Should Social Security be taken out of the Federal budget?
115987
Can liberals think for themselves or they just spit out the talking points the DNC gives them?\n\nSS needs to be reformed.  Any program that takes 15% of your money at gunpoint and gives you a rate of return of about 2% is just wrong.  What if you die at 58?  Your heirs get $255.  \n\nW's reform plan is a good one.  Keep most of the revenue going in to the program to pay for the retirees AND allow younger workers to start their own accounts.  Every 5-10 years increase the percentage we can put into our own accounts.  In a generation we will all have our own accounts and not have to worry about the government borrowing from SS.  Then if we die at 58 our savings go to our heirs as it should.\n\nThe only reason liberals want to keep SS is because EVERY election they threaten old people that Republicans will take away their SS if you elect them.  They have been saying that for at least 25 years (thats as long as I have been paying attention) and it hasn't happened yet.
945525
When  you include everything, all our debt, the number is over 50 trillion.  " A billion here and a billion there, soon you are talking about real money."  It is all a colossal shell game perpetrated on the public.  Social Security was supposed to be a fund that contributions went in to, and benefits were to be taken from the interest.  If left alone, there would be more than enough money now to draw from.  Instead, Congress adopted another criminal  practice and started, in the sixties, dumping that money in the general fund to be spent every year on their pet projects, like Vietnam.  Today is  the same with Iraq.  I imagine they call it creative bookkeeping 101.
82186
Defense spending is one of the top priorities of the Federal Government. Defense should not take a rest because of "peacetime". Our enemies will always continue to upgrade their abilities, whether there is a declared war or not. We cannot fall asleep at the switch.\n\nIf someone wants budget cuts, take it from art grants, charity handouts and other things that are not within the realm of what the Federal Government was set up to be.
1111690
I think that it is an unprecedented attempt of the Federal Government to interject itself to an area which it has never been authorized to previously involve itself.  As a Southerner, I am against it.  I do not want marriage administered with all the efficiency of the Social Security Administration.\n\nI am for the preservation of marriage.  Please keep the Feds out of it.  The Federal government's powers have been limited since its inception to regulating interstate commerce, international relations, civil rights, and similar areas where "Balkanization" of the 50 states would impede our country's effectiveness.\n\nIf you are so inclined to "defend marriage" please do so with your local and state government.  People who disagree with you could at least go to another state in accordance with the dictate of their own conscience.\n\nEDIT: To Grandma Susie down there... if any "marriage" or family has failed it is the fault of the members of that family.  To randomly place blame on others for one's own faults is rather silly.\n\nThe Democrats never broke up any of my relationships... despite my most sincere requests to them.
1157588
I believe they would if they had to live off the very little given in social security...  But they don't worry about it, as they will never have to live off of the little over $600 a month (way below poverty level)...\n\nAlthough, people today use SS as a way to retire, when it was originally designed to help penioners back when it was created.  It wasn't meant as a sole income...
474044
There is currently a YEARLY surplus of Social Security  withholding that is being generated by boomers being at their highest lifetime earning levels, and a not-yet increased demand for Social security payments.  It is decreasing fast.\nThis surplus is 'borrowed' into the general budget of the United States.\nIn order to pay Social security back, taxes would have to be increased, because...we just borrowed that money from ourselves.\n\nIf people stop contributing into Social security and start putting money into Individual Investment accounts, the Social Security payments will not have enough SS withholding to pay them - in other words, the people who paid into Social Security all their lives would face a insolvent fund.\n\nOnce you put your money into a Social Security personal investment (with a contracted outside investment company) your investment has the same pitfalls that private investing has.  It can suddenly lose half it's value during a market correction, it can be lost entirely should the country go through one of the downturns that usually happen about every 50 years...\n\nPanics, recessions and Depression are cyclical economic downturns that have roiled this country on a regular basis since it's birth.  They are characterized by bank failures, bankruptcies, foreclosures, business failures, and declines in property values.  Before the very recent creation of Social security, the term for retirement during an economic downturn was PAUPER.
777604
Democrats will not address Social Security disparities, they have proved this time and again. They prefer to demonize Republicans and use fear tactics as a means to scare the elderly. The honest truth is that the fund is going broke and the latest analysis shows that the fund will be operating at a deficit by 2017 with the fund being completely exhausted by 2040 without immediate adjustments in revenue. The SSI trustees estimate that in order to save SSI and preserve solvency for the next 75 years would require an immediate increase of 16% in payroll taxes, or a 31% reduction in current benefits. People ignore these numbers at their own peril. Best advice is do not count on Social Security as your primary means of retirement. Personally I am over halfway to retirement age and do plan to be able to enjoy a good quality of life when the time comes. For this reason I am investing heavily in my 401K and IRA.
829452
That is the question of the day and I have finally realized what their game is,..... now hold on to your knickers; Why would fiscal conservatives, so opposed to spending, run up a historic debt and not even make excuses.....because they want to bring the country to the brink of bankruptcy, so they can destroy Social Security and every other social program in this country. Do not dismiss this out of hand, these people are cunning and ruthless, they have no conscience, and they have been trying to destroy these programs for 70 years. Secondly, they can blame the Democrats for the mess.
