dhdoit69@hotmail.com (guest)
 |
| 06/13/2007 4:34 PM |
 Quote
 Reply
 Alert
|
| No one seems to have the guts to investigate how much has been stolen from our social security fund over the years, but I would be willing to bet with interest added to it there would be no shortage in our sestem. HANDS OFF POLITIONS. OR PAY BACK MONEY STOLEN. |
|
|
|
cissylaubach@earthlink.net (guest)
|
| 11/14/2007 2:50 PM |
Quote
Reply
Alert
|
| I have often wondered why polititions don't pay into Social Security. I believe that if they had to depend on Social Security for their retirment, there wouldn't be any problems with it. It has always been a good source of free money when they wanted paid vacations or money for the wars but they never paid back what they took out. Now they want us senior citizens to pay for their free spending. How is it fair that they can retire on their full incomes along with yearly raises while we have to depend on what's left in the fund after they get thru taking from it? From what I have read, even their spouses can retire on their full income. Who ever decided that these later years are golden? More like brass if you ask me. OH! I know who, the politiions. They decide what I can and cannot have while they reap whatever they choose to have even if it is something they don't really need. Guess you can summize my anger when it comes to Social Security. I'm 77 yrs old and I hate to see what will be left for my grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Thank you for letting me vent, it felt good even if it won't change a thing. Respectfully, Cissy Laubach |
|
|
|
PATRICIA MCGRADY (guest)
|
| 12/05/2007 12:29 AM |
Quote
Reply
Alert
|
THE SOLUTION TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY PROBLEM IS: REMOVE THE CAP!!! REMOVE THE ARTIFICIAL AND UNFAIR CEILING THAT HAS BEEN PUT ON THE AMOUNT OF MONEY EARNED THAT IS TAXABLE.... WHY SHOULD POOR AND MIDDLE CLASS PEOPLE PAY ON 100% OF THEIR INCOME, AND HIGH INCOME PEOPLE ONLY PAY ON PART OF THEIR INCOME?? IT IS A LOOPHOLE THAT NEEDS TO BE CLOSED, AND MAY, BY ITSELF, SOLVE THE SOLVENCY PROBLEM. IT IS NOT A TAX INCREASE; IT IS CLOSING A LOOPHOLE!!!
|
|
|
|
wdmca@hotmail.com (guest)
|
| 12/06/2007 9:16 AM |
Quote
Reply
Alert
|
I pay social security on my entire income. So should George W. Bush and all those paid high salaries.
I support the AARP's program for reform to Social Security. |
|
|
|
Richlento@aol.com (guest)
|
| 12/08/2007 9:39 PM |
Quote
Reply
Alert
|
I think they should remove the income cap. Everyone should continue to pay no matter how much they earn. I also feel that NO ONE should collect unless they have paid into Social Security. ( With the exceptions of spouses and children.) I know some aliens are able to collect, just for coming legally into this country. Also, from what I understand some levels of politicians don't pay into social security, but they collect after they retire. Again I say, IF YOU DIDN'T PAY INTO S.S., YOU DON'T GET IT.
|
|
|
|
leandercannon (guest)
|
| 12/09/2007 6:24 PM |
Quote
Reply
Alert
|
There are two CPI,s and the one most talked about is the
one that doesn't include food or energy, how useless.
What's happen when retiree's find out the SS benefits
are adjusted by the wage rate and "not either CPI's".
