October 16, 2010 at 7:00 pm in INFORUM
ND House candidates have own proposals to keep system viable
The Social Security system faces a basic economic problem: too much demand, not enough supply. Continue Reading
Tags: Earl Pomeroy, Election, House ND, Legislature, Politics, Rick Berg, social security 20 Comments »
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Privatizing Social Security is the only solution. Defeat Pomeroy in 2010!
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 13 27
social security needs only very minor tweaks to stay solvent throughout my lifetime (i’m 24). privatization is exactly the opposite of what is needed; social security has given (vastly) better returns than the stock market over the last 12 years.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 26 11
So you’re telling me SS which has an unfunded $8 trillion liability only need “minor” tweaks? LOL. If people took care of their own retirement fromk the get it wouldnt be a problem now. You say you’re 24. Well young people are essentially being ripped off and their money is being transfered to older ppl and the wealthy. It’s a ponzi scheme.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 10 23
It is unbelievable what a net transfer of wealth these entitlement schemes are. You take from younger, poorer workers and hand over a portion of their paycheck to older richer workers. Despite the nonsense spewed by our entitled gerontocracy, the elderly have 77% of the net wealth in this country. Yet they want more and more and more. What mgraalum doesn’t understand is that most of our current elderly people paid a much smaller percentage of their income into SS and Medicare. It wasn’t until the mid 80′s did payroll taxes go up dramatically, and they will go up even more. Also, I doubt he realizes he is really paying about 15% of his income into these programs ( employer+emloyee contributions). If he realized that he was paying so much and will be getting so little and will be expected to pay even more, he probably would not be so thrilled.
Like or Dislike: 8 11
It’s amazing that people like mgraalum would tolerate 15.3% of every dollar they earn taken from them under the guise of FICA taxes.
PT Barnum was right!
Like or Dislike: 8 16
The bush administration failed to privatize Social Security by putting the funds in the stock market. That failer to privatize it was a good thing, because if that had happened, if you were dependent on Social Security, you would now be destitute because of the second stock market crash on bush’s mismanaged administration.
Social Security doesn’t need fixing. All that is wrong with Social Security is the high unemployment in this country cause by the outsourcing of our living wage jobs over seas to better the bottom line for the stock-holders and obscene salaries of CEO’s. In other words, not enough people have living wage jobs anymore to fully support Social Security. You can thank Republican deregulation for that. And the Republicans want to “Fix” social Security? I don’t think so. Yeah, they’d fix it alright.
All that “privatization” would do is give the gamblers on Wall Street your money to gamble away. When they win, they keep it. When they lose, you pay. You wouldn’t gamble with your retirement in Los Vegas would you? Then why would anyone think the rigged game of the stock market would be any better?
Social Security is not broke, Social Security is sustainable.
Hot debate. What do you think? 26 12
For those of us old enough to remember our pay stubs years ago, Social Security (SS) deductions used to be listed as OAB (old age benefit) and other categories. Second, social security was never meant to be your entire retirement plan, but merely part however, a majority of people receiving SS it is their only retirement. Third, if privatizing was a good thing, why do such a small number contribute to Roth or traditional IRA’s? The savings vehicle is already there but few are using it. Fourth, the average small investor makes foolish decisions and don’t save enough anyways. Fifth, almost everyone gets more back from SS than they and their employer contributed in the first place because the tax rate hasn’t increased and people are living longer. Sixth, the projected deficit is mostly due to demographics thanks to the boomer bulge of retirees. Without any changes at all, somewhere around 2065 the SS system will again be taking in more money than paying out in benefits. To fix it, remove the income cap, means test benefits, and increase the tax rate very slightly for a few years. Those three fixes would make the program solvent.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 26 4
Yeah, but do you think the most selfish generation is going to accept anything less than what their parents recieved? No they will want more and more and more and not want to pay for it. They will want everything MRI’d and every carton of Viagra delivered to their doorstep via courier service and will want every experimental drug for hopeless cases of cancer tried and will want to be on ventilators in the ICU till the very last gasp, and they will want the kids they abandoned through their selfish divorces to pay for it…and they will get it because the politicians who are all a bunch of coward fuxs will not do anything to p-off the entitled gerontocracy in this country. They will raise the taxes and the national debt to make these people happy.
Like or Dislike: 6 15
Social security would be totally and forever solvent if Big Brother would have kept their fingers out of it and just had put it in a savings account. I have a friend that works high in the Federal Government and he has said for more than 30 years that it was going to go down because Congress was using the money and spending like there was no tomorrow. This is why we must clean house no matter what party they are affiliated with now. All incumbents need to be replaced as they ARE THE PROBLEM!
Congress won’t admit they are the problem of Social Securities failure!!!!!!!!!!
The people causing the problems can not or will not FIX the problems.
