Social Security Crisis Is About My Generation And Beyond

[thedrifter]

Social Security Crisis Is About My Generation And Beyond

February 2, 2005


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Jimmy Moore

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would like to issue a challenge to anyone under the age of 40 in the United States of America. It is time we become actively engaged in this debate over Social Security.

For those of us in our 20's and 30's, this current debate over the coming crisis in Social Security should be ours since it will have the greatest impact on us and the generations that follow after us.

While federal lawmakers can debate the merits of whether we are in an imminent crisis or not, it is clear to most people that if nothing is done the system is going to fall apart by the time we reach retirement age. The latest public opinion polls show that most Americans believe there are problems with Social Security that need to be fixed. And now.

I applaud those lawmakers who recognize the coming breakdown of Social Security and are offering possible solutions to make it as solvent as it can be by the time we reach retirement age.

With all the pontificating on the subject of Social Security by both the Democrats and the Republicans, the main point of discussion should be to come up with a workable plan that will actually create money that will be there when my generation goes to retire in 30-40 years.

And because wealth does not create itself, it will be necessary to allow those of us who are decades away from collecting benefits to invest some of OUR money in personal investment accounts.

And that's an important element that has been missing in the debate over Social Security. It's OUR money, not the lawmakers in Washington. Listening to the Democrats on Capitol Hill, you'd think it was THEIR money on the line.

"President Bush should forget about privatizing Social Security," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said on Tuesday. "It will not happen -- and the sooner he comes to that realization, the better off we are."

Who does Harry Reid think he is obstructing any discussion about improving Social Security for people in my generation? I know he's merely pandering to the senior citizen community to keep his precious seat on Capitol Hill. But this isn't about today's Social Security recipients nor is it about the Baby Boomer generation. They'll get all the money they have contributed into Social Security as they should.

But for those of us in the Generation X era and beyond, this is vitally important. While most Democratic and some Republican lawmakers are afraid to support President Bush's plan to allow some of the Social Security money to be invested to earn a profit, it is exactly what is needed for people my age to have something to retire on.

It's not gambling in the stock market, as Democrats suggest, but investing in sound businesses and making smart investments in solid interest-earning accounts that will earn younger workers the money they need when it comes time for them to retire. Why is this so difficult for some people to understand?

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) said on Monday that he "will oppose diverting money from the Social Security trust fund."

What Social Security trust fund, Sen. Nelson?! There isn't one and that's what makes this debate with these Democrats who have no clue so incredibly frustrating. They are only looking at it from the perspective of what they can gain politically today rather than doing what is best for future generations. Sucking up to seniors by making it about them is blatantly dishonest and people my age need to hear that loud and clear because this is about us.

Sen. Nelson added in his comments, "I will fight against cuts to Social Security benefits. I will fight against any plan that relies on massive borrowing and increases the debt. And I will fight to protect this program that provides a safe and reliable source of retirement income for millions of Americans."

What cuts, Sen. Nelson? What plan have you offered to make Social Security what it needs to be? If Social Security is such a "safe and reliable source of retirement," then why are so many workers my age afraid it will not be there when we reach retirement age?

If you really want to fight for something, then how about standing up for the millions upon millions of young workers who want to be assured there will be something there for us when we reach retirement age. What plan do you have to make that happen, Sen. Nelson? I'm waiting.

Expect this debate to continue for many years to come if nothing is done about it in 2005. But with each passing year, it will become more and more evident that something will need to be done to make sure Social Security will be there when my generation comes of age.

Maybe it'll take another decade or two before people my age will be elected to serve on Capitol Hill to actually do something about this very real problem. But the longer we wait to fix the problem with Social Security, the more difficult the decision will be to make the changes necessary.

The time to do this is now. Do it for my generation and the generations that follow. Have the courage to stand up for what is right. Will you join me in this challenge?


Jimmy Moore

Ellie

[ivalis]

jimmy, jimmy, jimmy, you must be another columnist on the republican payroll.

to suggest that there is no social securty trust fund would certainly confound the holders of federal paper.

the current federal debt is about $7.4 trillion held by others in the form of t-bills. of the $7.4 trillion, $1.7 trillion represents the social security trust fund. would you pefer the social security funds be buried in the sand?

as far as private accounts, would you jeopardize your retirement on a roll of the dice that the stock market implies?

the same economic growth estimates that Bush the liar uses to justify the last tax cut would result in the social security trust fund never having a problem paying benefits using the current system. the liar bush uses the most negative assumptions when assessing the social security issue, the most positive when promoting tax cuts. How do you spell hypocrite,i spell it B U S H.

[greensideout]

Social Security is about to get a "wind fall" of cash that no one talks about. It's the 401k's that are about to be cashed in. This is the first time anything like this has happened. It will be like a whole another generation working.

