Jeb Bush: Next president should privatize Social Security

[PratchettFan]

Why would they have to pay it all back at once?

HELLO earth to idiots, they don't have the money now to pay the SS benefits and don't have the money to pay back the $2 trillion dollars so now they are trying to screw over the people who were forced to pay into this scheme. They are proposing reduced benefits and in some cases denying benefits, means testing, and increasing the retirement age to a ridiculous age hoping people will just die before they can collect a dime of the benefits they paid for.

No. The original retirement age for social security was 65. That was in 1935 when the average life expectancy was 61. Life expectancy is now 79 and the retirement age for people retiring now is 66. Retirement age went up 1 year and people are living an extra 18 years. How are they being screwed?

It was around 50 when started for men, didn't hit 65 till around 1980.

Nope. Age 65. Social Security History

I already read it, you need glasses the average age of death for a guy was 50 years old, look at the chart moron, didn't hit 65 till around the early 80s for a guy

Perhaps you should have read it a little more carefully:

OLD-AGE BENEFIT PAYMENTS
SEC. 202. (a) Every qualified individual (as defined in section 210) shall be entitled to receive, with respect to the period beginning on the date he attains the age of sixty-five, or on January 1, 1942, whichever is the later, and ending on the date of his death, an old-age benefit (payable as nearly as practicable in equal monthly installments) as follows:

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Those of us guys who lost wife's that played into the social security ponzi scam , still want to know, why we were only offered $255 bucks?

I threw that check away

Huh?

You get 50% of what she was getting. You throw away $255 bucks a month?

 

[The Rabbi]

Your first problem is a complete and utter ignorance on the stock market highlighted by the fact that you think it is 'gambling.'
One of the advantages in a privatized system is that people might actually get some exposure in the market and dispel that asinine idea that owning a piece of something is akin to gambling.
That is why such a system needs to be phased in - they spent the money SS had brought in so there is nothing there to privatize but plenty of benefits owed.

It still has to be paid for if it is "phased in"

And so, as people pay into SS after a certain point, their money goes into the privatization plan rather than the SS "trust fund".

So rather than you having to pay your money into a government plan, you have to pay it into a private plan. The key phrase being "have to".

Well, I fully object to the state forcing people to pay into any plan, but since there are two choices under discussion, the "have to" discussion can wait. You're an adult; act like one and be responsible for yourself.

Two questions: 1) how is that any different

SS: The state take my money so it can pay others, and tells me how much, if anything, I will get paid by others when I retire.
PP: I control my money.

2) who guarantees the private plan if it fails?

Guarantees?
You think there are guarantees in life?

So your solution is to take the old and infirm and toss them into the street where they can eat out of garbage cans. Because heck, there are no guarantees in life. That about it?

That actually seems to be your solution. If the gov't ever runs out of money to pay out SS checks, what doyou think will happen?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

It still has to be paid for if it is "phased in"

And so, as people pay into SS after a certain point, their money goes into the privatization plan rather than the SS "trust fund".

So rather than you having to pay your money into a government plan, you have to pay it into a private plan. The key phrase being "have to".

Well, I fully object to the state forcing people to pay into any plan, but since there are two choices under discussion, the "have to" discussion can wait. You're an adult; act like one and be responsible for yourself.

Two questions: 1) how is that any different

SS: The state take my money so it can pay others, and tells me how much, if anything, I will get paid by others when I retire.
PP: I control my money.

2) who guarantees the private plan if it fails?

Guarantees?
You think there are guarantees in life?

So your solution is to take the old and infirm and toss them into the street where they can eat out of garbage cans. Because heck, there are no guarantees in life. That about it?

That actually seems to be your solution. If the gov't ever runs out of money to pay out SS checks, what doyou think will happen?

The Treasury will borrow money.

 

[Wyatt earp]

You don't know what the hell you are talking about
Okay, all you liberal bunch of dumb asses go ahead tell us how the government is going to pay back the $2 trillion dollars of OUR money they borrowed and spent from the SS trust fund?

Why would they have to pay it all back at once?

HELLO earth to idiots, they don't have the money now to pay the SS benefits and don't have the money to pay back the $2 trillion dollars so now they are trying to screw over the people who were forced to pay into this scheme. They are proposing reduced benefits and in some cases denying benefits, means testing, and increasing the retirement age to a ridiculous age hoping people will just die before they can collect a dime of the benefits they paid for.

No. The original retirement age for social security was 65. That was in 1935 when the average life expectancy was 61. Life expectancy is now 79 and the retirement age for people retiring now is 66. Retirement age went up 1 year and people are living an extra 18 years. How are they being screwed?

It was around 50 when started for men, didn't hit 65 till around 1980.

Nope. Age 65. Social Security History

from your link....

