Skip to main content

Republicans have made it clear they want to do away with entitlement programs, namely Social Security.

What do they propose will replace Social Security? I mean, many older people lost their retirement funds recently in the stock market and had to start over; they simply won't be able to replace the lost money in time to retire.

That's the challenge facing those who are close to retirement.

The people of my generation are a younger group so we have more time to rebuild retirement funds, but we face barriers of our own: colossal student loan debt we're still paying off (unlike the reasonable costs our parents paid back); trying to save for our own childrens' college costs; mortgages that are underwater.

Additionally, some in my age group - after losing good jobs due to the recession - are being forced to accept jobs that pay much less than before. Many of these jobs don't offer good benefits or a 401(k).

I know everyone says you must save every extra dime to be prepared to retire, but many people these days are barely getting by paying basic obligations (I mean basic, not to include cable, cell phone, etc.). They certainly can't find enough to put away to save.

Why should we be required to pay into Social Security when chances are excellent we won't see a dime of it?
Last edited {1}
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Funny, we were talking about this over the weekend. Actually there are MANY MANY MANY MORE entitlement programs than just Social Security. That is just the main one that gets put out there to scare everyone.

Personally, I say make Federal and State Assistance -- like Food Stamps, Medicaid, Section 8 housing, the free cell phone you see on TV -- etc -- all those "entitlements" so hard to get that you have to give a blood sample and give up your first born child and prove you NEED them (note a touch of sarcasm but I'm partially serious). If you can lift a soda or beer to your mouth you can lift a hand and work doing something. There are many more Federal "entitlement" programs that can be cut and/or adjusted before they ever even get close to Social Security. And I saw signs today that McDonalds is hiring and there are signs at Hardee's as well.

As far as college goes.....yes, every child deserves a chance to go, but let's face it, not every child is going to be able to go. Not everyone in my family has been able to go and that's just the way it is. Regardless of federal loans or a lottery. If we don't get America back to small businesses being able to afford being in business (without extra taxes and restrictions and forced healthcare etc) and building up our basics like we've done before we will never get out of this "crisis". The government doesn't create jobs--never has permanently. Maybe for a few quarters and that's about it. My dad created his own job. He then paved the way for my siblings and I to create our own jobs. We didn't depend on anyone to cut us a break, but now that we are finally getting settled into it and making a decent living -- the government proposes to raise our taxes so that the ones that don't want to work can "share our wealth". I'm not wealthy by any means I'm barely above water some days, but I work hard for what I get and I don't think that is right. If you want charity -- that's fine fill out the paperwork and prove you NEED it and DESERVE it but don't sit there and think you are ENTITLED to my earnings because I got my head out of my backside and figured out how to spend less than I earn and make a decent life for myself. I'm still paying off student loan debt and credit card debt but I'm getting there while still saving for retirement. There's very little extra that is for sure.

Sorry for the rant, but I'm so sick of hearing about how the government can't balance their own budget and they spent us into this chaos and then now want to tax us more to balance their budget -- STOP SPENDING YOU MORONS!!!! CUT BACK ON THE THINGS THAT ARE NOT NECESSARY and prioritize what the people need -- not what you want or think we need or what will line your politician pockets but the basics and give us a foundation we can build on again!
I will agree with Eastside on some of the entitlements, if I wanted to be completely selfish on this I would say cut out medicare and social security NOW since I will probably never use it, but my grandparents are in their 70's and I know they depend on it.
Entitlements are a fog screen used by Dick Armey and Freedom Works on the tea partiers. Sounds great, less filling. The problem is it won't start to affect the deficit.
Let the Bush tax cuts expire on the top 2% of the country? That would decrease the federal deficit by 700 billion dollars. How many free cell phone minutes does that come to???
I agree with that, Eastside.

I think the problem now is if we get rid of some of it, we have to get rid of all of it. Because the good-paying jobs are gone forever - not everyone can be an engineer or go into the healthcare field. So the few jobs at McDonald's may be all we're left fighting over in the not-too-distant future. And it's hard to pay into Social Security when you're only making minimum wage.

A person can't get paid $7.50/hr. and pay all the obligations I mentioned in my first post, either; it's not possible.

Sure, you could start your own business, but you'd have to find something to make or sell that the public is willing to buy - something that's not already being made cheaply in another country.

Since many have stopped spending like they were a few years ago, you'd have to be one heck of an entrepreneur with a lot of creativity to come up with something that people want to buy right now. And banks still aren't lending money so you'd have to come up with the cash to start a small business on your own.

