Posted: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 9:30 am
Mitt Romney said it all in last week's debate: "Rick Perry wants to abolish Social Security and Medicare." If you're over 65, think about it. Do you really want to take a chance? If you don't believe it, read Perry's book, "Fed Up".
Tom Kenney, Gilbert
Posted in Letters to the editor, Opinion on Wednesday, September 14, 2011 9:30 am. | Tags:
Current users sign in here.
© Copyright 2013, East Valley Tribune, Tempe, AZ. [Terms of Use | Privacy Policy]
A Division of 10/13 Communications
Accuracy posted at 11:00 am on Wed, Sep 14, 2011.
Do you really want to take a chance? Good point Tom Kenney.
Ron Paul, Republican Congressman for the 14th congressional district of Texas, is the only one in the GOP race that advocates Social Security Preservation through amending the Social Security Act to ensure the integrity of the Social Security trust funds. He suggest that by requiring the Managing Trustee to invest the annual surplus of such trust funds in marketable interest-bearing obligations of the United States and certificates of deposit in depository institutions insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and to protect such trust funds from the public debt limit.
PatrioticPerson posted at 11:43 am on Wed, Sep 14, 2011.
No politician wants to change the current Social Security system for seniors that have been putting into the system for years. That would be political suicide. However I think everyone realizes that changes must be made to the system. Social Security for my grandchildren will be different than what it is for me currently. If changes aren't made then there will not be any Social Security (Or what ever it will be called) for them. Politicians in the past looked at Social Security as a cash cow. Adding people to the system that have not contributed to the system has only increased the strain on the system. Changes must be made. Ideas must be explored and those ideas must come from qualified experts in financial dealings. Don't count on politicians to make the "right" decisions. Everything they do evolves around one thing............VOTES.
Rich posted at 12:52 pm on Wed, Sep 14, 2011.
Ron Paul is the only candidate with any sort of sensible SS plan. Obama has already tried to use it as blackmail in the credit limit debate. Perry will attempt to scale it back, that's obvious at this point, but with any candidate outside of Paul it'll be toast sooner or later.
Cerulean posted at 2:02 pm on Wed, Sep 14, 2011.
Social Security is a valuable and needed retirement savings plan. However, the political debates within the Republican ranks, and the fact that the fund has been raided tells us that Social Security is vulnerable.
I have read arguments that if we REDUCE the age of eligibility for Social Security that would help balance the long-term deficit. The reasoning behind the argument is that the amount of money a person is eligible to receive depends on when a person decides to retire. For example, if you retire at age 59 you earn several hundred dollars less per month than if you retire at age 65 and so on. So - if the age restriction is lowered with an equal reduction in compensation there is less money being drawn from the S S account. There is also good evidence that those who chose an early retirement are not as likely to live as long.
Lastly, we need to start educating our children about money. Money education should start early and continue throughout primary school until all children understand ‘compound dividends’ and the value of saving.
Rich posted at 2:38 pm on Wed, Sep 14, 2011.
How can you educate children about money? No teachers, because the money we have today hasn't been around long enough for anyone to have a handle on it. Basically, since the first world war, our production capacity is larger than our consumption, in other words, unless managed in some way, we can produce much more than we can consume, much less sell. This was the stone wall we ran into in 1929. After the second world war, we augmented the money supply, through inflation and borrowing (true paper money), to try and handle over production, Apparently that hasn't worked as Obama has thrown over a trillion at the problem, and it just gets worse.
Money has to change to meet the problem, which is the second goof we've made in a century of dealing with it. As far as what the world can produce, we've got too much stuff. Yet we can't seem to get enough money in the proper hands to buy it. Welfare (entitlements) fall down, give people food, shelter clothing, whatever they need, and a job, and the job becomes optional. Make work bureaucracies don't work and end up in government so set at counter-purposes as to effectively bankrupt the government as well as partially immobilize it.
Money is not what it was, a hard currency backed in rare metal. It is now simply a medium of exchange, basically without value, floating on what it can buy. What are you going to teach children? Nobody understands money, be nice if someone did.
Cerulean posted at 4:29 pm on Wed, Sep 14, 2011.
Rich,
You can teach children that they earn money if they put a dollar in an interest bearing account. You can teach them that if they borrow money they will have to pay interest. You can teach them what all of that means.
You do not need to complicate the issue with history of the monetary system, GDP, micro, macro- economics - just KISS and everything will be ok.
Rich posted at 6:35 pm on Wed, Sep 14, 2011.
Rich,
"You can teach children that they earn money if they put a dollar in an interest bearing account." Actually, we learned in the mid to late seventies, into the early eighties that that strategy loses money. Interest has to be factored with inflation to be profitable. I paid money into Social Security, in eight dollar dollars, I was forcibly invested into treasury bonds, and I have to live to 121 to break even.
"You can teach them that if they borrow money they will have to pay interest." People who get government subsidies to build another of our ubiquitous shopping malls borrow and profit from it. Like the Chicago Cubs are doing with Riverside Park.
"You can teach them what all of that means." If only you knew.
"You do not need to complicate the issue with history of the monetary system, GDP, micro, macro- economics - just KISS and everything will be ok." If you don't go broke, it is your simplistic ideas that allow to get away with it.
k33j88 posted at 4:44 am on Fri, Sep 16, 2011.
Sounds great!! We can hire the "federal reserve" to teach policy. Maybe some wall streeters can enlighten the youngsters about derivitives. How about asking international banking cartel reps explain the positive outcomes of bankrupting countries to fatten the bottom line. Possibly ask george soros to teach the social values of currency manipulation. Oh--- the possibilities are so----positively encourgaging.
sockratties posted at 8:42 am on Sat, Sep 17, 2011.
Obama said he couldn't guarantee that SS checks would go out if the debt ceiling was not raised. A true statement. That's because Congress has borrowed the $2.6 Trillion that would be in the trust fund. That $2.6T is part of the national debt! The Fed had to borrow more money to pay the Social Security entitlements because they already spent the money on other stuff. The POTUS can't make the Fed do anything. You can blame the President for a lot, but squandering the SS trust fund is the result of letting Congress put their hand in the cookie jar. Those that want to get rid of SS just don't want to have to pay back the money owed to the fund.
You don't have to teach exotic economic policy to kids, just teach them common sense:
– avoid instant gratification purchases,
– avoid me-too fads,
– determine if an expense will enhance quality of life,
– figure what something will cost by the time you own it,
– don't borrow more than you can pay back,
– don't give in to advertizing hype,
– save and invest on a regular basis,
– even when you bet on a sure thing, you're still gambling,
and finally, never, ever trust the government with your money.
Ron Paul believes that Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional. He doesn't believe that it falls under the “provide for the general welfare of the United States” clause.