Let us clean house now please before there is now way to fix it. Hopefully it is not too late for our sakes and our childrens and grand childrens.
What we need in Congress is not highly educated people we just need people that have good common sense and that truly love our Country! We also need term limits as it should not be a life job to be in public office.
I could go on and on but you get my drift.
God Bless America PLEASE!
Like or Dislike: 10 13
My take on social security is that Berg does not even understand the system. He falters on all major issues that affect North Dakotans- social security, healthcare, farm bill, veterans benefits, and flood control. His answers in the debates made no sense and were never based in facts. Many of his statements are OUTDATED talking points that every one else quit using because they were FACT CHECKED. We do not need a wealthy stuffed shirt in Washington- We need a fighter who actually understands the issues. Vote Earl!
Hot debate. What do you think? 25 14
Yea him using the 16000 IRS workers being hired makes it 4 flat out lies during the last 2 debates. I guess he showed up at the Tea Party rally so it makes sense that he’d still be reciting chain mail blather.
Like or Dislike: 5 1
Anyone who votes for Pomeroy is voting for the continued destruction of the once greatest country on Earth. He is a rock solid Nancy Pelosi p’whip.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 13 24
Agreed Matty, look at all the federal welfare dollars Pomeroy brought into the state. All the ag welfare dollars need to stop. All the research dollars coming to aggie u need to stop. Kick the airbases out of the state. Get rid of the socialist veterans hospital, the bank of nd, and the mill. Drop social security like a hot potato. Privatize all the schools. ND can stand on its own two or three feet. Bergy will get rid of all these and us rich people will be able to keep our money. I have no responsibility towards anyone but me. If you want help, move to Texas. We shouldn’t have to pay any taxes. Tax the oil companies and we can live on that. A billion dollars in the bank should last the state for at least a decade.
Like or Dislike: 4 2
Pomeroy and his brother should return all that SS money they grew up collecting!
Hot debate. What do you think? 11 19
My take on Berg is that he a rich man who has a single goal of lowering corporate taxes and income taxes so that he can get even richer. All his other positions and ramblings are just cover in order to appear to be a real Congressional candidate. Yet he has no other interests other than his own wealth.
Hot debate. What do you think? 22 12
Just remove the income cap. Problem solved.
Like or Dislike: 18 4
For those of you that think SS can be fixed or what a great deal it is I remind you that it now gives out more money than it takes in. Sorry, its over. We are 13 trillion in the hole and have a trillion budget shortfall and that is even before Obamacare is implemented. I doubt I will ever see a dime of what I pay in so I invest myself and have done much better than anything the government will ever pay me, which will be nothing. They will simply do what they are doing all over Europe, raise the retirement age so that one may enjoy SS for a year before they die. This was a program doomed to fail and it is doing so dramatically, the less you reley on it the better off you will be.
Like or Dislike: 4 10
“I remind you that it now gives out more money than it takes in”
Which it didn’t do before, which is why there is enough in there to keep it going till 2037, even if we don’t touch it.
Like or Dislike: 3 2
Where is all this money that was overpaid in previous years? Could someone show me the account where all this overpayment has been ‘saved/invested’? It doesn’t exist. The government has been spending the SS surplus almost from day 1 of its inception. Now we are in a stituation where more is being paid out than is paid in on an annual basis. This would be okay, (for a while) if the previous surpluses were still sitting around, but they are not. The government has treated SS as it personal slush fund and spent the surplus many times over. Now that they slush fund has dried up, taxes will need to be raised to cover the difference or money will simply need to be printed. The whole solvant until 2037 is an accounting mirage. Once more goes out than is taken in, it is insolvant – there is not ‘reserve surplus’. If any company in the private sector ran their retirement program like SS, everyone involved in the scheme would be in jail – that is if they did not provide an adequate level of political contributions prior to being exposed.
Like or Dislike: 3 3
Christy! How have you been? Anyway, Tommy B is right, insolvency is pretty much the beginning of the end for SS. The adage, “The world wont end with a bang but with a whimper” is a perfect analogy of what will eventually happen. Look no further than what is happening in France to see a snapshot of what is coming in our near future. SS will be eroded away slowly with retirement ages being increased and cost of living increases being stagnant. The last two years has seen no cost of living increase, where is AARP? Don’t be surprised if the trust fund is done away with completely since, as Tommy stated, its nothing more than a slush fund now. My advice is to put $100 out of every paycheck into an IRA until you retire. As for privatization, I will take any 20 year period of the stock market, even the great depression, and put it against the payouts that SS gives. I would still retire a millionaire and you might be able to afford a nice trailer in Boca.
Like or Dislike: 0 0
Click here to cancel reply.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
To start connecting please log in first.
Topics is proudly provided by the Forum Communications Company