Whatever happened to Bush's idea of putting social security into the hands of corporate Wall Street funds?
369152
Most people have been scared off of this half-baked ideas for various reasons.\n\nFirst, alot of people feel very uncomfortable giving the cornerstone of their retirement to the same people who stole the retirement accounts at Enron, Worldcom, etc.\n\nSecond, there were too many foolish promises made by the President, who said people could be as reckless as they wanted and still have some minimum guaranteed amount at retirement.\n\nMy personal feeling, however, is that the government has grown too addicted to skimming off of the Social Security collections in order to hide how much in debt we truly are. The government currently works with two sets of figures, the debt amount we admit to and the total debt we really owe which is much scarier.
415379
Here is the problem... "HOW".\n\nDo you honestly think that big corporate interests would allow the possibility that our government would be changed?  \n\nOur current system of government exists for the benefit of big business.  Corporate welfare runs this country.  Any attempt to change this government runs the risk that:\n\n1.  the new government could be potentially unstable.  Not good for investment.  Our economy would have severe problems.\n\n2.  how would we decide on a new form of government?  We would never be able to agree on anything as a population\n\n3.  So "who" would decide if we can't?  Big Business!  They would step in and we would create a government even more corrupt than before!\n\n4.  Reality:  The average American prefers safety and security.  I doubt that they would be interested in eliminating the current government.  I imagine that most would actively fight to keep the old one.  Look at the rampant scandals currently going on... and a significant portion of the population still supports their actions!\n\n5.  The media.  If you actually managed to start a grass-roots effort to oust the government and form a new one... how will you communicate your messages nationwide?  When Ross Perot ran for President, he HAD TO SUE to get his commercials on the air!!!  Do you honestly think that the media corporations would allow such a movement to gain significant steam?\n\nI applaud your enthusiasm... I recommend voting your conscience (i.e. vote for a third party) in future elections and spread your message to friends and neighbors.  However, I think that corporations have replaced human beings as the dominant life-form on this planet.
818642
There aren't any ties any more because Enron no longer exists (it sold its last assets in September).  When it did exist, it had several significant connections to the Republican Party:\n\n1)  In the late 1980s, they worked on some joint ventures with George W. Bush's company, Spectrum 7, which led to some close personal relationships between Bush and some key leaders at Enron.\n2)  Kenneth Lay, Enron's CEO, was an undersecretary in the Department of Interior in the Nixon administration.\n3)  Lay was a major contributor to the Presidential campaign of George W. Bush, and was considered for the position of Treasury Secretary.\n4)  Enron donated approximately $6M to Republican candidates between 1990 and its demise.
355001
this was not enacted by congress. The 4% you are referring to is Social Security with holdings they were going to allow you to self direct for your own retirement. I urge you to save it any way in a ROTH  I.R.A..
156286
Corporate America will do anything to make or save a buck.  They pay off the lawmakers to make it easy for them to screw the rest of us.  Eventually we, as a people, will wake up and throw the bastards out and get back to working for ourselves rather than for Bush's friends.
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.
71820
People invested heavily with borrowed money and insider trading was out of control....so they say.  When the stock market chucked, none of the banks could get their money back because none of the investors had the money to do it.  People rushed to the bank to take out any money they had.  People who had money in the bank couldn't even get it back because the banks had loaned it out to investors.  There were no rules like we have today against some of these shady procedures.  There was no social security or public aid to help out the old/poor people.  Also, I don't think your money was insured by the bank like it is today.
492138
Sadly, you are trying to pretend that this happened only during Clinton's years, so unfortunately if I agree with you in part I fear I am going to hurt your feelings again. This is not intended to be a slander against you, because you are right in what you say, you just don't go far enough.\n\nYou are right, every President's budget since 1982 has skimmed money out of the Social Security Trust Fund to hide how much the deficit is. This past year, the federal government diverted over 400 billion (I forgot who the President is now, apparently you did too). Regardless of who was in office during these last 25 years (8 years dems and 17 years reps) it has been shameless and criminal. And yes, you are right, this is the REAL problem with Social Security; if it had been left alone from the beginning, there would still be enough of a build-up for many years of Baby Boomer retirements until the population stabilizes again. Technically the Trust Fund is full, but in actuality it is full of inter-governmental bonds (the treasury borrows from SS and gives an IOU).\n\nWe should all be ashamed that we have allowed this to go on for so long, even though the government has done such a good job trying to make certain we didn't notice it.
1137102
There is only 1 - if you want a successful economy with a balanced budget, you use the PAY AS YOU GO system that Clinton did. BTW, Bush immediately stopped using this system as soon as he became president in 2000.
403543
Social security was NEVER meant to be a pension used for retirement. It was initially pushed on to the public by FDR as a SUPPLEMENT to retirement savings of individuals. Probably the biggest hoax ever in the history of the federal government, people have been brainwashed into believing SS will take care of them in their old age. It will NOT. Rather, it is in the process of bankrupting us as a nation.\n\nTo support this, I would ask you to refer to ANY private OR state retirement system, all of which leave SS in the dust in terms of benefits.\n\nI am familiar with the retirement plans for state employees in Massachusetts and Maine. BOTH far exceed the benefit of SS and for years required less from a weekly paycheck. Check it out and see if your state does not have a better plan than SS. I'll bet it does! ANYTHING done by the federal government costs MORE than if the same program were to be done at the state or local level. However, we continue to look to the feds and panic whenever someone mentions an alternative to SS. Look what happened to Barry Goldwater in 1964 when he propsed alternatives to SS. He was buried in the election.
712122
See SunsetSam above. Bush already slashed the funding a long time ago. He never intended to fund what he calls "goofy" people and evangelical "freaks". He already had what he wanted.\n\nSo though the bush-league did dole out billions it did not go to charities of any sort, "faith" based or otherwise.
2541
in my opinion social security cards have gotten out of hand you need one for everything. when it first started out it was an optional retirement program funded by your tax dollars.. and look at it now you need it to get married its messed up
573305
social security reform?
121220
No, alot of older conservitives don't want social security messed with, It really is a bad idea to invest in a stock market with its ups and downs. There must be an answer between that and the way it is going.
9651
No.  It's entirely possible that there will still be a program called "Social Security," as names sometimes last longer than things, but over the next few decades technology is going to change so dramatically that very little of the current political and economic paradigm will be able to survive intact.  Social Security is already somewhat anachronistic (it assumes structurally, for instance, that a 65 year old is beyond their useful working life and near death) and as reality continues to change around it there is no question that it will have to be transformed in ways which leave it unrecognizable. <3
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.
165091
No.  IRA's may not hold certain classes of assets and closely held corporations are one of them.  Likewise, if you happened to be the Chairman of IBM, you couldn't invest in that either.