The government shouldn't be taking care of us from cradle to grave, but we've gotten ourselves into a situation with "entitlements" that's not going to be that easy to back out of, especially now. We should have taken these steps years ago when the economy was healthy and there were jobs in this country. It's just bad timing and one more thing our generation is going to have to figure out how to fix.
BTW Buttercup I agree -- if they cut Social Security in any way today -- they should stop the requirement that we pay in. We should have to sign paperwork stating we understand that if we don't pay in we don't get anything, but I'd rather have the money myself to put it back and save for my retirement than to trust the government to do it for me. Same thing with Medicare as well. The only thing I think should be required is unemployment because you never know what will happen there. There's really not a good way for them to do this though because they have spent way too much for too many years and manipulated the numbers so much that we don't know what is real and what is an illusion.
The Republicans have not stated they wish to dispose of social security. That's another regressive propaganda point. They have stated reform is needed. But, for those already on social security or preparing to go, no changes are recommended.

Income to the social security accounts must not go to the general fund. I'd rather see the cash stacked in a vault, than let the politicians get their hands on it. In this forum, I've already recommended ways the funds could be invested in federal assets and receive a profit. As the income stream will always flow, unless we have 100 percent unemployment, there will be some funds available.

The fund must be made stable and reliable. Continuing to raise the age limits slightly, lowering the yearly COL raise and perhaps, even a raise in the rates of contribution may be necessary.

As to the rest of the budget, stopping the increases in spending and cutting the future rate of spending is absolutely necessary.
Here's the thing though Rocky. Cut out the tax cuts and decrease the deficit by 700 billion right? I could agree to that if that would FIX IT, but it won't. They will increase our taxes now and then still continue to spend the way they do like turning on a faucet. They will cut the taxes and decrease the deficit and say "wow look at what we accomplished" but if they don't STOP spending it will be for nothing and they will have to increase our taxes again in the future (within 5-10 years I'd say) to "cut the deficit" again in the future to "balance the budget". And then say "wow lookie what we did again". It's a never-ending cycle for our government. They use the catch-phrases to get us to give them what they want but in the end we are the only ones that get screwed. I have family members that are on SS etc that are in their 70s etc and are dependent on it as well so I know they can't stop it completely. It's just so frustrating. I would have no problem with a tax increase today if it's going to benefit ME 5-10 years down the road, but it won't. It will benefit those that refuse to help themselves and the politicians that milk us for every red cent.

I agree elite -- I'd rather buy gold or something like that and stack it in a vault instead of paying it into the government and trusting them to manage it. I'd do better on my own. Big Grin
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
The Republicans have not stated they wish to dispose of social security. That's another regressive propaganda point. They have stated reform is needed. But, for those already on social security or preparing to go, no changes are recommended.

Income to the social security accounts must not go to the general fund. I'd rather see the cash stacked in a vault, than let the politicians get their hands on it. In this forum, I've already recommended ways the funds could be invested in federal assets and receive a profit. As the income stream will always flow, unless we have 100 percent unemployment, there will be some funds available.

The fund must be made stable and reliable. Continuing to raise the age limits slightly, lowering the yearly COL raise and perhaps, even a raise in the rates of contribution may be necessary.

As to the rest of the budget, stopping the increases in spending and cutting the future rate of spending is absolutely necessary.


Well, okay, maybe not all Republicans want to do away with it but the majority of anchors and guests on Fox Business News sure want to get rid of it. That's been topic number one for the last few days on that channel.

I do agree with keeping the cash out of our politicians' hands. And apparently I've missed your other recommendations for investing the funds. (I know you're in shock over the realization that I haven't read every el post.) Big Grin
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Eastside:

I agree elite -- I'd rather buy gold or something like that and stack it in a vault instead of paying it into the government and trusting them to manage it. I'd do better on my own.

Man, no wonder Glenn Beck is rich, has he done a number on his followers! Does every rightwinger have gold in a vault somewhere? I think I just realized another of the Fox agendas (well actually I knew it was one of Glenn Becks but I just didn't know it was this deeply ingrained)
quote:
Originally posted by rocky:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Eastside:

I agree elite -- I'd rather buy gold or something like that and stack it in a vault instead of paying it into the government and trusting them to manage it. I'd do better on my own.

Man, no wonder Glenn Beck is rich, has he done a number on his followers! Does every rightwinger have gold in a vault somewhere? I think I just realized another of the Fox agendas (well actually I knew it was one of Glenn Becks but I just didn't know it was this deeply ingrained)


I've got no room left in my vault for gold. My vault is stacked to the ceiling in canned goods. It's all part of Glenn Beck's food insurance program. Wink
Rocky -- I don't agree with Beck on many things. My opinion of the way the government manages money is based on their own actions over the years. You've been living under a rock if you think they do a better job. It's not about a party line or an agenda -- it's about me and my future and I've learned if I don't take care of me no one else will do it for me. Sorry if that bothers you, but put your money in their pockets all you want. I'd rather not. BTW, I'm a registered Democrat, but I vote my conscience -- not my party designation.

