything, but I think they should help people out when they retire.

**Fe 26** · 10 May 2005, 11:06 AM

I have mixed feelings about SS. My Granddad never used SS, and my dad most likely will not either. My granddad had land, rented out houses and apartments, owned cattle, and worked as a doctor up and down the state of Mississippi. He was smart enough and fortunate enough to have his hand in quite a few things that would have most likely insured him never needing SS. My dad may not be that lucky as he is more likely to spend his money on hobbies than to put it into small business ventures. I imagine he will probably work until the day he passes away or gets to a point where he can't think to work.

But on the other hand my Grandmother's sister recently pasted away. She used SS and yet was frugal enough to be able to leave each of her currently living brothers and sisters something over 30,000 each. She was a middle school teacher, in Mississippi.

SS is a pretty complicated issue, both in concept and the way it is currently run. SS would not be as needed as it is if the US did not have such a deterioration of family. If people interacted with their own families more and helped each other more, SS would not be needed to do as much as we expect it to do. People on SS would be able to save up more money and be more productive thus putting less of a strain on the rest of us who pay in for them. I imagine the US's current youth obsession and vanity contribute to this phenomenon.

Something needs to be done about SS as it is. At this moment in time SS is a monster of a program. The old model of SS only worked because WW2 vets had enough kids to pay for their SS. There is a big difference in 4.5 kids paying in for you, and the current 2.5. It doesn't take a math major to see how this is going to become a problem.

**Diff-chan** · 10 May 2005, 11:12 AM

Not only that, IP, but back in the day the average lifespan was like 68, so SS was being doled out to people for only 3 years. Now, people are living to be 79, 80+, which is the type of burden that the original system (that we're still using today, with minor adjustments) was not designed for.

Anyway, I really dont care about this issue anymore. Im sick of it. I will have enough money on hand to have a good retirement. I better get some fucking checks, though, because Im paying into the system. As long as I get what I put in I dont really care.

Its like saving for a mount in WOW... I know Im gonna want one so Im being a little bit cheap so I can reap the rewards later.

**Cowutopia** · 10 May 2005, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Anyway, I really dont care about this issue anymore. Im sick of it. I will have enough money on hand to have a good retirement. I better get some fucking checks, though, because Im paying into the system. As long as I get what I put in I dont really care.

This is how I feel.

**Fe 26** · 10 May 2005, 11:18 AM

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Not only that, IP, but back in the day the average lifespan was like 68, so SS was being doled out to people for only 3 years. Now, people are living to be 79, 80+, which is the type of burden that the original system (that we're still using today, with minor adjustments) was not designed for.

True. Hell, my orginal post was going to be a picture of a pack of smokes with the heading "light up".

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Anyway, I really dont care about this issue anymore. Im sick of it. I will have enough money on hand to have a good retirement. I better get some fucking checks, though, because Im paying into the system. As long as I get what I put in I dont really care.

That is really the wrong way to look at it. In reality, you're paying in now so grandma doesn't get to share a room with you. You pay in so they can live with out your physical help, making it where you don't have to deal with them. It isn't like what you pay in is all going to one big bag somewhere, with Diff written on it.

**Bacon McShig** · 10 May 2005, 11:19 AM

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Anyway, I really dont care about this issue anymore. Im sick of it. I will have enough money on hand to have a good retirement. I better get some fucking checks, though, because Im paying into the system. As long as I get what I put in I dont really care.

Yeah, that's my concern too. If SS runs out of money and dies without paying back what everyone put in, that's like taking a retroactive pay cut for every day you ever worked.

Would be much less of a threat if the government could occassionaly exercise a tiny bit of restraint in keeping their hands out of the cookie jar.

**Diff-chan** · 10 May 2005, 11:25 AM

It isn't like what you pay in is all going to one big bag somewhere, with Diff written on it.

Thats kinda what Bush is trying to change the system into. Honestly, right now, its basically a legal Ponzi scheme, like those chain envelopes with money in it, or Amway.

I dont have a problem paying taxes but social security is a big cut out of my paycheck and I wouldnt be happy if I dont get that back one day.