This is an archival or historical document and may not reflect current policies or procedures.

It was 50 something not 65...


Social security was designed not to protect the average person, They didn't even know about the baby boomers back then fool, they didn't think ahead, like all liberals fail to do.

 

[Wyatt earp]

You don't know what the hell you are talking about
Okay, all you liberal bunch of dumb asses go ahead tell us how the government is going to pay back the $2 trillion dollars of OUR money they borrowed and spent from the SS trust fund?

Why would they have to pay it all back at once?

HELLO earth to idiots, they don't have the money now to pay the SS benefits and don't have the money to pay back the $2 trillion dollars so now they are trying to screw over the people who were forced to pay into this scheme. They are proposing reduced benefits and in some cases denying benefits, means testing, and increasing the retirement age to a ridiculous age hoping people will just die before they can collect a dime of the benefits they paid for.

No. The original retirement age for social security was 65. That was in 1935 when the average life expectancy was 61. Life expectancy is now 79 and the retirement age for people retiring now is 66. Retirement age went up 1 year and people are living an extra 18 years. How are they being screwed?

It was around 50 when started for men, didn't hit 65 till around 1980.

Not true. Who the hell told you that?

It's always been 65. In the early 80s, Congress upped it to 67, but it doesn't take effect until long after those cowards are all dead. And life expectancy has increased by about 4 years since then!

5.4% of the population was over 65 in 1935.

9% of the population was over 65 in 1965 when Medicare was enacted.

Today, 13.1% of the population is over 65.

This is clearly an unsustainable trend.

Common sense dictates that since we are living decades longer than our ancestors, we should be working longer.

We should peg the Social Security and Medicare eligibility age to 9% of the population.

And so, as people pay into SS after a certain point, their money goes into the privatization plan rather than the SS "trust fund".

So rather than you having to pay your money into a government plan, you have to pay it into a private plan. The key phrase being "have to".

Well, I fully object to the state forcing people to pay into any plan, but since there are two choices under discussion, the "have to" discussion can wait. You're an adult; act like one and be responsible for yourself.

Two questions: 1) how is that any different

SS: The state take my money so it can pay others, and tells me how much, if anything, I will get paid by others when I retire.
PP: I control my money.

2) who guarantees the private plan if it fails?

Guarantees?
You think there are guarantees in life?

So your solution is to take the old and infirm and toss them into the street where they can eat out of garbage cans. Because heck, there are no guarantees in life. That about it?

That actually seems to be your solution. If the gov't ever runs out of money to pay out SS checks, what doyou think will happen?

The Treasury will borrow money.

devalue the dollar some more

 

[The Rabbi]

And so, as people pay into SS after a certain point, their money goes into the privatization plan rather than the SS "trust fund".

So rather than you having to pay your money into a government plan, you have to pay it into a private plan. The key phrase being "have to".

Well, I fully object to the state forcing people to pay into any plan, but since there are two choices under discussion, the "have to" discussion can wait. You're an adult; act like one and be responsible for yourself.

Two questions: 1) how is that any different

SS: The state take my money so it can pay others, and tells me how much, if anything, I will get paid by others when I retire.
PP: I control my money.

2) who guarantees the private plan if it fails?

Guarantees?
You think there are guarantees in life?

So your solution is to take the old and infirm and toss them into the street where they can eat out of garbage cans. Because heck, there are no guarantees in life. That about it?

That actually seems to be your solution. If the gov't ever runs out of money to pay out SS checks, what doyou think will happen?

The Treasury will borrow money.

That sounds like a healthy approach. Not.

 

[bendog]

Remember it was Reagan who saved Social Security in 1983. Funny to see how far to the right of Reagan are modern day conservatives.

I don't think Reagan was a fan, but he did what needed doing, and it would not be some fundamental change to raise the money to protect soc security today. THAT actually might the a third reason to vote for Hillary, despite her baggage. She might be the least bad option, which says more about the gop lineup than anything else.

 

[Misty]

People living off of social security alone do live in poverty.

If all you depend on is SSI you are poor dude.

Moronic.........First, NO ONE is stating that SS should be your ONLY retirement asset.

Second, you or anyone else is free to gamble your other assets in the stock market or real estate or a winery.....

But that's what people believe. They think SS is there for them until they realize it's not enough by then they are screwed. I've seen it a million times. 2000 dollars a month to live on is not enough.

It's another fake security. If SS were truly to be successful they would have to take way more money out of people's wage.

I'm just saying it should be an option not a requirement. I should be able to say no I don't want SS deducted.

How come investing is a gamble but liberals protest the 1% on wall street?