According to my uncle, the democrats of today have the same ideas of the republicans from the 60s and vice versa -- the republicans today would be the dems in that day. To everything a season I guess.
quote:
Originally posted by Buttercup:
quote:
Originally posted by rocky:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Eastside:

I agree elite -- I'd rather buy gold or something like that and stack it in a vault instead of paying it into the government and trusting them to manage it. I'd do better on my own.

Man, no wonder Glenn Beck is rich, has he done a number on his followers! Does every rightwinger have gold in a vault somewhere? I think I just realized another of the Fox agendas (well actually I knew it was one of Glenn Becks but I just didn't know it was this deeply ingrained)


I've got no room left in my vault for gold. My vault is stacked to the ceiling in canned goods. It's all part of Glenn Beck's food insurance program. Wink


I'll know who to move next too when the apocolypse comes. lololol....I'll get the ammo, you get the food and elite can provide the gold....Big Grin
I won't have to worry Big Grin I'll be a czar in Barrack Obama's socialist regime that we have REALLY been planning all along. Let one of the guards know you are from the Shoals area and I may see you get preferential treatment at the internment camps, well actually we already know that from the census form. Michele Bachmann was trying to tell you the truth all along! Razzer Now we get to watch you suffer!!!! Wink
quote:
Originally posted by rocky:
I won't have to worry Big Grin I'll be a czar in Barrack Obama's socialist regime that we have REALLY been planning all along. Let one of the guards know you are from the Shoals area and I may see you get preferential treatment at the internment camps, well actually we already know that from the census form. Michele Bachmann was trying to tell you the truth all along! Razzer Now we get to watch you suffer!!!! Wink



Sorry Rocky, you would be turned down as Czar because you can't spell the King's name right (Barack Obama)......lol......Maybe if I play my cards right I could get your job????? Oh wait, no, I paid for my education not the government -- I'd be out of luck too huh? note more sarcasm....I'll be in debtor's prison I guess....Big Grin
quote:
Originally posted by Eastside:
quote:
Originally posted by rocky:
I won't have to worry Big Grin I'll be a czar in Barrack Obama's socialist regime that we have REALLY been planning all along. Let one of the guards know you are from the Shoals area and I may see you get preferential treatment at the internment camps, well actually we already know that from the census form. Michele Bachmann was trying to tell you the truth all along! Razzer Now we get to watch you suffer!!!! Wink



Sorry Rocky, you would be turned down as Czar because you can't spell the King's name right (Barack Obama)......lol......Maybe if I play my cards right I could get your job????? Oh wait, no, I paid for my education not the government -- I'd be out of luck too huh? note more sarcasm....I'll be in debtor's prison I guess....Big Grin


Since I'm a banker, I should be the official keeper of the gold. (I'm an analyst but what the heck, I used to be a teller so I know how to handle money at least.)

And even though I am over 30, I can be trusted.

Sounds like a plan. So bring on more fear mongering, Glenn Beck! We're ready.
I think the only way this could ever be done is in an incremental fashion. You pick an age and say everyone who is younger than that age is not eligible for the SS, and all of those above that age will be part of it. You continue to withhold for those who will qualify, and you do not do so for those who will not. they must however show some form of retirement planning or face a penalty, lest we end up with people who spent every dime they made and never made any plans.
Other things that need to be looked at as well include endowment for arts, public funding for drug research, aid to other countries, and reevaluating the laws in regards to drug use and the punishement for such. I bet 40% of the people in prison today are there because of drug crimes. The war on drugs in this country is costly, and far the most part useless.
quote:
Originally posted by teyates:
I think the only way this could ever be done is in an incremental fashion. You pick an age and say everyone who is younger than that age is not eligible for the SS, and all of those above that age will be part of it. You continue to withhold for those who will qualify, and you do not do so for those who will not. they must however show some form of retirement planning or face a penalty, lest we end up with people who spent every dime they made and never made any plans.
Other things that need to be looked at as well include endowment for arts, public funding for drug research, aid to other countries, and reevaluating the laws in regards to drug use and the punishement for such. I bet 40% of the people in prison today are there because of drug crimes. The war on drugs in this country is costly, and far the most part useless.


