Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Is Social Security Really In Trouble?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    America
    Posts
    30,718

    Is Social Security Really In Trouble?

    Is Social Security really in trouble?
    A reality check of Washington’s latest ‘crisis’[/B]
    By David Gregory
    White House correspondent
    NBC News
    Updated: 7:34 p.m. ET Jan. 18, 2005

    The warnings are ominous.

    “I want you to think about a Social Security system that will be flat bust,” President George W. Bush told an audience of young people on Jan. 11.

    President Bush says the task of saving Social Security is urgent.

    “So one of my jobs, one of my charges, is to explain to Congress as clearly as I can, the crisis is now,” said the president on Dec. 16, 2003.

    A White House adviser wrote recently in a private memo, "The current system is heading for an iceberg."

    Pro-White House interest groups are even ratcheting up the debate with television ads urging “Washington must strengthen Social Security."

    All of this as the White House presses what it calls a reform plan: Allowing younger workers to invest a portion of their payroll taxes in the stock market.

    Whatever the prescription for change, why does something have to be done?*

    “We'd have to raise taxes tomorrow, or today actually, 28 percent, to pay for all the spending under Social Security that we have due,” says Laurence Kotlikoff, an economist at Boston University.

    It all sounds awful, but is it really so bad? Is there a Social Security crisis?

    Most Democrats say no. They contend the president is trying to scare people into supporting his plan for drastically changing the program.

    “The future is not as bleak as some people would have the public believe,” says Peter Diamond, an economics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “Social security is not bankrupt in the usual sense of the term — not going broke, not going ‘flat bust.’”

    Here are facts beyond dispute:
    Millions of baby boomers are nearing retirement which means more people will be taking out of the system than paying in.

    In 2018, the Social Security Trust Fund estimates that it will take in less in taxes than it pays out in benefits. That's a red flag.

    In 2042, according to estimates, the problem gets worse. By then, the trust fund will have used up its reserves, meaning that Social Security can only cover 70 percent of the benefits it has promised to pay.

    In the next 75 years, according to estimates, the financial gap runs into the trillions of dollars.

    But professor Diamond says, yes, in 2042, benefits will have to be cut, but retirees then would still get more money than today's retirees.

    “We've got 35 or more years to phase in very slow changes that people can certainly adapt to and live with,” he says.

    The Social Security debate has become both a question of urgency and a matter of how to change a program that has endured so long.
    © 2005 MSNBC Interactive
    No One Knows Everything. Only Together May We Find The Truth JG


  2. #2
    princesskittypoo Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Gold9472
    Is Social Security really in trouble?
    A reality check of Washington?s latest ?crisis?[/B]
    By David Gregory
    White House correspondent
    NBC News
    Updated: 7:34 p.m. ET Jan. 18, 2005

    The warnings are ominous.

    ?I want you to think about a Social Security system that will be flat bust,? President George W. Bush told an audience of young people on Jan. 11.

    President Bush says the task of saving Social Security is urgent.

    ?So one of my jobs, one of my charges, is to explain to Congress as clearly as I can, the crisis is now,? said the president on Dec. 16, 2003.

    A White House adviser wrote recently in a private memo, "The current system is heading for an iceberg."

    Pro-White House interest groups are even ratcheting up the debate with television ads urging ?Washington must strengthen Social Security."

    All of this as the White House presses what it calls a reform plan: Allowing younger workers to invest a portion of their payroll taxes in the stock market.

    Whatever the prescription for change, why does something have to be done?*

    ?We'd have to raise taxes tomorrow, or today actually, 28 percent, to pay for all the spending under Social Security that we have due,? says Laurence Kotlikoff, an economist at Boston University.

    It all sounds awful, but is it really so bad? Is there a Social Security crisis?

    Most Democrats say no. They contend the president is trying to scare people into supporting his plan for drastically changing the program.

    ?The future is not as bleak as some people would have the public believe,? says Peter Diamond, an economics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. ?Social security is not bankrupt in the usual sense of the term ? not going broke, not going ?flat bust.??

    Here are facts beyond dispute:
    Millions of baby boomers are nearing retirement which means more people will be taking out of the system than paying in.

    In 2018, the Social Security Trust Fund estimates that it will take in less in taxes than it pays out in benefits. That's a red flag.

    In 2042, according to estimates, the problem gets worse. By then, the trust fund will have used up its reserves, meaning that Social Security can only cover 70 percent of the benefits it has promised to pay.

    In the next 75 years, according to estimates, the financial gap runs into the trillions of dollars.

    But professor Diamond says, yes, in 2042, benefits will have to be cut, but retirees then would still get more money than today's retirees.

    ?We've got 35 or more years to phase in very slow changes that people can certainly adapt to and live with,? he says.

    The Social Security debate has become both a question of urgency and a matter of how to change a program that has endured so long.
    © 2005 MSNBC Interactive
    if they'd stop taking money out of programs like social security in order to "make war" or plant statues in the middle of fucking no where there might not be a crisis. you know everytime they do a budget and allot a certain amount they always find a way to shuffle the money into other things. which is why we financially get intot the mess that we get into.

  3. #3
    Good Doctor HST Guest
    Social Security is in trouble. I don't think the president's idea of privatization solves the problem. It does, however, pump more green into the corporations which own our country, much to the chagrin of regular middle-class Americans that understand what's going on.


    One way to ease the burden of social security that I support is raising the age from 65 to 70. People live longer these days, they can work further on in life too. Another way is to not spend trillions of dollars on the war machine. The first option seems more realistic.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-21-2010, 09:16 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-25-2008, 10:14 PM
  3. Neanderthals Were Not Stupid, Just A Bit Anti-Social
    By Gold9472 in forum The New News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-10-2006, 07:36 PM
  4. Bush points finger at Democrats on Social Security
    By beltman713 in forum The New News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-23-2005, 05:15 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-06-2005, 07:39 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •