adam, please explain how diverting funds from social security will help the system stay afloat.

then explain how poor people will somehow benefit from a system that would be based on how much you earn (presumably, low earners will accumulate less in their 'personal accounts' than high earners, right?).

why not raise the payroll tax by 1%? this will essentially fix the solvency issue. why not remove the cap on taxable income? only the first $90,000 of a persons annual income is taxable for social security. is that cap necessary?

for an economics major, you need to take some basic math classes. too bad we don't have common sense classes too.

Bush's scheme is DOA.

What was the point of this article? You offer no new info or insight; just a rehash of the same talking points that have been out there for months. Now move along.

Adam, watching Hannity and Colmes does not count as research.

David Walker, Comptroller General for the GAO testified that not only is there NOT a crisis in the Social Security system but also that Bush's account plan would actually hasten the date when SS woulod be paying more than it's taking in.

Rest assured folks, Bush's plans to overhaul social security are most certainly not dead. Congress is in the process of putting their heads together on the issue and whether the far left democrats want it or not, something will be done to fix the system.

Why not remove the cap on taxable income which currently sits at $90,000? Because higher income people already pay a share of lower income people's social security benefits and we don't intend to increase that share.

Hey Adam! You lied! The trust will not be bankrupt by 2042. It will simply be paying out more than it takes in, but it won't be gone. Also, that figure is a conservative one based on growth that our economy is actually exceeding, which pushes that date out further year after year.

Let's see...more of Adam's lies are...the 20% service fees that will bae taken off the top of your personal accounts (which is why Wall Street is drooling, but not speaking up about this. They can take such obscene amounts of money from this program they aren't promoting it for fear people will actually find out who benefits, them, not you). These service fees are what has kept both Britain and Argentina's private account retirement funds from actually making their investors more money than the government accounts.

Adam...this is such party line hackery that honestly, I can't believe you can breathe you've got your head so far up the elephant's butt it's amazing you can see.

No one...and I mean 28% of the American people, actually support this stuff. "The crisis is now!" rhetoric is just that, hot air from blowhards.

Try again next time Adam. Dumbest. Worst. Poorest. Column. Ever.

SS is the biggest Ponzi game that the world has ever seen. There is no way that the current system will pay out to those on the bottom of this pyramid scam.

The so-called "Trust Fund" is an accounting fraud that makes WorldCon and Enron look like paragons of accounting integrity. There are no real assets in the "Trust Fund", only IOUs from one US Government agency to another. You can set yourself up with the same kind of trust fund. Write "I promise to pay Myself $1,000,000" on a piece of paper and putting it in your pocket. You now have a million dollar "Trust Fund" that is just a valuable to you as the SS "Trust Fund" id to the US Government. Of course the US Government does have the option of just printing more money -- mega-inflation anyone? In the absence of that option, spending cuts or tax increases will be required when SS outgo starts to exceed income.

The private accounts are just an attempt to give younger workers some hope and to ease the blow when the system collapses.

Why should I have to pay social security benefits to Bill Gates?

Why don't we scale back SS? That is, wealth index it for those under 55. We offset this loss of benefits with private accounts.

SS's purpose is to shift wealth between generations. Why should we have a massive program to shift even more wealth to the wealthiest generation in the history of the planet?

Those worthless IOUs are treasury bonds moron. Do you really want to encourage the world to look at its investment in our country as worthless?

My 401k is in the stock market. My pension is in the stock market. Because this can only be a voluntary program my only garaunteed retirment benefit will not go into the stock market as well. I'm not going to be watching the ticker for the next 40 years. I am also not going to pay back George's campaign contributors with my retirement fund.

"Why should I have to pay social security benefits to Bill Gates?"

Because if you don't, then SS is just a welfare system financed by a payroll tax. Maybe that is what SS what it will end up being, but few seem willing to repudiate the current fantasy that it's a retirement investment program.

Talk to older people collecting SS, most firmly beleive that they are getting back the money that they paid in with interest. The reality is quite different, as this is a Ponzi scam. For older people, the "return" is outstanding, particularly for those with lower incomes (and therefore "contributions"). The less old you are, the worse the return. Someone just now entering the work force would probably get a better return by burying the money in a jar.