(you know which you will be stuck with ha ha.) |
|
|
|
shoxenberg@verizon.net (guest)
|
| 12/09/2007 9:34 PM |
Quote
Reply
Alert
|
everyone should pay into social security. even the rich. also the government should
_stop steaLING FROM THE FUND. |
|
|
|
shoxenberg@verizon.net (guest)
|
| 12/09/2007 9:34 PM |
Quote
Reply
Alert
|
everyone should pay into social security. even the rich. also the government should
_stop steaLING FROM THE FUND. |
|
|
|
rafaga@msn.com (guest)
|
| 12/10/2007 3:06 AM |
Quote
Reply
Alert
|
| No one seems to be interested in "Totalization Agreements" pushed by Bush administration. Especially the agreement with Mexico where work done by Mexican citizens that are illegally in U.S. I have tried without success and I wish someone with authority could get information from SSA as to how much money is sent to non Americans in foreign countries, people who never worked in U.S. |
|
|
|
comasigama (guest)
|
| 12/11/2007 9:03 PM |
Quote
Reply
Alert
|
| Everyone speaks of how we can fix social security and always they talk of increased tax for workers in payroll donations, making self choices in investing a portion or all donations to the S/S fund. Noone ever speaks of all the monies the Fed. Gov,t borrowed and never repaid. We can fix S/S by first finding out the exact amount borrowed and then setting a plan of repayment in so many years. This was the intent of Roosevelt in starting the S/S fund. That all retiring people in the US would not end up in poverty in the last years of life. This was not a fund to be used by the Gov,t. as they chose and not repay it. If the money used is replaced the fund would never run dry. |
|
|
|
youhavgeorge@juno.com (guest)
|
| 12/13/2007 3:00 PM |
Quote
Reply
Alert
|
| If the social security funds had been kept separate as was originally planned the fund would not be running short. Bill Clinton changed the accounting system so he could get his hands on the money to say he had "Balanced the Budget", which of course he had not.
Also STOP ADDING PEOPLE TO SOCIAL SECURITY WHO NEVER PAID IN OR ONLY FOR A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. Anyone knows if you invest and don't touch the money it will take care of itself. Just KEEP THE POLITITIONS out of the money. Make a law to put back the separtation of funds that was originally there. If your comment that only 1.89% increase is needed, then get at it. Most people waste more money than that without even noticing it. |
|
|
|
Kibitzer (guest)
|
| 12/14/2007 4:36 PM |
Quote
Reply
Alert
|
I think I have the solution to the social security problems.
Lets think of social Security as an insurance policy.
(because that's what it really is) It's there, if you need it.
Most people pay for fire insurance on their home and never
"collect" on it. They never have a fire. Social security could work
the same way. If you never need it, you never collect. But it's
there if you need it. It's an "insurance policy."
This way, social security payroll deductions would be way down
for everyone, employees and employers. (think about it)
|
|
|
|
Moses (guest)
|
| 12/14/2007 5:51 PM |
Quote
Reply
Alert
|
| Yeah, it's an insurance policy and I did pay into it. Only to have the politicians steal my premiums from that fallacious lock box in which the funds were supposedly placed. Time for a tea party? |
|
|
|
info@healthwiseexercise.com (guest)
|
| 12/14/2007 7:45 PM |
Quote
Reply
Alert
|
Yes, Social Security can be fixed. All we need is a president with the guts to require that the senate and the congress pay into it without a pay increase to offset the loss ( just like us), and to persue privatization of all accounts so the polititians can't get their mits on it. That's what privatization means, private. Do some research on San Antonio Texas city employees. They opted out of the system decades ago and currently collect eight times more in Soc. Sec. than if they had stayed in. It's because of that one detail that we find ourselves in this situation now due to the fact that our elected have raided the fund to buy votes so as to stay in power. They have proven time and again they can't be trusted with our hard earned, EARNED, money so why do we keep sending these bums back to Washington?
Merry Christmas to all.
G. Poyer, Edgewater, Fl. |
|
|
|
savar1 (guest)
|
| 12/15/2007 10:26 PM |
Quote
Reply
Alert
|
| I have to strongly disagree with the writer who believes that money has been stolen from the social security trust funds. Every dollar is accounted for and the funds currently have in excess of 2 trillion dollars. This administration would like to destroy Social Security.
They allege that privatization would solve the problem (as outlined by the Heritage Foundation) but that is a trojan horse designed to kill the most popular program that the US gov`t. has.