Can't go with the President on this one. The stockmarket is too great a risk and Social Security will be doing fine for a long time.

Maybe the government should just quit spending the funds on other things. Ya right, that's not going to happen! It's not a Trust Fund, it's a general fund tax!

[ivalis]

green, don't follow ya on the 401K windfall. those funds are subject to income tax, not SS tax.

remember the good old days when knob job was in office, we had a surplus then.

[greensideout]

ivalis, 401K's are a cash flow to the goverment that they never had before. Let's face it, the big general pool of money going to DC will be raised with the 401K's and if used correctly, SS can be taken care of.

[ivalis]

to a degree green, don't forget that the 401 k funds are merely replacing wages formerly earned by the recipients, not additional funds

[greensideout]

Exactly! As if they never left the workplace.

[ivalis]

except as an employee you were contributing to SS, now you would be claiming from the fund. two different sources/expenditures of revenue.

[yellowwing]

Running out of money by the year blah-blah. Why can't the US Government earn more money? <br />
<br />
Don't they already charge communication companies to use NASA to launch their satellites? <br />
<br />
When we sell...

[greensideout]

Agree yellowwing!

[greensideout]

Originally posted by ivalis
except as an employee you were contributing to SS, now you would be claiming from the fund. two different sources/expenditures of revenue.

Humm---how many pockets does the government have?

I think that they have just one big pocket. They can take it out of that big pocket and use it for SS or pork, or whatever they wish.

The way I see it is that the government is just trying to pump the economy by deverting SS payments into the stock market.

[kentmitchell]

Guys, <br />
<br />
Anytime the govt. &quot;charges&quot; any business to use anything, guess who pays? Biz passes the increase to us. <br />
As for Bush's plan, it's a great idea, especially for younger guys. <br />
Anyone...

[hrscowboy]

let me get this right now our president said last night that he wants this private deal for all people under 55 now did i not hear him say that there would be only 5 different accounts that you will be able to contribute too and that when you do reach retirement age you can only draw so much a month like ss is now and not a large lump sum? buttom line gentleman i have a 401 k and since this recession we where in, me and my wife on both 401 k have lost money on the damn things, needless to say both the wife and i cashed them in and turned around and bought cattle now granted the first year we made nothing and the second year when we sold the calves we made money better than we did when it was a 401k. Now i understand not everyone can do that but if you trust the government to play with your money you aint going to get **** in return.

[kentmitchell]

401Ks are like the stock market--they fluctuate.
They go up. They go down. That's short term.
In the long run, though, you can count on them going up, up, up.
Get a good one. Make weekly deposits, or better, get it on payroll deduction. Forget about it. Don't look at it every day because some days it can get scary.
I can remember two periods where the market hit bottom and it looked like I lost all my money. Since then, it's come back twice and I've doubled it. I couldn't have done it any other way.
And I didn't have to worry about stepping in cow sh*t.

[hrscowboy]

Yep kent your right you dont have to step in the mess, The bottom line is I dont want anyone telling me what i can and cant do with my money, or how much i am going to have each month to live on because SS dont pay crap. people pay into this system all there lives and most only average 1500 a month at best and thats without a pension. and if you live 5 years after you retire and die all the money you put into the system is lost. lets do alittle math here if you have lets say 100 head of cattle and each cow has 1 baby a year and that baby grows to 700 pounds and you ship that baby to market and you get 1.10 cent a pound for that calf thats 770.00 per calf and you sell 100 head ? Can you make that kind of money on a 401K in one year???

[hrscowboy]

just keep on eating beef and enjoy and think about old cowboy every time you eat a hamburger or a steak or a roast because i will be more than glad to shake your hand and say thank you brother for supporting me in a fashion i like...

[kentmitchell]

OK. How much did you pay for each 700-pound cow (steer? cayuse?) as it grew up?
Is that $770 per calf net (after expenses) or gross?
Might be you aren't making as much as you thought.
The beauty, to me, of investing--and here I mean longterm with a mutual like Vanguard's Total Stock Index fund--is that there is no inventory, it doesn't need constant attention from me and there are no cow patties to step in.

[greensideout]

Originally posted by kentmitchell

The beauty, to me, of investing--and here I mean longterm with a mutual like Vanguard's Total Stock Index fund--is that there is no inventory, it doesn't need constant attention from me and there are no cow patties to step in.


I don't mind cow patties, they smell like money to me. (Used to raise a few cows.) Thanks for the steak cowboy!

Of course longterm investment is a good idea! But why have the government take your money, invest it for you and then tell you how much it is worth? If they do a good job of investing---you win. If they do a poor job---you lose. Another point, what if you retired at the time of a market low? Answer---you lose! I just don't think the current plan as given is the right plan.