Comments on: Time to Opt Out of the Social Security Ponzi Scheme

By: sccrenny

sccrenny — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 03:08:14 +0000

you say. But read the first sentence. Once the election is won, we can start working in the direction we both agree on. Right now, though, that is not a platform which will win elections.

By: etlib

etlib — Sun, 19 Jun 2011 17:58:56 +0000

I agree. I’m 68 and retired. I’m getting less from SS than if I had made my own investments (Democrat recession included) and medicare is cheap but inferior and my medical insurance supplier ONLY offers medicare supplemental, no way to get a decent plan.

Now, with Dumbuma Care everyone can get a high cost, inefficient plan. but Medicare coverage will be even poorer due to the reductions used to “pay for” everything else.

By: ibelieveinfreedom

ibelieveinfreedom — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 04:58:16 +0000

But I think the government needs to get out of the insurance business and the banking industry and the medical field etc… get rid of social security, medicare, medicade, welfare, food stams etal. Let the government employees (that includes congress) get their own insurance just like the rest of the working stiffs. No special care for them , they need to be treated just like everyone else. If it’s good for the goose, then it’s good for the gander. I’d be thrilled to outlaw all lobbying and throw out any laws, rules, regulations etc that are not enumerated powers granted in the Constitution. Get rid of all the government agencies and let the States deal with everything except defense. Worked years ago, and it can work again!

By: sccrenny

sccrenny — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 04:46:06 +0000

the 2012 election is the party that will propose and fight for a bill or series of bills that sets benefits for elected officials at the average for the American public. Replace the pension plan with a 401k with the national average match. Medicare for health insurance with supplemental at their own cost. All prescription drugs per Medicare Part B. And Congress is subject to all laws that they pass. No more exemptions from sexual harrassment laws, OSHA regulations, etc.

Set this in motion and watch the cockroaches scramble! How about it Tea Party Caucus?

By: ibelieveinfreedom

ibelieveinfreedom — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 04:21:00 +0000

The government has records of what they have confiscated from each individual for the social security Ponzi scheme. Why can’t that amount plus a low percentage rate of compounded interest be put into private accounts now and the whole system be banished? Let everyone deal with their own retirement problems and cut the government loose. Money to do this will have to be secured by cutting out all the government hand-outs and letting private charities take over. Again, cutting out government dependency and making people responsible for their own lives. I know there will be some people who will have a hissy fit over that thought, but we live in a very charitable nation and those in real need will be taken care of by friends, neighbors, churches and other charities. We got along just fine before the government stuck it’s nose in everyone’s business, and we can do it again.

By: durhamvoter

durhamvoter — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 17:37:24 +0000

Give seniors some options as soon as possible! I just turned 65, and am paying MORE $$ for healthcare premiums than at age 64, due to having to pay Medicare, plus my private insurance, plus long-term care insurance, plus out-of-pocket. My health care provider refuses to take Medicare (due to excessive regulatory demands), even though she willingly took my private insurance coverage before. But Medicare is required now as the first payment option, and my private plan requires us to file for it. Currently I to pay out of pocket weekly while I try to untangle this MESS. If I could opt to pay from either Medicare or private insurance, I could continue my private insurance as the primary source instead. At this point, I can use neither source for the therapy I need. I just emailed my Congressman about all of this (pathetically, he is Democrat).
I will delay social security as long as I am able because of the increase in payments (maximum monthly income allowance comes at age 70). Seniors cannot retire at 65 and expect to have enough to live on for the rest of their lifetimes (which now is another 15 to 20 years) by depending on SS income.

By: freedomfiter

freedomfiter — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 17:19:06 +0000

You can?t tell me that members of both Houses didn?t know exactly what they were doing long ago. They simply lied to us regarding the solvency of the system, stole our funds from under our nose and spent it to get reelected; they knew exactly what they were doing and most knew they would be long gone when the whole thing collapsed. The pathetic truth is we are all to blame; Congress for their theft and deceit and each of us for not doing anything about it. We cannot expect politicians to fall on their swords to fix the problem. For the most part they are cowards and will continue to talk about the need for reform, feed us a load of crap and do nothing about it. Until everyone really understands what they did to us and demand from Republicans and Democrats alike that they fix it or they are all gone; we are just going to get more of the same BS.

By: Bill S

Bill S — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 14:29:20 +0000

Cato is an avowed libertarian organization. They put out some good stuff (that I’ve ref’d on occasion), but it’s often clouded by that philosophical bent.

By: liguria

liguria — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 14:04:14 +0000

would still be able to take control of your retirement funds if you happen to live in a historically Progressive state. What needs to happen, in order for your suggestion to work, is a fundamental change in the political make-up of the entire country toward conservatism. Before a system like SAFE will work to the satisfaction of conservatives they will have to take back the reins of their local governments.

That being said, and to expand on your excellent suggestion, I would propose including a portability clause in the legislation. The prospect of losing productive citizens and their money to another, more conservative, state might just give local politicians a good reason to better represent their constituents. Keeping the money in the neighborhood is great incentive for making the neighborhood more attractive to potential inhabitants.

By: Daniel Horowitz

Daniel Horowitz — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 13:58:28 +0000

These are the very salient points that we must consider in any reform plan. Teh SAFE account would be completely controlled by the trustee, not Washington. It’s kind of a forced private investment plan. I would love for states to do their own experiments like Galveston, Texas did; heck, I’d love to do my own thing without government dictating anything. However, this is the best alternative that retains the concept of government mandated retirement accounts. The difference is that the SAFE accounts would be your own choosing.

By: WmCraig

WmCraig — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 11:58:28 +0000

Will the money be deposited with private investment firms, or will it still end up controlled by Congress.