"Those worthless IOUs are treasury bonds moron. Do you really want to encourage the world to look at its investment in our country as worthless?"

USA Treasury bonds held by China are actual assets to China because they represent a claim on the USA. USA Treasury bonds held by the USA represent a claim on the USA, which is not even remotely the same thing.

An entity can't consider liabilities to itself as an asset. Here's a simple example that even a simpleton should be able to understand.

If you owe me money, I may be able to collect some cash from you and increase the amount of cash I have. If I owe money to myself, any cash I collect doesn't increase the amount of cash I have. I guess I could move cash from one pocket to another but that doesn't change my financial position.

ps. I do worry about the possibility that someday China may stop sending us neat manufactured goods in trade for pieces of paper.

SS was NEVER an investment program. It has always been a social insurance program, designed to provide a basic income--nothing fancy--in case of financial disaster or other problems.

Other than the fact that the plan introduces increased risk into a system where very few people want risk, doesn't solve the solvency problem, will increase the national debt right away by billions of dollars, raises the overhead of the program significantly (eroding the possibility of gains), will require the government to step in to pay EXTRA money for those who do go below the guaranteed benefit during a short-to-medium term loss before their retirement, and provide the possibility for corruption among the private firms selected...

Other than that, the plan rocks!

"possibility for corruption among the private firms selected"

ROFLMAO - how much worse could it get, we've already been scammed out of 100%? Uncle Sam has spent all the SS contributions and the only thing that's left is a bunch of papers that say "I owe Uncle Sam", signed Uncle Sam.

Lordy, the amount of ignorance in this room stinks! You people are so misinformed, it's silly. but that is what happens when you drink the Fox Kool-Aid day in and day out. Losing touch with reality is just the first sign of Republican brainwashing. Next is the purchase of an SUV. Then you get yourself a nice compliant, quiet wife you get to cheat on with your co-workers, because hey, you might go to church, but a man's got needs! Then, you bitch about the blacks and the gays and the poor people taking away all your hard earned money.

Let's see. Social Security is based on payroll taxes. How much money to rich people make in income? Virtually none. It's all investments, interest, capital gains...all these things NOT contributing to Social Security.

Social Security is regressive. The more you make, the less you get. So right now the poorest of the poor get about $1400 a month. That's it folks. If you make over $55,000 in retirement funds, you get nothing.

Let's talk about facts, instead of assinine bullshit. Is that possible with Republicans? This "plan" of Bush's (which by the way, where is it? When will it come out? Everything in Adam's article is total conjecture, Bush hasn't even VOLUNTEERED THE DETAILS!).

Lord, I want to puke in the soup of every rich fuck who complains about Social Security. A drop in the bucket of their wealth goes into it, and they cry like the giant fucking pussies they are.

Oh, and private accounts will return LESS than the current Social Security pays out, and Bush admits that even his so called plan (of which, again, there are no details) does nothing to catch up the shortfall. So what the fuck is he doing? Giving back to his Wall Street buddies, that's what.

The only ones being suckered right now are Republicans who will invest these crackpot things and see their retirement funds dwindle. To which I say, caveat emptor.

"Rest assured folks, Bush's plans to overhaul social security are most certainly not dead."

Check the latest polls; all the old coots are dead set against this and a good chunk of the Republican Senators know better than to mess with their wishes. The only option to save Bush's scheme is a 99-yard hail mary pass with 1 second on the clock.

"Oh, and private accounts will return LESS than the current Social Security pays out"

Those receiving benefits now are getting a tremedous return but that's how a Ponzi game works - the early marks make out fine but it's those paying in now who stand to get a poor (to negative) return.

"Losing touch with reality...", I agree, Bush should just tell people straight out that SS is a fraud, has always been a fraud and can never be anything but a fraud.