The Social Security trust funds have notes from the US Treasury and these notes pay interest which goes into the trust funds. |
|
|
|
Budget Guy (guest)
|
| 12/15/2007 10:39 PM |
Quote
Reply
Alert
|
| I am appalled by the amount of incorrect info that is written about Social Security on the internet. There are many things that can be done to fix the financing of the program. A non partisan panel should be convened by the President and the Congress. Pres. Reagan did it in 1987 and the trust funds have enough money to pay full benefits for another 20 or more years. Correcting the program now would call for a number of changes such as increasing the cap or removing it altogether for high wage earners. We could also cut the benefits to people who make more than $50,000 per year. It could be done by withholding $1 in benefits for every $2 earned over $50,000. There are other changes that can be brought to bear and I will mention them at a future time. |
|
|
|
cjlemite (guest)
|
| 12/16/2007 7:21 PM |
Quote
Reply
Alert
|
| No real social security reform can be accompliced untill there are processes in place to make sure the government doesn't use this fund for other purposes .Other ideas like removing the cap,decreasing benifits or denying benifits to some people will only delay social securities demise.The government should not be allowed to use this fund as a tax (aka pay as you go system).All surpluses should be invested and not used to help balance the federal budget. Justmy2cents |
|
|
|
jimelda (guest)
|
| 12/17/2007 12:54 PM |
Quote
Reply
Alert
|
| F.I.C.A. Federal INSURANCE Contribution Act---Nowhere do I see the word tax in this program. This is an insurance premium paid to help the retired when they no longer have an income. I don't know of any other type of insurance that hasn't gone up in cost in over twenty four years or one that is more important. A slight increase in the premium and an increase in the amount subjected to the premium every other year should solve the funding problem. |
|
|
|
Larrabee1 (guest)
|
| 12/17/2007 7:53 PM |
Quote
Reply
Alert
|
| I became interested in this forum because of the articles in the Tribune concerning SS and I decided that some of the comments deserve a response with FACTS. There is loads of misinformation floating around on websites such as this and it is sad because the correct information is usually available with a click of the right website over the Internet - one of plusses of this monster.
The surplus SS revenues are invested in Special Treauries, which pay interest at a rate equal to the 4- and greater-year Treasury Notes held by the public. This investment is required by law. These facts can be verified by going to the SS website at http://www.ssa.gov/. After a little digging, you may get to http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html where you can verify the foregoing comments.
More importantly, you should know that back in early 80s the Greenspan Commission was formed to come up with a way of assuring the solvancey of SS. It's report was issued in 1983 and is available at
http://www.ssa.gov/history/reports/gspan5.html
The subsequent pauyroll tax increases were essentially the result of this report. The increases were intended (read the report) to build a surplus in the SS Trust Fund that would cover the increased benefits necessary to cover the retirement of the Baby Boomers. And, if you believe the nominal projection of the SS Trustees, you must conclude that the increases are doing their job.
No dollars have been stollen from SS. they have been borrowed just like money is borrowed from those the buy our Treaury Bonds. The surplus dollars are invested and in the safest investment in the world - in securities backed by the full credit of our Government. Many would prefer that the surplus dollars be invested in stocks and foreign securities to achieve a greater return. Perhaps such an arrangement it possible but such alternative would mean increased risk.
The overwhelmingly negative is the Unified Budget which takes advantage of the SS revenue surplus to permit our leaders to claim smaller than real deficits. I will try to explain with fraudulent accounting in a subsequent post. |
|
|
|
20/21 (guest)
|
| 01/05/2008 6:55 PM |
Quote
Reply
Alert
|
| I keep reading "the government" as the enemy........Many years ago, POGO said, "today I met the enemy and the enemy is me". If all of those who have posted here would just slow down and think that if we are not happy with "the government", (us), WE need to not keep voting for the same people who represent us. By the way, I do think that social security should not have a cap as well. |
|
|
|