Published: Thursday, Dec. 15 2011 12:00 a.m. MST
Are you on Chaffetz's re-election campaign? And I wonder if he would be taken
more seriously if had not engaged in clownish behavior for such a prolonged
period of time, on top of his extreme strident and partisan stances. A
legislator has to be able to work with the other kids, and I haven't seen this
characteristic in this Congressman. Just getting elected is not enough. Anyone
one of them can drop a bill into the hopper, even with so-sponsors. It does not
mean it will go anywhere, and it does not mean the Member of Congress
necessarily expects it to move. The key is, can he move it? If he can, then we
will take him more seriously.
Take your forced monthly FICA deductions plus the matching deductions your
employer made over your working life, calculate the time value (interest paid on
interest) of that money, even with a modest amount of earned interest, say over
your working life of 40 years @ 3.0%. Now compare that with the miniscule SS
payment you MIGHT get when you retire. On the other hand, don't do it because it
will severely depress you what you could have had versus what you will get from
The reason for the creation of government Social Security was the failure of the
private enterprise to provide for working people after they could no longer
work. The first part of the failure was the nature of the workers
themselves. The squeaking wheel of current needs and wants drowns out the
whisper of future needs. The simple fact is, people will not set aside money
for the time they cannot work. The second part of the failure is
the competition between commercial interests for the workers money. Young
people buy homes, cars, boats, dancing lessons etc., retired people spend money
for vacations and travel or maybe just for food and medical care. Social security by delaying the spending of the workers money, takes profits
away from some and gives them to others. Social Security was a winning for the
latter group.In todays world, the spend-now group has gained the
upper hand. Using the grab-the-money-and-run philosophy, they pursue current
profits to the extreme and are actually working to destroy the American
government. The Utah Congressional representatives is a part of this group.
Just imagine what could have happened had Bush not forgotten about the retiring
baby boomers and NOT given all those unfunded taxes, stimulus, bank bailouts,
and wars. We'd be rolling in trillions right now instead of out of them.
Many of you are still drinking Wall Street kool aid. Social Security is debt.
Debt, debt, debt, owed to the working class. Owed like loans from China, Japan,
Goldman Sach or any other bank. Money that is not a giveaway. It's not welfare.
It is not cash you can fund a war with. You can infer that the word entitlement
is undeserved but it isn't. It is debt. Loans to the government that working
Americans have made their entire working lives, payable upon retirement whether
at 65, 66, 67 and with some 68. It is not unsustainable. It is not in need of
major reform. Just follow the intial guidlines and it will be fine. Weather the
influx of baby boomers and it will be fine. Provide meaning jobs to America and
it will be fine. Put your attention to regulating Wall Street after all
corporations are not people and money is not speech.
@ The Real Maverick. President Bush made his mistakes but all you said about him
is not correct.#1: President Bush proposed changes in S.S. but was
rejected by the Democratically controlled congress. We can all decide on our
own as to why they would do that.#2: Congress approved the bank bailouts
and both wars as they did Obama's bailout and the war in Libya. Bush's
bailout=bad! Obama's bailout=good, Right?#3: Congress approved the
tax cuts to stop the Clinton recession and it worked. It was congress' out of
control spending that had doomed us. President Bush made a mistake by not
vetoing congress more!What is facinating to me is that the Democrats
are running from their own actions and pointing hypocritically at President Bush
for the very actions they, themselves approved and voted in! But it isn't
suprising considering they need a scapegoat when things went from bad to worse.
My only question for you is, how long will Bush, earthquakes in Japan, bad
weather, bad luck, the "rich", Wall Street" people who own jets
or "evil" corporations be Obama's scapegoat?
"#2: Congress approved the bank bailouts and both wars as they did Obama's
bailout and the war in Libya. Bush's bailout=bad! Obama's bailout=good,"What was Obama's bailout? TARP was your buddy bushies'. the
auto industry repaid their loans. Take an ECON 101 class please.although I would have preferred to avoid all action in the mid-east, no
one other than yourself, believes that Iraq and Libya are even comparable. It's like comparing a fly swatter to an atomic bomb. But of
course, you have your agenda, so carry on and ignore all facts!
I hate to have to admit this, but based on what I've read so far of this
proposal, Chaffetz just might have some good ideas here.If Congress
can somehow manage to put ideology aside for a while, it might become
workable.But that still doesn't mean we don't need to keep a really
close eye on Mr. Chaffetz.
The biggest lie or deception expressed on this topic is always the suggestion
that SS is unfunded. If it seems to be it is because of the lack of integrity
and honesty in Congress in whittling SS funds away and the curious silence about
the true details of this "crisis" by almost everyone in the political
arena.Chaffetz has it exactly right if he is saying the problem is
one of restoring and applying the funds designated by the country's employees
and employers to the designated object, retirement benefits as promised and
fully paid for.We have had Dems and Repubs both fraudulently
spending what were said to be, in effect, expensive insurance premiums to
provide a modest income upon retirement, and there are few in government
speaking up about it. Well done Mr Chaffetz. As for Congress -
"confession is good for the soul". 'Fess up and put right the
wrong you have done to the seniors and all the working people (all of us who are
employed legally) of the United States of America.
@one old man: I agree.
Like or hate it SS is here to stay. Invest in private with your funds always
runs a risk, ask Bernie M investors or John Corzines this money has evaporated.