Charles K. Ponzi Website
http://www.mark-knutson.com/

"I have gotten a lot of letters from people who liken our Social Security system to a Ponzi scheme. I wholeheartedly agree with this characterization. Like early participants in any pyramid scheme, those who have retired,or retire today, will receive benefits several times greater than their actual contributions and the investment income thereof. Secondly, Social Security is managed by a group of people who are by and large con artists: politicians. And most significantly, when my generation becomes eligible for Social Security, there will not be enough working people to support us, the bubble will burst, and we will receive benefits far less than the amount we contributed. Of course, being a mandatory government program, it is by definition legal, and we do not have the choice Ponzi's investors had on whether to participate in the fraud."

Why do the rich complain about a "drop in a bucket" amount of money to them? Because you don't get rich wasting your money on other people. Because it's not someone elses job to give me everything I have. I'll keep my money, give it to who I wish, and I'll let you do the same. Seems extremely fair...I don't get what everyone's problem with that is? Is it my fault I make more money than you? It is my fault I caught a break? Is it my fault I put in twice the hours you do? Why should I be penalized even more for being successful?

"Why should I be penalized even more for being successful?"

From each according to their means, to each according to their needs - didn't you get the memo?

Ta, ta, got to go work on my list of needs, and on my essay proving I have no means.

(Poor idiot, must have thought this was the 'to each according to their work' universe.)

I think no one over the age of 50 should be allowed to decide what SS will look like in 20 years. If they wanted to decide that, they should have saved the money it took to make it look however the **** they wanted it to.

What we have right now is a bunch of older people deciding how much money younger people are going to give to them in 20 years. That is complete garbage. The only consolation is that we are quite likely to just say "**** you" in 20 years and hike them upon their own pecard.

It makes me absolutely sick that we have boomers spending money on luxury cars, exotic trips, second homes, etc. These are the same people who will want future working-class families to pay for their medical and SS benefits because they've exhausted their resources on frivolous crap.

Social security taxes will not be a drop in the bucket when the boomers all retire. Luckily, I'll have figured a way to shelter my money overseas by then. I'm just concerned for all the poor schleps who won't be able to hide from the oppressive tax burden.

I gotta move back to America where the citizens care about eachother and work to serve the common goal of having a strong productive country. It sucks here in Bushland where its every man for himself and everyone is always bickering about their half formed ideas based on talk radio and fear.

"I gotta move back to America where the citizens care about eachother and work to serve the common goal of having a strong productive country."

WOW! What dream land are you talking about? Do you want to foot the bill for people getting money they don't deserve. I work hard, make money, therefore I and only I should make the decision of where my retirement money is invested. I don't want to pay for Charlie living down the street who chooses to sit around all day and not make a decent living for himself. I am sick of hearing how we should ALL pay for other people's laziness.

Last time i checked, bankrupt was generally defined as not having enough assets to cover your liabilites. So try this... pay about 70% of your tuition or credit card bill and see what kind of reaction you get. The same situation we're facing with Socail Security.

Adam's pic might be the worst I have ever seen. And that's saying alot about a paper that also pictures Baumgardner.

The 'hand-out to Bush's Wall Street buddies' just doesn't hold up. I know England's system is burdened by heavy management fees, but there system was designed poorly.

Keep in mind that these will be passive portfolios. Meaning that there are minimal management fees associated with matching a portfolio to a broad stock index. Here's a non-partisan article...

http://www.factcheck.org/article310.html

Lots of people like to post things on here like "when you are in the real world you college kids will see what it's really like." Well I am living in the real world after graduating from UW last year. There are millions of things that are different when you get out of school, but one of the things that didn't change was my personality. Amazingly I am still not a greedy selfish asshole. I have a pretty good job for a recent college grad and probably make slightly above average for my age bracker, and I have no problem trying to help people. If we want to live in a good country guess what people we need to help out each other. If your only desire is to live in a beautiful house while the rest of the nation becomes a poor shit hole then I guess it's ok to be so damn greedy, but if you actually care for your country (as so many of your SUV's ribbons tell me that you do) then maybe you should care about fellow citizens and not just yourself.

Caring about people is different than being forced to care about people.