907129
The federal government keeps all tax money paid.  If no return is filed, assuming there was a refund due, the money just goes into the general fund.\n\nSocial Security is going bankrupt because congress has been raiding the social security trust fund for years to pay for pet programs without appearing to increase the budget deficit.  Yes, both democratic and republican congresses have done this.  Officially it's a "loan" from the trust fund, but it never gets paid back, and the money doesn't earn interest (which it would have if it had been in the trust fund).\nSocial Security isn't going bankrupt because there are too many baby boomers going to retire at the same time, it's going bankrupt because the congressmen we've elected have robbed us blind.\n\nBTW, there *is* a surplus in both taxes and SS every year from illegal immigrants who use fraudulent IDs.  Kicking them all out would end that surplus, and both SS and the federal budget would be even worse off than they are now.
729429
Heck, I would be happy to get Congressional oversight back. \nYou can bet privatizing Social Security won't go very far this next time either.
55010
Of course not. It would still be in fine shape if Congress had not utilized its funds for other purposes. Even then, and assuming a mediocre economy, it would pay a good percentage of the pension amounts for the next 50 years or so.\nI am afraid that the hype about its demise was fostered by an administration that wants to get rid of it and support a plan that will be enormously profitable for brokers and financial advisers, among others. And a plan that will be enormously expensive for us to implement, while at the same time removing the security that people have worked to obtain in their elderly years.
258868
A Federally funded "government entitlement", as I'm expecting your question is in reference to, is a benefit paid for by the U.S. taxpayer to assist those in need of opportunity.  That's a laymen's definition.  \n\nSocial Security is a forced entitlement, created by FDR.  It was meant to create revenue for the Government at the time of its inception. Citizens are forced to pay into SS and that money generated by the Federal Government is invested and draws interest.  It is funnelled to various accounts and is part of the Federal Budget.  Check the accounting principles that regulate it.  You will find that SS monies are used to pay for SS, as well as other government subsidies and entitlements, such as WELFARE, FARMER SUBSIDIES, ETC.\n\nQuite frankly, I'd rather have that money that I've been forced to pay the imperial federal government.  I'd invest it and I'd earn MORE MONEY that what SS is yielding.  This is a policy that President BUSH wanted to happen.  Afterall, ALL FEDERAL employees have this as a program. So, why can't we?  Answer:  Democratic leadership, led by Ted Kennedy, argue that SS is needed.  Why?  see my point above about how it's used.  These people use scare tactics to convince people that SS is a Security Blanket, because they're too foolish with their money.  Let GOVERNMENT handle your own financial portfolio.  Not ME.  I can earn MORE MONEY without the GOVERNMENT telling me what to do.  \n\nYou can too.  \n\nAsk your SENATOR or your REPRESENTATIVE about whether or not they are part of the PRIVATE investment program that FEDERAL employees have that we don't have (we have SS-- yippee).
791029
Unfortunately, one of the most corrupt government spending programs is entitlements/welfare.  I really dont know how to fix it now since it is far out of control.  It would be hard to reform the system and "fine-tune" it when it is so far out of control, but we should give it a go.  I say out of control because some people who as far as I can see receive these entitlements now are not worthy of such benefits.  I think people who are deserving of these benefits are only the eldely and handicapped (mentally or physically).  Any person who can physically work should be working, ceteris paribus!  I understand that is an issue for debate with some.\n\nFurthermore, I think taxes should be levied entirely on a user basis.  I am speaking not only of school taxes, but I am going to take it a bit further by saying there should be no income taxes, instead tax items for sale.  Basically, what you buy is taxed by the government in place of the income tax.  Why should people have to pay taxes on items they do not benefit from, ie. school taxes for single homes.  I understand there are some issues with this, but it is just a thought.
102152
Entitlements are the number one killer of the us economy.  We pay so much more in taxes because of the programs. When you make it easy for people not to work the inclined they are not.  Our government should cut these programs agressively but a majority of the congress doenst have the guts to do it.  You look at the best economy as far as capita per person it is Ireland. They have a flax tax of 16 percent and very few social programs.
380569
No, it will not affect your social security benefit as the law is written now. Your SSA payment is dependent upon how much you earned. They are talking about taking it away or reducing it for people who earn more, but I don't think that would pass.
408121
Yes it is mandated.  They only way out is if you work for a state that has it's own equilivant of SS.  For example in TX state employees pay into a state program and thus don't pay into SS.  This can cause problems though if you leave state employment for the private sector and then plan on retiring.  Since your earnings aren't going to SS while with the state they do NOT count toward SS retirement/disability.
10388
Yes, the government may withhold up to 15% of Social Security benefits to pay back taxes.  There are some exceptions, which include lump sum death benefits, benefits paid to children, special benefits for persons aged 72 and over by 1971, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments, and payments with partial withholding to repay a debt owed to Social Security.