In America, Older folk (people that have retired) tend to be the rich era. A lot of senior citizens have a good sum of money in bonds, CDs, and their bank account(s). These people usually have their house paid off, car paid off, and almost no credit card bills to pay. Just food, life insurance, water/gas/electric/sewer bills. These do not cost a great deal. Middle age people, and young adults (20-50) have to pay their rent or for their house and car bills. They use a lot of credit cards, and have many bills to pay. Teachers tend have cheap cars, and houses. Teachers just dont get paid enough. A lot of people getting on with their life and people getting started on their life, may not be able to afford a cadilac, mercedez-benz, lincoln or lexus. However, a good deal of retired people do have a lincoln or cadilac. Not all do, but generally speaking, retired people are pretty darn rich even tho they have little income (interest from bonds, CD's, etc.). They pay no income tax, which is a good deal of money for most people, so their bills are limited.

When people like teachers and low income (50k and below) struggle to make ends meet, they have to pay for older people's drugs (medicine to be more precise). When these people have little spare money have to pay for old people's medicine even tho the older people are rich and can afford these easily, it just aint right. I heard my teacher a few weeks ago explaining how it wasnt right how he, making just over 30K a yr, pay for old people's medicine, that drive lincolns and cadilacs. They had much more money than him, but he had to pay for their expensive medicine. Social Security aint a bad idea, but i think it should be based on how much money the retired folk have. If they are poor, then yes, pay for their medicine. But if they have a lot more money than most of the average age people, then they should have to pay for their own meds.

There are a lot of old people that vote, so Democrats dont want to limit social security. Republicans dont get many votes from the older folk, because they're agianst social security. They know it will be hard to get rid of it completely, so they wont bother trying.

Population also matters dealing with this. After WWII, all the returning GI's had kids. It was called the ''Baby Booming". These babies are now in their 40's. Their parents are now retired. So these children, easily outnumbering their parents, must pay their parents a lot of money. So these retired people are getting more money from social security than their children ever will. This just aint right.

L. Zeved

Oh Lordy, quick, tell me where to go to get my meds paid for. I'm one of those retired folks, but I must be doing something wrong. I don't drive a Caddy or a Benz and as far as I know Medicare doesn't pay for prescription drugs. I didn't use any sick leave for years to prepay my health insurance, which will not last as long as I planned due to raised premiums . Medicare costs have also gone up.

All of our working years my husband and I paid into Social Security, without whining like your teacher. Teachers have some advantages other people don't have. They have all summer off. Some teachers have summer jobs for extra income. Also, they same money on child care because they have off when their kids aren't in school. I think teachers have it pretty good.

madtown

PS....I can barely tolerate "yallz", but aint? Come on, you know better than that.

Madtown

Where do you get your information? Where I come from more Senior Citizens could use additional help than those that need it not at all. I'd like to see some stats, please.



Again, stats please.



Stats please.



These geezers have been paying into the system for at least fifty four years. FIFTY FOUR YEARS. More than half a century, more than half a lifespan. I dare say they have paid, over and again, for their OWN drugs.



This is not true. Have you not seen the umpteen specials on television where our SCs are misusing prescription drugs because THEY CAN'T AFFORD THEM? Cutting corners in places where no corners should be cut. Living like peasants for having worked their keesters off all their life. Come on now.



Your teacher should be reported. Railing at the elderly over his personal finances is crossing the line.



Actually, Z, Social Security is based on a much better system...

PEOPLE PAY INTO IT FOR ALL THEIR LIVES.

When you are older and GET A JOB, you will see where the social security is taken out of every check you get.

As I stated, our senior citizens work (and pay into the system) for over HALF THEIR LIVES. They earned it, buddy and then some.

This topic makes me shudder. Americans treat their SCs the worst and yet there are complaints that they are getting TOO MUCH? They don't get HALF of what the SCs in other countries get, they DON'T get enough to live on all the time and you'd be surprised at how VERY FEW are "rich".



Have you any clue what those medications COST? Seriously. Can you wrap your never having worked mind around the cost of health care in general, much less when it comes to our Senior Citizens?



Social Security isn't the only way to prepare for retirement. You yourself above were talking about investments, stocks, bonds, CDs and such.

You are in over your head on this subject. I know a molehill's more than you do about it and I am also in over my head. I know enough to know you are dead wrong though. Dead wrong.

Social security hardly pays for everything. Its actually quite sick how little we spend on it. Do you ever read or watch the news? Theres story after story about how old folks cant get enough money for their meds, or money to hea their houses. They also get shafted with property taxes. And what do you propose we do? Force the elderly to work well into their 80s or 90s (do you realize how precarious the health may be for some of those people?)?

And I, like MadMax, would like to know where exactly youre getting your information. Do you think old people are getting rich of less than 10,000 a year? Do you think that buying presciption meds doesnt usually cost at least a hundred dollars, since there is we lack generic drugs?

http://www.ssa.gov/statistics/ssi_annual_s...2001/index.html

Several people have mentioned how broke the Social Security system is. Is anyone else in favor, as I am, of pursuing the republican plan of voluntary privatization of 2% of your SS investment?

Social Security will never go away, and it is becoming increasingly less solvent. People are living longer, congress keeps raising the age to receive benefits, and so people have to work longer. Besides throwing money like an anvil to a drowning person, how could we fix this?

I think everyone should have a choice whether or not to invest in social security.

Benefits of this would be:
1. People can make their own reserched choices that best fit their idea of retirement.
2. If SS goes bust, no harm no foul to those that chose not to invest.
3. Making one's own choices, one could retire much sooner than 65yrs or 70yrs and have that check.

