hell1234 Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 I dont know if anyone else posted something about this, i am sry if they did and i didnt see it. However i did find this interesting article, http://www.factcheck.org/article302.html it talks about what Bush has been telling us all and how there is going to be a huge defecit of something like $11 trillion. What he forgot to mention is that this is an estimate and that this is a very misleading number because the bulk of this defecit is supposed to accur sometime after the year 2078 and by then there will be plenty of time to do something about it if we really need to. The other thing he forgets to mention is that this $11 trillion defecit is something like 3.8% of the projected income into Social Security anyway i want to hear ur thoughts about this and why you think that Bush might be saying this. RSN = "hell1234" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punk4ever Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 We're the generation that's going to get the short end of this stick if it comes through. I really don't want to invest money as my social security option because it's too much of a risk to play . I *NEED* to know that my money is secure and that it's not going to dwindle away in the stock market game. By The_Jeppoz :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hell1234 Posted June 13, 2005 Author Share Posted June 13, 2005 I *NEED* to know that my money is secure and that it's not going to dwindle away in the stock market game. i totaly agree with u, there is too much of a risk, i also would like to know that its a sure thing that i will get the money i need when i retire. also i think it was this article but i am not sure, the social security account(if u will) is not part of the general budget and has its own income from the taxes. now this income is more then what is beeing used, so it makes it save up money, now the problem is that that extra money is being used by other agencies as general funding and those agencies say they will pay it bak so i think u can see there is a big problem just right there P.S. i like ur sig quote very interesting RSN = "hell1234" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhrobinson2 Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 post about pokemon: 11 replies post about social security: 2 replies. i think bush tries to trick american into thinking some problems that are big are are small, and some problems that are small are big. if over 50 percent of americans are tricked by bush, how stupid is the average american? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubsa Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 if over 50 percent of americans are tricked by bush, how stupid is the average american? You really shouldn't ask that seeing as you voted him in a second time. I'm still a bit confuzzled by this so would someone care to explain? Because it looks pretty serious from the little I can gather. This is how much you all raised for charity. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhrobinson2 Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 if over 50 percent of americans are tricked by bush, how stupid is the average american? You really shouldn't ask that seeing as you voted him in a second time. I'm still a bit confuzzled by this so would someone care to explain? Because it looks pretty serious from the little I can gather.the average american is very stupid (im too young to vote) but my mom voted for kerry, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyPurpleCrayon Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 I dont know if anyone else posted something about this, i am sry if they did and i didnt see it. However i did find this interesting article, http://www.factcheck.org/article302.html it talks about what Bush has been telling us all and how there is going to be a huge defecit of something like $11 trillion. What he forgot to mention is that this is an estimate and that this is a very misleading number because the bulk of this defecit is supposed to accur sometime after the year 2078 and by then there will be plenty of time to do something about it if we really need to. The other thing he forgets to mention is that this $11 trillion defecit is something like 3.8% of the projected income into Social Security anyway i want to hear ur thoughts about this and why you think that Bush might be saying this. The point isn't the defecit. The point is that in 2042, its undisputed even by Democratic Senators, that Social Security will be depleted. If we don't fix the problem NOW then that means that in 2042 (when our generation starts to retire) - we will have NO SOCIAL SECURITY - yet we would have paid into it our entire lives. That's why the system needs to be fixed now. Note: I am not necessarily agreeing with Bush's method on fixing the problem (maybe I agree, maybe I don't). All I am saying is that if anyone tells you its not a crisis now, they are completely ignorant/and/or don't care about the new generation's future. Ghost: I am prejudice towards ignorance, so that would explain why I appear to be so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hell1234 Posted June 13, 2005 Author Share Posted June 13, 2005 The point isn't the defecit. when i said defecit i didnt mean the national defecit i ment the social security defecit That's why the system needs to be fixed now. the system does need to be fixed and in the article it shows a very simple way to do it without making people invest into things. Right now we pay about 12.4% of our income to social security half the employer and haft the employee. if this percent was raised by a little bit like, i believe it said, 3.8% more there should be a increase in the income sufficient enough to allow our generation to retire. All I am saying is that if anyone tells you its not a crisis now, they are completely ignorant/and/or don't care about the new generation's future. you are right there is a problem but its not as big as Bush makes it out to be, he just wants people to look away from the war in Iraq, he wants our attention somewhere else. RSN = "hell1234" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indy500fan Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 i got an idea to fix social security. GET RID OF IT. let me do what i want with my own money. if you want to retire, there are plenty of SAFE options that you can put your money into that are not government related, and for others they can invest in stocks if they want to. and if they lose it all, then they work for the rest of their lives. i dont want to be REQUIRED to invest my money, especially since i could find much better uses for it now. i like bush's idea better than the dem's ideas of how to fix it, but it still requires you to invest some. i see no use for social security, it should have never been created. