“SS was NOT established an the premise of a PONZI scheme”

I don’t have the time to research it now, but SS is certaintly a ponzi scheme as it operates today. I put in for the next 35 (or 50 years lol) just so I can receive an income stream later. The only thing that would not make it a ponzi scheme if the money stayed in the trust (which I think is how it was originally established)

Come on, spill it!

I’m a big fan of social security. I agree with you that now is a good time to fix it, I mean it’s a been a long time since the Greenspan commission righted the ship. It’s time for another adjustment.

I’d be in favor of a bunch of stuff: Raise the retirement age, cut benefits (especially for earlier retirements), and increase the social security wage base (it’s something like $110k this year…why not 250K?).

But we’ll see if anyone is brave enough to touch the 3rd rail.

Do you even read the articles you’re linking to in your post?

Here’s what it says in the USA Today article: “The public’s views are more dire than the calculations of Social Security’s trustees. Last year, they projected the system would begin running in the red in 2016, as the Baby Boom generation retired, and the trust fund would be exhausted in 2037.

Even then, Social Security — which celebrates its 75th anniversary next month — could finance about three-fourths of current benefits through the payroll tax.”

Is this bankrupt to you?

Here’s now a fragment from the Washington Post article you link to: “The few dissenting voices in the Cannon Center for the Performing Arts were quickly silenced or escorted out by security. One woman with a soft voice but firm opposition to Bush was asked to leave, even though her protests were barely audible beyond her section in the back corner of the auditorium. The carefully screened panelists spoke admiringly about Bush, his ideas, his “bold” leadership on Social Security.”

Go ahead, read it all, it’s very informative… too bad the article was written in 2005. I wonder if those enthusiastic supporters of private accounts still feel the same way now.

Maybe next time, if you want to make your point about how “bankrupt” SS is, you should at least link to the Wall Street Journal editorial page or Fox News, no?

Where do you such absurd ideas?

Over the years, the game has changed, but the original design was not flawed. What is flawed are the politicians who provide too much in cost of living raises.

What is flawed in ignoring the fact that life expectancy is much longer than it was when SS was initiated. The retirement age must be raised to 70 and then gradually higher as life expectancy rises.

SS was always intended to be supplemental income. If people were clueless and refused to save money so they could live off SS, then that’s their problem.

Just for the record, I’m collecting SS and and am not against the program. Just the irresponsible, vote-seeking, cowardly legislators who refuse to do the right thing.