President Franklin D. Roosevelt created Social Security 75 years ago. As with many other Fedzilla programs, Americans got suckered into believing Social Security was a healthy, wealthy and wise program.
Social Security is bloated, broke and busted. FDR’s New Deal turned out to be the Rip-off Deal. ...
The only way to truly reform Social Security is to sink it. ...
Eliminating Social Security isn’t our Sputnik moment. It’s our sink-the-Bismarck moment. ...
First, we need to pass whatever law is needed to keep the Jesse James-like hands of Congress off the dollars collected from Social Security. No more stealing.
Second, we need to take the cap off of the Social Security tax. Currently, only the first $107,000 earned is taxed. We need to take the lid off and tax all income. We need the money. Yes, that will be a tax increase for some Americans. This is pain and real sacrifice.
Third, there must be means-testing. If a retired person or couple has more than a certain amount in assets, they will not receive Social Security or will receive limited benefits. This will be a huge sacrifice, but tough times require tough people who are willing to sacrifice for the future good of the nation.
Fourth, we need to raise the retirement age now. It is a fact that people are living longer. Retirees today will collect more from Social Security than what they paid in, while the pool of workers paying into Social Security is shrinking . That is an upside-down, unsustainable model. Shovel on more personal pain and sacrifice.
Fifth, people in the work force will be required to continue to pay into Social Security in order to pay for the masses of baby boomers retiring, but the people younger than 45 will not receive Social Security. We will have sunk the Bismarck by the time they would have reached the age to receive Social Security.
Feb 27, 2011
And On The Seventh Day He Rested
Ted Nugent writing in the Washington Times:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
The Social Security program has Cat Scratch Fever. LOL
Whether or not you agree with him, why is an over-the-hill rocker able to speak with greater clarity that all of America's politicians?
Well, I don't agree with him. He complains about Congress stealing the Trust Fund, but with the tax increases and benefit cuts he supports, Social Security will have a huge surplus, which it will never need. So what's going to happen to all that money, if "we" pass a law to keep Congress's hands off it? Only Congress passes laws, and only they can spend tax money. It makes no sense to me.
But he is clear - he wants to destroy Social Security. That's an easy position for a rich person to take, since they don't need Social Security. Of course, he seems to believe everyone can be rich:
"The GOP should be telling young Americans that it is their responsibility to save and invest for their retirement and if they start saving today, they will amass a fortune over their careers."
Well, I've saved and invested over my career, and I don't have a fortune. I guess I should have done something important like been a rock star.
I agree some with 2:06 PM, February 27, 2011 comment.
Even the best saver earning average wages will likely not have a fortune($1,000,000). I'm sure there are exceptions.
Does anyone know what part of the Social Security legislation allows the Treasury to borrow from the trust fund, pay for current government expenses, and (artificially) lower the deficit?
Don Levit
Ted Nugent is a over the hill rock singer who now feels qualified to pontificate about things he knows nothing about, such as Social Security. He should stick to guns and killing animals, things he knows well.
His bloviating is so distorted, so full of lies, I am surprised that even a right-wing rag like the Washington Times posted it. There are a lot of people out there who believe the sort of trash this buffoon spews out. I am surprised that you would quote his nonsense without comment in your fine blog, which many people, myself included, check every day for updates.
Nugent's thoughts are all over the place. Does he even know what he's advocating? Take the cap off SS, but sink it like the Bismarck? Means test, and raise the retirement age, but sink it because the youngsters won't be able to benefit from Social Security? The reason to shore up the program is so that the youngsters can rely upon it. This is just weird.
This is one of the issues. Why do people "depend" on Social Security is beyond me. Im 30. I save and invest as if its not going to be there. If it is great. One main prob I see with older people and even more so with younger people is they don't know how to safe. They don't know how to invest and they don't want to learn or take on the responsibility. Its easier to point the finger and say I have no money because of him. Ill easily have $1,000,000.
The way is not living like a rock star. Its living with what you need not with what you want. This means making sacrifices. Its life. Man up!
Anonymous, you MAY "easily have $1,000,000". Or you may reach the age of 58 and see a stock market crash wipe out those savings. Or be like me, who had to live off my nice nest egg of an inheritance for a couple of years when I fell ill while self-employed and under-insured, and had to take time off from work. It was nice not to have to declare bankruptcy. Not so nice to realize that most of my "retirement plan" (short of working until I die) will be reliance upon Social Security. It's not possible to replace the amount I had to spend in the years I have left, especially not when the rates of return on investments are quite low these days.
Anything can happen, even to frugal people with savings. Don't be so arrogant to assume that everyone relying upon their Social security benefits are spendthrifts and that you're too smart to fall into that trap. I applaud you for taking care of your savings needs, but anyone in our business of representing disability claimants should be first to realize how life sometimes has a way of making good plans go down the drain.
Post a Comment