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil_Elf Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 Well we went 150+ years without it, I'm sure everyone would be fine without it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hell1234 Posted June 13, 2005 Author Share Posted June 13, 2005 Well we went 150+ years without it, I'm sure everyone would be fine without it. i havnt heard that opinion too much, it is an interesting thing tho, the reason it was started was so that people dont have to work their whole lives, and if we make it an individual thing then everyone will be responsible for their own retirement and we know that a lot of people wont be able to invest into the right things and will loose some money and be forced to work their whole lives. This is not a very good things unless there is some support for it like maybe if social security was made on a volentary basis(i am sure it wont work too well) but its posible. RSN = "hell1234" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punk4ever Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 Well we went 150+ years without it, I'm sure everyone would be fine without it. You're forgetting that in that 150+ years the average life expectancy was 40, there were no HMOs, no PPOs, and as we progress further and further there are more obligations (financially). I'm sure you won't have that opinion when you're 65 and notice what a rut you're in with the medical bills piling up (hopefully not, but you never know). By The_Jeppoz :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyPurpleCrayon Posted June 14, 2005 Share Posted June 14, 2005 when i said defecit i didnt mean the national defecit i ment the social security defecit I know what you meant. the system does need to be fixed and in the article it shows a very simple way to do it without making people invest into things. Right now we pay about 12.4% of our income to social security half the employer and haft the employee. if this percent was raised by a little bit like, i believe it said, 3.8% more there should be a increase in the income sufficient enough to allow our generation to retire. And then it happens again and again and again. you are right there is a problem but its not as big as Bush makes it out to be, he just wants people to look away from the war in Iraq, he wants our attention somewhere else. The problem is as big as Bush is making it. My retirement is a big problem. Also, what most people don't understand is that Social Security was designed to help those who were coming out of the depression with no money to live on because they couldn't work. Before the depression, it wasn't needed. EDIT: I've been posting on my little brother's account by accident. This is Ghost Ranger typing, for anyone who cares. Won't do it anymore. :P Ghost: I am prejudice towards ignorance, so that would explain why I appear to be so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueLancer Posted June 14, 2005 Share Posted June 14, 2005 The whole social security scheme is a scam. You work for 60 years to live well for the last 15 ones. I mean, who the hell buys into this? If I don't have enough money in my bank account to live on it by the time I was 60, I'd consider myself a failure. But I'm not definitely paying for something that operates on such laughable grounds when I could just save up money all by myself, invest it and retire before age 35. I don't get it why people don't realize this. You don't even have to gamble with stocks. Put the money in a 10% annual fund and deposit $30,000. Let's assume you have this amount by the time you're about 21 (you worked very hard, got contributions and birthday presents etc. etc.) Now let's bring out the calculator. By the time you will be 50 years old, you will have a lump sum of $524,114 for withdraw, or, in other words, a money generator of $52,000 a year for the rest of your life ($4367 a month) And that's just one source of income out of the many you will probably encounter, including your job, by just depositting a sum when you were young and forgetting about it. Don't forget that there are many other opportunities as well (10% is really a low return on investment but it's good if it stays constant). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehjl Posted June 14, 2005 Share Posted June 14, 2005 The whole social security scheme is a scam. You work for 60 years to live well for the last 15 ones. I mean, who the hell buys into this? If I don't have enough money in my bank account to live on it by the time I was 60, I'd consider myself a failure. But I'm not definitely paying for something that operates on such laughable grounds when I could just save up money all by myself, invest it and retire before age 35. I don't get it why people don't realize this. You don't even have to gamble with stocks. Put the money in a 10% annual fund and deposit $30,000. Let's assume you have this amount by the time you're about 21 (you worked very hard, got contributions and birthday presents etc. etc.) Now let's bring out the calculator. By the time you will be 50 years old, you will have a lump sum of $524,114 for withdraw, or, in other words, a money generator of $52,000 a year for the rest of your life ($4367 a month) And that's just one source of income out of the many you will probably encounter, including your job, by just depositting a sum when you were young and forgetting about it. Don't forget that there are many other opportunities as well (10% is really a low return on investment but it's good if it stays constant). A couple of problems with this: BILLS....Most people don't have enought money when they're 60 to retire is because they're paying bills every month. Just because they're old doens't mean they dont have bills. And not everybody has 600k just sitting in the bank. For the putting the 30,000 in the bank....I'm almost 20 (in aug.) and i have under a grand in the bank. Who the heck has 30,000 just sitting around when they're 21, unless you have rich parents, that ain't happening. I have car payment, car insurance, cell phone, DSL, shopping (dam those good looking clothes :cry: ) gas, doctor fees (which i visit a lot :cry: ) , and plus going out a lot hurts even more. Your way would work, if there were no bills, but that ain't happening either. Dragon drops: D med x3, D Spear x2, Left Half x1, D2h x1Crawling Hands X4, Cockatrice heads X2, Basilisk head X2, Kurask head X1Support me in the drop race Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indy500fan Posted June 14, 2005 Share Posted June 14, 2005 Also, what most people don't understand is that Social Security was designed to help those who were coming out of the depression with no money to live on because they couldn't work. Before the depression, it wasn't needed. another thing most people dont know is that the depression was caused by government intervention in the economy, and when they could have fixed their mistake they didnt, instead they created social security, abandoned the gold standard, and made companies pay insanely high wages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mdogg33 Posted June 14, 2005 Share Posted June 14, 2005 My father is the manager of our local Social Security Branch. He has never agreed with bush and never will as a diehard Democrat. I dont have a preference but this is a stupid issue. Bush is not looking into long term. He doesnt care about how social securtiy is after he is dead or even when he is out of office. He is a businessman, not a president. he doesnt understand the needs and worries of the next generation. I dont feel like my money will be secure when i am qualified for Social Security. We need people in politics that are in touch with what the rest of America is thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubsa Posted June 14, 2005 Share Posted June 14, 2005 Oh jeez now I see you're talking about pensions. >.< I saw this on a World News Tonight report. I find it pretty shocking how a country of America's size can end up with this predicament. Ditto for the UK. This is how much you all raised for charity. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GhostRanger Posted June 15, 2005 Share Posted June 15, 2005 He has never agreed with bush and never will as a diehard Democrat. That's just plain ignorance. To not agree just because of your party is idiotic. I can agree with plenty of Democrats (not enough to vote for them maybe), but I can agree with things they do despite the fact that I'm a "die-hard" Republican. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now