A couple of points of agreement and disagreement here with me.
It all sounds good to "do away with SS so everybody can invest for themselves" but the truth is , as you pointed out, too many people will NOT save for their retirement. I am old enough to have known people who were too old at the time SS was put into place to have been in that system, and for them life was a mixture of living off of welfare and the generosity of their kids.
SS did provide some dignity to the elderly as it gave those who were not able , or who just would not, save for retirement some amount of Independence in their senior years.
I also agree with you on Nixon's "war on drugs". Just the expense involved in the "war" against marijuana cost us millions , maybe billions each year, all to try to eradicate a weed.

On the other hand, most people seem to attack and have a real problem with "entitlements" programs. The thing they don't realize is that except for SS, and Medicare (which to date are still self-sustaining according to law), the real big expense to this country is the Defense budget, and very few want to talk about that.
We as taxpayers WASTE hundreds of billions of dollars each year buying weapons the Pentagon does not need or want. However, when we build a fighter, we have to build a replacement engine for it, although we have thousands on the shelf. Why you may ask, well the jet engines are made in Bohener's district and he has protected that industry. The Pentagon does not want or need them but we keep making them anyway. (And who said the government can't make jobs Big Grin ) Actually most of Defense IS a jobs bill and it has gone on for years and years.
As far as "entitlements" go, just google up any years federal budget. The "safety net" programs are so small that if they were cut altogether, it would not make much difference in the overall scope of things, but there are those who keep hounding like that is the reason we are in the mess we are in.
As to the fiscal sanity of the current Republican bunch , keeping the "Bush" tax cuts on the top 2% like they are holding up a bill giving the rest of us tax breaks for, will add $700 Billion that we will have to borrow from China, to the national debt. If they (Boner & co) keep this up, where is the fiscal sanity ? I ask you, where ???
quote:
It all sounds good to "do away with SS so everybody can invest for themselves" but the truth is , as you pointed out, too many people will NOT save for their retirement. I am old enough to have known people who were too old at the time SS was put into place to have been in that system, and for them life was a mixture of living off of welfare and the generosity of their kids.
SS did provide some dignity to the elderly as it gave those who were not able , or who just would not, save for retirement some amount of Independence in their senior years.


I appreciate your honesty, but am dismayed at your position. It's one thing to insist that the government should have a role in providing for those who can't provide for themselves. It's a completely different thing to suggest that the government should provide for those who could provide for themselves but didn't; all in the name of allowing them the dignity of not seeking private charity to aid in their self-inflicted troubles.
seeweed,
if you can "force" people to buy health insurance, you should also be able to force them to save for retirement, or show some willingness to participate in a retirement program, whether it is secured by the government or not.
The defense budget is a mess, and we all know how pork is piled onto these projects to give back to the legislators community. One thing it does do however, is provide jobs. That sector of the government does very well. If we could convert some of that work to energy projects and transportation projects which is something we should be looking at. I do not want to see us undercut our defense and Army, which should always remain vigilant, but there is no need to spend billions of dollars on things that do not work, and they do not want.
The energy problem is easy...nuclear. China is building 30 new nuclear power plants, using American technology that has not even been used in the US. The US is also at risk to miss out on production of the most efficient solar panels, another project the Chinese are throwing money at, along with 3 companies that are developing manufacturing tech for the next generation of batteries.
quote:
Originally posted by teyates:
I think the only way this could ever be done is in an incremental fashion. You pick an age and say everyone who is younger than that age is not eligible for the SS, and all of those above that age will be part of it. You continue to withhold for those who will qualify, and you do not do so for those who will not. they must however show some form of retirement planning or face a penalty, lest we end up with people who spent every dime they made and never made any plans.
Other things that need to be looked at as well include endowment for arts, public funding for drug research, aid to other countries, and reevaluating the laws in regards to drug use and the punishement for such. I bet 40% of the people in prison today are there because of drug crimes. The war on drugs in this country is costly, and far the most part useless.


I agree with that, except for being required to show some form of retirement planning. Again, many people simply don't make enough money and don't have enough cash left over - after paying for the basics - to put into a retirement fund.

But I do think we should drop funding for the things that aren't absolutely necessary in this country. We need to stop giving money to things that could be privately funded, like the arts. And why are we in charge of pulling up other countries with our tax money? We can't afford to do that anymore.
I'm about 10 years from retirement and even I believe SS needs to be done away with. I've been paying in for 35 years and will never see more than a small percentage of what I paid in even if I live to be very old. This would have to be done over a period of time. People retired now and drawing should see no difference. People like me should be able to reduce our input but receive less when we retire. Younger people should still put in a smaller amount that would reduce to zero over time. I'm going to lose so why shouldn't everyone. Other entiltlement programs could be phased out the same way. The government should not force anyone to save for retirement. If the younger generation don't then they can try the soup kitchens. Once again it is not the governments job to take care of you.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×