 

[rightwinger]

We have developed 401ks and IRAs to encourage Americans to invest in the private sector for their retirement

These devices have replaced pensions in most companies. Social Security is the only source of dependable monthly retirement for most Americans

All Americans should be encouraged to have a retirement fund, Social Security and a paid off home to cover their retirement

"Dependable monthly income" ROFLAO!! WHen Obama threatened to withold checks, how dependable was it? A huge number of workers under 50 believe they will never see a penny of SS. The system itself projects its onw insolvency. That isnt dependable.
People need to be able to depend on themselves, not the government.

Been dependable for 75 years

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm just saying it should be an option not a requirement. I should be able to say no I don't want SS deducted.

Everyone should have this choice, and then be responsible for the results.

 

[PratchettFan]

It still has to be paid for if it is "phased in"

And so, as people pay into SS after a certain point, their money goes into the privatization plan rather than the SS "trust fund".

So rather than you having to pay your money into a government plan, you have to pay it into a private plan. The key phrase being "have to".

Well, I fully object to the state forcing people to pay into any plan, but since there are two choices under discussion, the "have to" discussion can wait. You're an adult; act like one and be responsible for yourself.

Two questions: 1) how is that any different

SS: The state take my money so it can pay others, and tells me how much, if anything, I will get paid by others when I retire.
PP: I control my money.

2) who guarantees the private plan if it fails?

Guarantees?
You think there are guarantees in life?

So your solution is to take the old and infirm and toss them into the street where they can eat out of garbage cans. Because heck, there are no guarantees in life. That about it?

Given what I actually said, how did you reach that conclusion?

I asked you what guarantees my retirement money had if the private plan loses it and you laughed and said there are no guarantees. So if the plan loses my money and I am unable to work, what options do I have other than live on the street? Do you think there are no consequences to your position?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

So rather than you having to pay your money into a government plan, you have to pay it into a private plan. The key phrase being "have to".

Well, I fully object to the state forcing people to pay into any plan, but since there are two choices under discussion, the "have to" discussion can wait. You're an adult; act like one and be responsible for yourself.

Two questions: 1) how is that any different

SS: The state take my money so it can pay others, and tells me how much, if anything, I will get paid by others when I retire.
PP: I control my money.

2) who guarantees the private plan if it fails?

Guarantees?
You think there are guarantees in life?

So your solution is to take the old and infirm and toss them into the street where they can eat out of garbage cans. Because heck, there are no guarantees in life. That about it?

That actually seems to be your solution. If the gov't ever runs out of money to pay out SS checks, what doyou think will happen?

The Treasury will borrow money.

That sounds like a healthy approach. Not.

Borrowing is what any business does when it cannot meet its short term obligations.

 

[bendog]

Well, I fully object to the state forcing people to pay into any plan, but since there are two choices under discussion, the "have to" discussion can wait. You're an adult; act like one and be responsible for yourself.
SS: The state take my money so it can pay others, and tells me how much, if anything, I will get paid by others when I retire.
PP: I control my money.
Guarantees?
You think there are guarantees in life?

So your solution is to take the old and infirm and toss them into the street where they can eat out of garbage cans. Because heck, there are no guarantees in life. That about it?

That actually seems to be your solution. If the gov't ever runs out of money to pay out SS checks, what doyou think will happen?

The Treasury will borrow money.

That sounds like a healthy approach. Not.

Borrowing is what any business does when it cannot meet its short term obligations.

Well, the problem is either revenues increase and spending drops NOW, or we won't be able to borrow.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And so, as people pay into SS after a certain point, their money goes into the privatization plan rather than the SS "trust fund".

So rather than you having to pay your money into a government plan, you have to pay it into a private plan. The key phrase being "have to".

Well, I fully object to the state forcing people to pay into any plan, but since there are two choices under discussion, the "have to" discussion can wait. You're an adult; act like one and be responsible for yourself.

Two questions: 1) how is that any different

SS: The state take my money so it can pay others, and tells me how much, if anything, I will get paid by others when I retire.
PP: I control my money.

2) who guarantees the private plan if it fails?

Guarantees?
You think there are guarantees in life?

So your solution is to take the old and infirm and toss them into the street where they can eat out of garbage cans. Because heck, there are no guarantees in life. That about it?

Given what I actually said, how did you reach that conclusion?

I asked you what guarantees my retirement money had if the private plan loses it and you laughed and said there are no guarantees.

Correct. Welcome to life on Earth.

So if the plan loses my money and I am unable to work, what options do I have other than live on the street?

Ahh... you're unfamiliar with the particulars of privatization, at least as laid out on 2005.
Why do you argue from ignorance? If you were familiar with the subject, you'd know your question is inapplicable.

 

[PratchettFan]

It still has to be paid for if it is "phased in"

And so, as people pay into SS after a certain point, their money goes into the privatization plan rather than the SS "trust fund".

So rather than you having to pay your money into a government plan, you have to pay it into a private plan. The key phrase being "have to".

