* says not enough people are paying into SS. Earth to *: Create more jobs

this bush lie about not enough people paying in is a crock, can't we throw it back at him?

The president says not enough workers are paying into Social Security. Why doesn't he make more payers/create more jobs? Seems simple.

In Bushspeak - If there's a deficiency (bush says this word 'defishunshee') the President should make it less deficient. Deficient of workers = needs more workers. bush make more workers.

if we create more jobs and
how can we be all that worried about our grandchildren when we are running up this kind of debt?

How about he stops OUTSOURCING our jobs. Then those in the US who are being paid could have taxes deducted from their paychecks. What a concept. I am going to leave now and scream a few curse words while I think about this.

I've paid in for 40 quarters, but I'm currently out of the SS system because I'm in our state retirement system now. I still get statements from SS that show my future "benefit" but as of right now, it's just misinformation.

I don't understand why some groups are allowed to opt out and create their own much better systems.

Socal security should be mandatory for all workers.

In 12 states including the two largest population ones, most public schoolteachers aren't contributing to social security. Why? What makes them so special that they get to set up their own much better system?

If a kid's mom died when he is seven, we all contribute to his care, and overwhelmingly we do it happily. That little social security check may be the difference between success or failure to that kid. So why do we all contribute except teachers and I guess some state workers?

You'd think they'd feel some responsibility to at least contribute to the disability and survivor's benefits. Not around here anyway. The teachers I talk to are happy to take their TRS checks that can begin as early as 55, and are 2-3 times larger than a similar social security check, and if the rest of us have a social security system that's struggling, well, best wishes to us.

All of them paid not only in to SS but Federal TAXES...

Social Security is funded by the payroll taxes of current workers to pay the benefits of current retirees. At present, Social Security is running a surplus, meaning that there is more money being paid into the system than is needed to pay for current benefits. The 2004 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds reported that Social Security closed fiscal year 2003 with a $138 billion surplus. Total Social Security trust fund assets equal $1.4 trillion dollars.

By 2018, Social Security will begin running a cash deficit because the number of beneficiaries will outweigh the number of workers. In other words, the cost of paying benefits will exceed payroll tax revenue, and the federal government will have to start using the surplus taxpayers have accumulated in the fund.

the ratio of retirees to 'payers' is a looming problem. He should be creating jobs to ensure more 'payers.' To protect America. It's hard work, being President. :patriot:

President Discusses Strengthening Social Security in New Hampshire
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
February 16, 2005
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/02/20050216-3.html

snip (down to fourteenth paragraph)

And now I want to talk about Social Security. And I'm sure there are some, when they heard the State of the Union, if they listened to it, that said, why is he spending so much time on what had been -- used to be called the "third rail of American politics"? That means, if you touched it, you were politically electrocuted. I guess that's what it meant. I've touched it. I touched it in 2000, when I campaigned here and around the country; I touched it in 2004; and I really touched it at the State of the Union, because I believe we have a problem. And I want to talk to you about the problem.

snip

The problem is compounded by this: There's not enough people paying money into the system to pay for all that. The ratio of payers to beneficiaries is going from 16 to 1 to 3.3 to 1 today. And when -- and down the road it's going to be 2 to 1. So you can see the formula begins to get a little disturbed. It makes it hard to pay the promises.

As a matter of fact, in 2018, the system goes into the red. And by the way, there's not a Social Security trust. In other words, people think your money goes into the trust and it's held for your account and then you get it out. That's not the way it works. It's pay as you go. It goes in and it goes out. And to the extent that there's money more than the retirees receive, like it is today, it goes to other programs. And so what you've got is an IOU, kind of a bank of IOUs. It's an important concept.

So money that's going in is greater than money going out today for Social Security. But in 2018, the system goes into the red, and every year thereafter the situation gets worse -- 2027 will cost the federal government $200 billion above and beyond payroll taxes to make the promises. And in 2042 the system goes broke. Those are the facts.

snip

Meaning Bush is badmouthing the value of the dollar and the creditworthiness of his own administration of the economy. Way to go, * !

for many years. I have no link, but recall him saying there would be problems with the economy, before he was sworn in, 2001. I think Clinton may have even spoke out against this - saying it was the duty of the prez to instill confidence in the people, not fear.

He may have been doing this his whole life - being the master of lowered expectations.

he has no intention of letting that surplus be used for social security, he plans to spend 500 million on building military bases in Iraq, funny, I don't remember the congress approving that, the same way with HHS giving 31 million for faith based initiatives, you remember a bill in the last year for that, I don't

and eliminate the cap. period.

as future workers' pay increases, their continued contribution to social security will raise along with it.

tying ss benefits to payroll is the best way to go, but they've got to eliminate the cap.

3. Attack the root cause, the demographic tsunami. Seek an ideal retiree-to-worker ratio that is sustainable and direct policies to achieve that goal. This means increasing the effective labor force until the two populations are in balance: Invest in education that increases worker productivity; promote personal income growth and employment attracting a higher labor-force participation; develop a rational immigration policy that seeks a labor force that can sustain a controlled rate of growth, satisfy the demands of business, and the needs of the growing retired population; and, by all means, stay away from guest worker programs. We need immigrants that have a stake in America and are willing to join and contribute to programs like social security.

Lots more here:
http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=820

But even if you could do that it would be very temporary.

People will continue to get older and live longer, so a few years after you achieve the balance you'll have to reconfigure it again.

Imagine bumping up the minimum wage to match at least the rise of inflation in the last 8 years?