Of course the only way that gov't will not tap into this SS "lockbox"
would be to install a box on Mars
Mountainm: Where to start? In the eighties, there was a push in the life
insurance business to stop selling cash value life insurance and to "buy
term and invest the difference". Excellent Strategy...take care of the
family with the low cost term insurance and invest in stocks with the difference
it would have cost you to buy "permanent" insurance. The sales of the
expensive product tanked as people took the advice. Five years later several
journals published surveys of how the "modern" strategy was working.
Guess what? They bought the term insurance but never got around to the
investing the rest of the money. A similar phenomenon happens with the 401 K.
People either don't invest or the invest less than they need to build a stable
future. Hence Social Security is still a vital piece of a multi pronged approach
to retirement security.PS. In 2005, when President Bush promoted his
idea of private accounts for SS the Congress and the White House were still in
the hands of the Republicans! Sorry to burst your bubble. The reason the idea
was never even introduced because over 75% of the public opposed the idea.
Mountanman | 8:46 a.m. Dec. 15, 2011 Farmer Jones works his whole
life. He takes 15% of everything he makes, and puts it in the bank.At the
same time, he takes out a line of credit at the bank. He buys all sorts of
things with the money, he buys his friends things, travels around the world,
buys sports cars, the bank just keep increasing his spending limit, and he
spends more, and more, and more.Pretty soon, he is 14 trillion dollars in
debt.Farmer Jones decides to retire, he goes down to the bank, and says he
wants to start withdrawing his money from his savings account.
Mountanman | 8:46 a.m. Dec. 15, 2011 cont:The bank says; that is
well and good, but what about the 14 trillion dollars in debt he has
accumulated: farmer Jones tells the banker; he never intended to pay the money
back, he always figured his grandchildren, and great grandchildren would have to
pay back the money he borrowed.And so he lived the rest of his life,
relying on the money he saved. And passed his debt onto his children.And
the farm was reposed by the bank. And his grandchildren worked in a sweatshop to
try and pay back their grandfathers loans.
Ultra Bob | 9:50 a.m. Dec. 15, 2011 The responsiblity to take care
of the elderly should fall on the children. parents used to live with their
children when they got old. The parents take care of the kids, then the kids
take care of the parents if needed. When did the government decide to take over
this resposibility?Retire's now benefit from both pension and social
security. Many of them own their own homes, and do not have house payments.
simply put, many of those receiving social security benefits, could live very
comfortably without the money. It really in many ways comes down to greed.
Retired persons figure the government owes them; they do not think that the
government has no money; and is just talking money from working people; many of
who are in poverty; to fund their lifestyle.I have nothing against those
who need help; getting help. I do believe it should come first from their
children, then charity-church, and lastly basic support from the government. However the wealthy rich retired persons need to start stepping up and admit
that social security for them; is just not right or honest.
Lead by example rep Chaffetz. Before you gut our social security, first gut your
congressional retirement and your own investments that you plan to use for your
retirement. Donate these for the cause of reducing the national deficit.Don't expect only others to suffer for the causes you believe in, be
willing to suffer and sacrifice yourself. Lead by example.
For many young working people; social security is like standing in line at a
buffet. We are watching the elderly people in front of us talking everything:
all the food, all the meat. The turn around and tell us to be patient, that
they will bring more food, but what we see is less and less food, and the
restaurant is starting to turn out the lights.Added to the problem; is we
are being told; you need to pay the bill for those in front of you. And the
longer you are in the line; the more you have to pay; those in the front; eating
the food paid $1, those just stepping up to get a plate paid $5, there are some
in back of them; that paid $10, and some in back of them; who had to pay $20, I
am back where I have to pay $200, I feel sorry for those in back of me that have
to pay $1000.But those in the front; just keep taking all the food and
meat; they say they paid and deserve to eat all they want.
VIDAR.Contrary to what you appear to believe, we live in modern
America not in the times long gone past. Most of us recognize and appreciate
the freedom we get from the group effort of a lot of people working together
toward a common goal. Your attitude toward people betrays the greed you have
and your shame for it. Fret not for you are just like most of us.
The competition for survival is fierce and the desire for riches to ward off the
enemies of survival is very strong. If you will see civilization
for what is doing for us, you will realize that the more your give, the more you
get. The problem is that it works for hate just as much as for love. We live longer and have more freedom than we had in the past. Much of this is
due to technology but it is also because we learn how to live together. And
since no one can predict the future, Social Security is a good thing.
I could comment on Chaffetz's plan if I had it before me in detail and in
Chaffetz's own words. Instead we have a characterization of it by a third party
with a number of often partisan responses.I can say that the simile
that one person suggested, of Social Security being like old people eating all
the buffet before the other customers could get to the front, is a poor one.
It's more like paying for the buffet only to find that armed legislators had
pushed into the front of the line, sold the food, then tried to send the paying
customers home.The rest of the analogy could be that the customers
got together and performed a citizens' arrest on the legislators. The guilty
congressmen were jailed and banned from the buffet for the rest of their lives
and had their own buffet confiscated (that is were denied their own gold-plated
@Mountanman. I agree that putting 12 percent aside at three percent is a far
better return than what a person receives back in social security, but unless
someone could get a better return than 3 percent, inflation would eat most of
the interest gained.Of course Wall street would be foaming at the
mouth to get us good ol taxpayers a higher return of course, but I wouldn't want
to give those clowns any more money.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments