Jacob Hornberger asks a good question: "Why not end Social Security rather than simply reform or save it?" President Bush speaks of "keeping the promise of Social Security" and "strengthening Social Security." Though his modest plan goes in the right direction, his rhetoric goes the wrong way. And since his plan stands a less than even chance of becoming law, we'll likely be left with just his "me-too" rhetoric--a bipartisan consensus that Social Security is worth saving. "What better example of socialism is there than Social Security," Hornberger wonders, "especially given its core feature--the coercive redistribution of wealth from young to old, from poor to rich, and from blacks to whites?" Why, again, should I want to save this?

Decreasing revenue as a long-term way to decrease spending: If the Republicans were clever, they would propose eliminating taxes on social security. Seniors would support it, Democrats could not oppose it, and it would further decrease the amount of cash government has on hand for spending.

I would gladly cut my losses and forfeit any claim to social security benefits, if I could opt out of the system from here on out. End it! By all means, end it.

Could Capitalism survive if it fails to accomodate via social programs its needy? Will the Social Security recipients just disappear in a new(?) economic system of social darwinism?

I don't think Social Security is much of a performer when compared to how people prepare for retirement. 401Ks seem to work better. Perhaps we cannot avoid making good on payment of Social Security for seniors and people down to, say, 55.

Actually, means-tested benefits for people disabled by age is a program that would find public support. Mixing it all together in a one-size-fits-all retirement program for rich and poor alike is absurdly broad. A safety net for the elderly poor: why not? There will be darn few elderly poor if they set aside 12% of their paychecks in diverse investments.

Anyone know of a good link that describes exactly how things were before social security?

www.trackerschool.com

So what we're intially saying is that Social Security is an illegimate system that does nothing for young adults?

I disagree because the solution although needed is one that shouldn't be rushed. We must look at all the options in a vigilant manner. A way that already allows for young adults and all walks of life the opportunity to invest in their own future without government intervention as the plans being currently floated? Why do we need to divert or eliminate the system as proposed? I don't think thats necessary although the "evil" solution of raising taxes for certain fixes like Social Security solvence and the deficit are ideas that we should make a reality that "sacrifices for generations" and strengthens the country as a whole. The Pres. talks about sacrifice well lets sacrifice some political capital for the sake of two problems he doesn't view realistically?

I think the reason we don't end it, is because the public support for that measure just isn't there. Bush has to "reform" it, in order to get the public ear. If Bush is fighting an uphill battle on reform, just think what a battle he'd be fighting on ending it.

You make a point that the rhetoric might just add more "me-too"-ism from the GOP side. And I think pubs should realize sometime that you can't stir the air with your finger testing the wind. But I just don't think the voting public is that non-redistributionist.

The more the public hears about his plans for reform the more they're unwilling to support it. The new polls have shown that his support for reform is waning. How come? Because people realize the system isn't broke yet admit it needs fixing. A fixing that is manageable over time and not needed exactly at this moment.

I will say this in contrary to my beliefs I like the idea of personal retirement accounts yet not at a borrowed cost that adds to the deficit. Remember.. those with the means can start their own personal retirement accounts without the governments help as proposed. Why do we need to create accounts for people who are putting into the system? Silly... We can do this already without assuming any transition costs or borrowing money to start them.

I have one on my own and I don't make a lot of money however I know that Social Security is something we will need in the future and I think if we find manageable solutions we will thus have cured the issues at hand. There are many who make millions and thus believe that Social Security is "illegitmate" and not solvent... Don't be fooled by the rhetoric.

We all forget that Social Security is a "social safety net" that will be there if your personal retirement account goes belly up.

Why put that at risk? Only a fool would do that?

Start your own IRA or retirement account without government intervention and let the system continue do its job while focusing on manageable solutions that can be incrementally made.

Sptifly - I am not a millionaire. I'm a thousandaire (and not many of that, either). It is all the more important to someone in my shoes to keep what they earn and not have a singificant chunk sucked into Social Security.

Of course the wealthy are going to make their own arrangements. They always do. The real nitty-gritty is, what kind of options are open to the rest of us? The government naturally fears that many people in my situation would simply spend the extra hundreds instead of channelling them into any sort of savings or retirement. No doubt some would. But that is their choice, and not any state's.

Let's say Uncle Sam decided that Social Security was OVER. Everyone over 55 keeps their benefits (on the theory that they don't have time to start over, and it's cheaper paying some than paying all). Everyone under 35 gets all their money back. Everyone else will get their benefits at their current levels, and had best get to saving up to make the difference count.

Leave aside for the moment whether the government can foot that bill right now... Bring it down to the individual level. What would I do with an extra (for the sake of argument) $15,000? The answer is, anything I jolly well please. Even if I spent it all on devilled ham, I'll be better off because the couple of thousand I would be losing each year afterward remain in my pay (less the FICA withholding, of course). I can invest that extra 2K every year. I can aggressively pay off debts.

The point is, that's a little more flexibility for a working schlub to make decisions for the future. I don't say that a sudden lemming-like drop off the cliff is the most desirable 'reform.' I do say that regarding Social Security, the government is ironically much in the same position as a young worker - the longer they wait to prepare for retirement, the worse the fiscal beating.

That is ironic Nightfly, good point.

Sadly enough the government cannot foot the bill for some of your money to be diverted into private accounts. This would be imprudent considering the current budget deficit. We have about a 25 to 30 year window where incremental changes should be made. Sure... I agree maybe you or I should be allowed a portion or all of our Social Security money so that we can invest BUT I think its best to fix the "social safety net" and educate the many on investing for the future with what they earn.

Oh.. and Uncle Sam won't end Social Security as we know it.

What if some old goat doesn't want to learn how to become an investor?

Then that is his own fault...

Self-reliance and survival... His stubborness will eventually hurt him.

How do we reconcile "That is his own fault... Self-reliance and survival" with "I think it's best to fix the 'social safety net'"?

I don't want to learn too much about investing either. That's why man invented the mutual fund. I'm sure that there's a compromise position to be reached - perhaps offering some people the choice to remain in the Social Security program. If I remember correctly, that's the way Champ Clark wrote it up for the Senate back in '35. (It was FDR's arm-twisting of the House that caused the program to be made mandatory.)

"How do we reconcile "That is his own fault... Self-reliance and survival" with "I think it's best to fix the 'social safety net'"?"

Precisely as stated... If he is at the age where he begins receiving social security payments then why should he learn to invest? He paid into the system and worked hard to earn what is his under the current system... It is his safety net. It is not my problem he never learned to invest properly or at all. We have choices in life to make and our world, like it or not, is really one based on self-reliance and survival. So a person like you or I will invest in say a mutual fund and still have that safety net I am talking about yet investing is an option, a choice, a decision we have available for us to secure our future. Not everyone is comfortable with diverting money out of Social Security and the polls continues to show a public becoming more wary of the idea.

Social Security should be fixed for the sake of future generations and future generations should be educated on the fundamentals of investing and monet management therefore future generations can invest all they want through their own means(self-reliance) yet it would be best served to have the "social safety net" in place as fix someone can get if their investments go belly up.

"and monet management"

I meant "money management"... My apologies for not thoroughly checking all my grammar. I am not talking about art management.

LOL, I kind of like the idea of monet management. I could minor in van Gogh. And that was a good answer overall, by the way. I hadn't realized you were talking about two different things. Still, there's a couple of quibbles I'd like to iron out if we can.

1 - He paid into the system and worked hard to earn what is his under the current system...
To be more accurate, he was forced to pay into the system; his 'earned' reward is at the sufferance of the government. That is not a healthy state of affairs. Again, had Champ Clark prevailed, Social Security would have been more flexible, not compulsory.** So I'd add to your original (and accurate) point that our hypothetical pensioner was denied the chance to be self-reliant in his old age; his reliance is instead on the State.

2 - Not everyone is comfortable with diverting money out of Social Security and the polls continues to show a public becoming more wary of the idea.
Polls I've seen suggest that the public becomes more wary with the idea according to their age. Support for reform shrinks until a majority over 50 are against it. But yes, the numbers are down since December. Perhaps it was how they asked? When asked if tax dollars ought to be invested, people disagree (and good for them); when asked to consider one's own money being given back and invested, then the numbers are higher in favor. This PDF (not long; you'll want questions 8-16) has some interesting breakdowns.

** In fact, I didn't remember a key point about Clark's idea - the employer got to choose, not the employee, which is still a great limitation. The accounts still would not have belonged to the taxpayer. It's actually kind of amazing to me that it took so long to return to the idea that the ultimate 'portability' in retirement funding belongs to the individual, and not the government.