The problem isn’t that social security is underfunded. The problem is that Congress embezzeled those funds. It is less of a Ponzi scheme and more a flat out felony by Congress. And that includes every Respresentative that served since Democrat President Lyndon Johnson started stealing the money in the 1960′s to buy votes.

So the question now becomes, where will the money be deposited.
And shouldn’t contributors have the ability to retain those deposits within their own state? Why should all the money be deposited in financial institutions in Washington DC?

We are the generation that our grandparents said would be paying for their debt. Only they disguised the debt by hiding it in social security. As of 2010 Social Security is running a deficit. Which means, there is no more money to steal to hide the excessive spending Congress has authorized for decades. Now Democrats and Republicans alike are interested in reforming social security. Now that there is nothing but bills instead of cash flow to divert.

So while I agree with the premise, that it is time to offer young people an alternative, I don’t trust anything coming out of Washington. Turn the problem over to the states, let the states work through the solutions and close down the Wasington domestic bureauracracy. I understand the the same Washington corruption that gutted social security could happen in the states, at least the money stolen from my neighborhood, stays in my neighborhood. And I suspect without the power of Washington my neighbors and I could have a much more meaningful impact on the level of that corruption then we have ever had over Washington. After all I can take a day off from work and go to my state capital and complain, or protest. And everybody there would pay attention because the anger hits close to home.

So lets be a bit more specific about where the retirement account will be deposited, what kind of investment options are available, who benefits from the income generated, and who will regulate the program. And just as importantly lets specifically get Washington out of the business of collected the taxes for retirement and turn that over to the states.

By: jiminga

jiminga — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 11:48:56 +0000

because there will be a deal to raise the debt limit and “cut spending” that will be completely false, thereby pushing any real action past the 2012 elections. By that time we will be further along the way to collapse under the debt, which cannot be reversed. Someone (Erick, I think) said arguing about changing SS and Medicare now is like arguing about the bar tab on the Titanic.

By: Flagstaff

Flagstaff — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 01:45:00 +0000

into my IRA, I wouldn’t be sitting at this keyboard now, I’d be sipping an adult beverage and watching the sunset, with no doubt that my daughter would be able to attend any college she wants to, all without government assistance.

By: The_Gadfly

The_Gadfly — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 01:17:39 +0000

that the system is sound and that they are owed the money. My parents recognize it for the Ponzi scheme it is. And yet with all the planning they did, they now feel trapped into depending on it. More so Medicare than SS itself, but the effect is the same.

By: The_Gadfly

The_Gadfly — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 01:11:36 +0000

as I read the opening. I hate the SS program almost as much as Obamacare. Almost. Social Security I can work around, Obamacare not so much.

By: onemovoter

onemovoter — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 00:48:35 +0000

not really talk about reforming SS and medicare until after we completely take over in 2012. Then we’ll push through a complete reform package over the screams of “the horror” of it all and finally get vindication once the programs are in place and people are seeing their own money growing.

OK I’m dreaming but I do hope that sometime soon some politicians will get some spine and privatize the systems to free us up.

By: centerrightcali

centerrightcali — Thu, 16 Jun 2011 23:59:05 +0000

Mr. Horowitz I think you should read some articles from the Cato Institute. Other than being my dream job in the area of public policy Cato offers great conservative policy ideas although they lean slightly libertarian. Fiscal wise our conservative congressmen should read up these ideas(lol they even have a handbook ) check it out you’ll love their logic .

By: rightwingmom52

rightwingmom52 — Thu, 16 Jun 2011 22:03:49 +0000

At 53, I figure I’ll work another 10-15 years, and I’d settle for just being able to stop the government from confiscating my wages for that time period, despite the fact that I’ve paid into the system for 30+ years.

By: victrola

victrola — Thu, 16 Jun 2011 21:01:58 +0000

but I do think it’s political suicide for Republicans to push reforms on cherished middle-class entitlements like MediCare and Social Security.

I would love it if Americans were educated on how these entitlements are going to eventually go bust and how much better their lives would be if they had solutions in the private sector, but the polls I’ve seen make it clear that around 70% plus of the public gets REAL nervous when you start talking about ANY changes.

I’ve seen enough anecdotal evidence where older, conservative voters will start pulling the lever for Democrats when they think a Republican politician is “messing” with their Social Security benefits. Polls also show one of Americans’ biggest worries is how their going to be able to retire, far more than say foreign policy issues.

The average American unfortunately views these benefits like they’re a bank account that they’ve been saving for their entire lives, when in reality it’s nothing but a giant Ponzi scheme. So when you start talking about changing it, people feel like you’re taking money out of their savings account.

My advice to Republicans is DON’T make the 2012 election about reforming MediCare and Social Security. Democrats are salivating at the prospect of Republicans throwing them this life preserver.

There’s almost 4 Presidential elections between now and when these programs hit a wall. We have TRILLIONS of dollars in cuts we can make in the meantime that would be politically more popular. I would suggest going after programs like MediCaid, food stamps, welfare, excessive unemployment benefits, etc.. These entitlements aren’t things Americans feel they’ve been paying into their whole lives. Also, I’m one of those conservatives that thinks we waste FAR too much money on our military, just one fighter jet program, the F-35 was discovered to cost the US a TRILLION dollars. One fighter jet.

Let’s go after the low hanging fruit first and not commit electoral suicide.

By: YnotNOW

YnotNOW — Thu, 16 Jun 2011 20:48:57 +0000

That all of those “deductions” from their checks were their contributions to Grandma’s retirement and healthcare. Don’t expect to see any of that yourself, so contribute to your IRA and 401k from every paycheck, to take care of yourself.

http://www.redstate.com/ynotnow/2011/04/04/the-myth-of-the-social-security-trust-fund/
And Grandma says “thank you.”