Well, I fully object to the state forcing people to pay into any plan, but since there are two choices under discussion, the "have to" discussion can wait. You're an adult; act like one and be responsible for yourself.

Two questions: 1) how is that any different

SS: The state take my money so it can pay others, and tells me how much, if anything, I will get paid by others when I retire.
PP: I control my money.

2) who guarantees the private plan if it fails?

Guarantees?
You think there are guarantees in life?

So your solution is to take the old and infirm and toss them into the street where they can eat out of garbage cans. Because heck, there are no guarantees in life. That about it?

That actually seems to be your solution. If the gov't ever runs out of money to pay out SS checks, what doyou think will happen?

Why would they have to pay it all back at once?

HELLO earth to idiots, they don't have the money now to pay the SS benefits and don't have the money to pay back the $2 trillion dollars so now they are trying to screw over the people who were forced to pay into this scheme. They are proposing reduced benefits and in some cases denying benefits, means testing, and increasing the retirement age to a ridiculous age hoping people will just die before they can collect a dime of the benefits they paid for.

No. The original retirement age for social security was 65. That was in 1935 when the average life expectancy was 61. Life expectancy is now 79 and the retirement age for people retiring now is 66. Retirement age went up 1 year and people are living an extra 18 years. How are they being screwed?

It was around 50 when started for men, didn't hit 65 till around 1980.

Nope. Age 65. Social Security History

from your link....

This is an archival or historical document and may not reflect current policies or procedures.

It was 50 something not 65...


Social security was designed not to protect the average person, They didn't even know about the baby boomers back then fool, they didn't think ahead, like all liberals fail to do.

This is a copy of the original law. The law set the age at 65 - not "50 something". And yes, I am aware the people in 1935 weren't aware of people born in the 1950's. And while perhaps they didn't look into whatever crystal ball you believe they had, they did at least think. That is clearly something you haven't been able to master.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

People living off of social security alone do live in poverty.

If all you depend on is SSI you are poor dude.

Moronic.........First, NO ONE is stating that SS should be your ONLY retirement asset.

Second, you or anyone else is free to gamble your other assets in the stock market or real estate or a winery.....

But that's what people believe. They think SS is there for them until they realize it's not enough by then they are screwed. I've seen it a million times. 2000 dollars a month to live on is not enough.

So what you're saying is people are generally irresponsible when it comes to retirement planning.

BTW, most people in retirement get most of their cash income from social security.

 

[M14 Shooter]

People living off of social security alone do live in poverty.

If all you depend on is SSI you are poor dude.

Moronic.........First, NO ONE is stating that SS should be your ONLY retirement asset.

Second, you or anyone else is free to gamble your other assets in the stock market or real estate or a winery.....

But that's what people believe. They think SS is there for them until they realize it's not enough by then they are screwed. I've seen it a million times. 2000 dollars a month to live on is not enough.

So what you're saying is people are generally irresponsible when it comes to retirement planning.

Likely so.
Why do you believe that people should not be responsible for their poor choices?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

So your solution is to take the old and infirm and toss them into the street where they can eat out of garbage cans. Because heck, there are no guarantees in life. That about it?

That actually seems to be your solution. If the gov't ever runs out of money to pay out SS checks, what doyou think will happen?

The Treasury will borrow money.

That sounds like a healthy approach. Not.

Borrowing is what any business does when it cannot meet its short term obligations.

Well, the problem is either revenues increase and spending drops NOW, or we won't be able to borrow.

NOW ?

Oops. Too late. Guess we can't borrow anymore.

 

[PratchettFan]

So rather than you having to pay your money into a government plan, you have to pay it into a private plan. The key phrase being "have to".

Well, I fully object to the state forcing people to pay into any plan, but since there are two choices under discussion, the "have to" discussion can wait. You're an adult; act like one and be responsible for yourself.

Two questions: 1) how is that any different

SS: The state take my money so it can pay others, and tells me how much, if anything, I will get paid by others when I retire.
PP: I control my money.

2) who guarantees the private plan if it fails?

Guarantees?
You think there are guarantees in life?

So your solution is to take the old and infirm and toss them into the street where they can eat out of garbage cans. Because heck, there are no guarantees in life. That about it?

Given what I actually said, how did you reach that conclusion?

I asked you what guarantees my retirement money had if the private plan loses it and you laughed and said there are no guarantees.

Correct. Welcome to life on Earth.

So if the plan loses my money and I am unable to work, what options do I have other than live on the street?

Ahh... you're unfamiliar with the particulars of privatization, at least as laid out on 2005.
Why do you argue from ignorance? If you were familiar with the subject, you'd know your question is inapplicable.

Social security was not privatized in 2005. Is it you can't answer that question or won't?