sandiglam wrote:Eric wrote:Obama is a socialist. The U.S.A. is not a socialistic country.
This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Claiming Obama is a socialist negates anything else you might want to say later on. Obviously you are clueless. Wanting to help those that are less fortunate doesn't make a person a socialist. If you want to debate, let's debate, but EDUCATE yourself before you start spouting nonsense.
Sandiglam
Social
stic...shall we say?
Educate myself??? I know both candidates very well. Care to discuss any issue in particular?
Lets talk about...retirement:. Below is my plan. Whats yours? Let me guess.....make sure everybody is "okay" no matter how hard they work.
Social Security is not sustainable, and a plan must be enacted now to lessen the negative impact of its inevitable demise. When Social Security was started in 1935, the post-Depression climate of our country demanded that such a measure be taken for the overall welfare of our nation. Since then, many things have changed about this country, its citizens, and our way of life, and Social Security itself has been augmented as well. LBJ put Social Security in a general fund that Congress could spend, and Jimmy Carter made it available to immigrants who hadn't contributed. Our country has changed and the program has been altered.
In 1935, the average life expectancy of American citizens was 62 years; today, that figure is 78 years. If you adjust for the infant mortality rate, that number becomes higher and the difference lower, but even five years is significant with regards to this case. The bottom line is that people are taking more out of social security than they put in due to the fact that they are living longer lives. At the very least, the minimum retirement age needs to be increased to help offset this. With the first baby boomers nearing retirement age, and the birth rate dropping, there will only be 2 people working for every 1 within 40 years. The Social Security Board of Trustees states that funds will be exhausted by 2042.
I'm not sure it is clear to enough of us that we need to start taking more responsibility for our own retirement instead of relying on someone to take care of us. Swift decisive action needs to be taken by the government to effectively END Social Security sooner rather than later. A gradual approach must be taken to ensure that a balance is reached between those who are now collecting on the Social Security money they were promised, and the current workforce contributing to a pool that won’t exist when it’s their turn to draw from it. Make no mistake about it - people will get hurt financially, there is no way around that. But I feel the sooner we take action the fewer the people will be hurt, and the impact lessened.
I propose beginning to end Social Security in 2010. Anyone 70+ and retired (and those who are disabled) would draw what they have come to expect until death. Those 60-69 (and those 70+ but not retired) would have to choose whether to retire and get their social security as expected, or take OptionB. Option B would be what the rest of the country would get. Between the years 2015 - 2019 those not on social security as of 2010 would get 50% back of what they put into the program over their working lives (as of the end of 2009). Social Security contributions would decrease 20% each year from 2010 - 2014, completely ending by January 1st 2015. At that point money would start to be returned and no more money will be taken out for the program. On January 1st, 2020 - the program will only be paying the elderly who were retired by 2010. By 2040, the program should be completely ended, just as it would anyway - but with my plan it won't be devastating.
This gradual process allows for those retired now and dependent on income to still get what they need. Partial collections and less interrupted interest next decade should make this mathematically feasible, although the plan may need a little financial help in the 2030's. The OASDI Trust fund currently has 1.378 Trillion dollars. It also will force the rest of us to take retirement into our own hands. It does force a difficult decision for those close to retirement as of 2010, and it does cost those not eligible to retire in 2010 their full share, probably forcing them to work longer than they hoped. But costing that relatively small group some of their retirement is more fair than allowing everyone 35 and under to spend their entire lives contributing to a program that won't exist for them.
I expect jobs to be created by this proposal from those opting to retire to get into the program early and also there to be a boom in the financial advisor industry as a need for retirement specialist will be even greater than it is today.
Lets be proactive and fix this thing right now! I know my plan may have some holes, but I'm hoping someone smarter than me can take this rough idea and run with it.
)