Cons of this would be:
1. Less money for the system, which I am supposing would be less money for those who depend on SS now.
2. If it does go bust, there are going to be people out there without the net to fallback on during retirement.


Of course it's more involved than that, I'm sure. But this is coming from someone who doesn't know very much about Social Security.

You put it quite succinctly MadMax, I couldn't agree with you more, but you know this argument pits the conservative 'personal responsibility' group against the liberal 'everyone one needs a safety net' group.

Promises to always be a spirited debate.

How could it not please both sides?

Good for the Liberals because: Social Security still exists for those that desire that particularly safety net.

Good for the Conservatives because: Other options will be available for those who favor personal responsibility.

If someone chooses wrong and gets the short end of the stick there are other government programs they have also funded throughout their working lives... welfare, medicaid, medicare, and whatever else. Not that those are desirable options... but then again how many Senior Citizens on Social Security already are eligible for such programs?

Primarily because liberals will not release their stranglehold on Social Security.

It gets them votes, so any attempt to privatize even a portion will be met with bloodcurdling screams of how conservatives want to kill off old people.

I am 27 and I realize that I will probably never see any of the $$ I put into S.S. What is wrong with allowing me to put a little of my money into something that will actually give me a return? I agree with Mad Max, that the Republican plan is the best option out there right now. It seems like a lot of opponents to that plan like to scare seniors by lying and saying the repubs want to invest all of S.S. in the stock market. I look at the amount of money I put into S.S. each month and I get sick thinking about if I was instead allowed to put that money into my 401k or Roth IRA, I would not need a dime from S.S. when I retire. In fact, I would love to be able to tell the gov't, "Keep the thousands of dollars I have put into S.S., I never, ever want a dime from you. Just quit taking the S.S taxes out of my check!" They can't do this because S.S. is so broke that they need all of the money from people working now to pay the people that are retiring now. What about all the money those people put in when they were working? Well, it got put into the general fund and spent on other "programs." What a joke.

The images you invoke... I can honestly see someone emitting a bloodcurling scream a la' comic style in regards to privatizing social security.

Just a little FYI, stotty, that's the way it's always worked. In The lottery - a tax on the Poor?, Do more poor people or rich people play? otseng said it best:



If anyone would like a succinct, (slanted Libertarian) history of Social Security, check out this thread: Social Security, Original Intent and Growth.


______________________________________________________________________
And for those of you wondering why I didn't close this thread & refer everyone over to the other one: my reasoning was that the other thread is quite lengthy & getting a little dusty. While this one is similar to the other, it does have it's differences (like Lord Zeved's broad generalizations ). Have fun debating.

Hey Stotty! By your picture I guessed you to be about 18!

Madtown

Well, that is a pain right now, but I guess I will like that when I get to be an old fogey when I am collecting my S.S. checks, no wait, I probably won't get any.

And to Jaime, thanks for info, I know that is how the money was always spent, and that is what makes me even angrier to hear politicians talk about a S.S. "Trust Fund" when there is not one.

well, keep on paying in until this old fogy doesn't need it any more. Ok?

Madtown

There's nothing that gets me madder than when politicians talk about that too!

Who do they think we are, a bunch of stupid idiots? Trust fund my @$$.

Someone needs to start a revolt and abolish this imaginary trust fund. Reduce my SS payments so that I'm not paying into the "fund" which is actually just going to pay for some more entitlement programs that has nothing to do with the SS.

Then after that happens, we need to overhaul the entire system. I'm sick and tired of throwing my money into the government sanctioned Ponzi scheme.

It's embezzlement if you ask me.

Madtown

Dear friends at America's Debate,
I see by your posts that you are irate
About the tax called Social Security,
That supports an old fogey like me.

I understand your concern, feel your pain,
But I'd like you to know, I am not to blame.
I paid that tax too, all my working years,
Which supported all the retired old dears.
(I like dears better than fogeys)

It's the government's fault, the plan went haywire
And there will be no money when you retire.
They spent much money from the account
Now,all that remains is a small amount.

Since I'm retired and work no more,
The SS check keeps the wolf from my door.
So, I want you to know that I feel real bad
That, by our government, you have been had.

Madtown

I like your poem, you rhymin' old coot
The way you post is such a hoot




*no, I do not think of you as an old coot, but it rhymed. You understand.

Call me a fogey or an old coot
You'll not hear me complain
Just keep sending the ss check
For all my years that remain

Madtown

You might be careful of your rhymin'
It might be mistaken as rap
Of which is to blame for teens lyin'
Cheatin', stealin' and other crap

The check is in the mail
It's coming your way
Gonna keep that Madtown happy
Add it to her CDs, Bonds and IRAs

Haha, good one MT.

Just feel lucky that you got in on the Ponzi scheme early enough to get money out of it.

Ostang, Really, I too am concerned about SS. I have kids that are in the same boat as you are.

Madtown

hehe, i wish i was as old as i feel. I'm only 14, but i walk like i'm 84. I'd be collecing those checks....ahh...at least i dont pay taxes yet...

L. Zeved

I'm sick of hearing about how old you are. I'm not even sure I believe you. sometimes you sound like you're 10.

Madtown

Yes social security is right because it is good for the country. I has been funding our budget shortfalls for years. I believe it has been dishonest calling it insurance or referring to it as savings. This should be a constant fund and it should not be set aside in retirement accounts. It is a valuable supplement that keeps or elderly population independent, and protects us from leaving ourselves penniless when we are 83. Those in the working prime of our lives will have more dependents if this supplement is removed.