We stood by when the politicians we elected raised taxes to solve this problem, then spent the money. Honesty says reduce the payout or raise the SS retirement age or raise SS taxes.

Personally, I say you need to be a slow learner to allow them to raise the tax, because Congress will just spend the money, again.

Welcome to reality. The only person looking out for you is you.

When we build interstate highways with tax dollars, I think it's okay to pass a LITTLE of that on to the future - after all, they will be using those highways, too.

But this direct transfer of income - it's just awful and preposterous. I am 40 years old and have known for three decades - DECADES! - that these programs were going to screw me. All of this could have been averted SO long ago. But each group of bluehairs screamed loud and long when the options of raising the age or privatizing accounts were brought up.

It has shown an ugly side of human nature, that of people to say, 'I got mine, screw you.' People will yap and yap about how their children and grandchildren are the most important things in their lives, but they don't mind putting chains around their necks. And so this is what we are brought to - there is a big giant brick wall ahead and the bus is speeding towards it. Instead of applying the brakes before we reach the wall, we'll just stop the bus by crashing into it.

You are right, MarkD. The only person looking out for me is me, and that's the way it ought to be! Just please stop expecting me to pay for everyone else. Let the same rule apply to them.

Ditto. I'm tired of supporting people's irresponsibility. I'm almost 44, and I know damn well all I'm doing is paying into a system that the baby boomers are going to bankrupt. I will never see that money, not one dime of it. Had I been able to take that and invest it myself, I probably would have a retirement nest egg, but as it stands now, I just seethe with rage every time I see the huge chunk of money the government robs out of my paycheck.

Be of good cheer, I have a solution. And THAT IS: any costs of "outsourced" labor (read: your job just went to India or China, thanks to the telephone) should no longer be tax-deductible. Hire Americans, get the deduction. Take the jobs to another country, pay taxes on the money you send there. Great idea, eh? Frankly I'd rather have the jobs here, but the tax revenue wouldn't hurt. Plus it'd be an incentive for outfits like Earthlink and the LA TIMES and all the others who transfer you to Bangladesh when you call them, to hire local workers who pay into the local tax system.

Steve H, it is a little weird that if you want to move to another country, and need to have a job while you're there, it's almost impossible to accomplish. The employer must demonstrate that there are no local people qualified for the job you want. They have to go through this lengthy process of proving that you are the only person who can do the job for them. So if you're just an average joe who is a plumer or an accountant or whatever, you're pretty much out of luck. I looked into this myself about ten years ago, and as it turns out, there are already a lot of accountants and financial analysts living in Great Britain. I would be stuck going over there as a student and watching my money drain away on college that I didn't even want, or trying to find someone to marry me, which I also don't want.

However, American companies that want to ship our jobs overseas don't have to prove that there are no Americans able and willing to do a job before hiring someone in India or Mexico instead.

As much as I like the idea of expatriation, I don't see how people do it unless they are wealthy already and don't need to find a job, or can afford to be a college student. You'd have to have some bizarre skill that only three people in the world possessed, or something.

I've known since the day I began working that Social Security was a pyramid scheme, and I always made my retirement plans based on the assumption that it would collapse before I ever saw a dime of it. Now it looks like I was a little too pessimistic, as I can start collecting in a year; the collapse will come, but not quite that soon.

I've refused to join AARP for the last ten years because a primary focus of their political activity is "protecting" Social Security.

So when you find yourself bankrupt and out on the street, are you still gonna be preaching "free markets are KING" and "pull yourself up by the bootstraps"? Let's face it - conservatives are selfish bastards who don't want to help out people in need.

However, American companies that want to ship our jobs overseas don't have to prove that there are no Americans able and willing to do a job before hiring someone in India or Mexico instead.

Our jobs? Those jobs exist at the whim of the employer. They are not your god-given birthright.

Our jobs? Those jobs exist at the whim of the employer. They are not your god-given birthright.

Nitpicky, and you are preaching to the choir. I agree that an employer should be able to hire whoever they want. If my employer wants to fire me and hire someone in Lower Slobovia for the job, fine. But it should be a two-way street. This puts Americans at a distinct disadvantage. Employers here won't hire us, but we can't get jobs in other countries, either.

Let's face it - conservatives are selfish bastards who don't want to help out people in need.

A lot depends on why any given person is "in need."

@Crusader: "Let's face it - conservatives are selfish bastards who don't want to help out people in need."

Crusader, there's a pretty wide gulf between saying, "This isn't working. Maybe private retirement accounts would be better," and being a selfish bastard who doesn't care about those in need. There's also a pretty wide gulf between saying, "We need to save Social Security to help the poor and the elderly," and being a statist thug who extracts wealth from working people by force.

See how easy it is to call people names, and how pointless?

"Why can't people take care of their own retirement by investing the money government now takes?"

Most of them wouldn't have a clue how to do this. Half would put the money in fixed income making less than inflation. Most of the rest would be looking for the next Microsoft and losing their shirts.

I invest my wife's and my own retirement accounts mainly in blue-chip, dividend paying stocks. The more research I do, the more I realize how much I don't know.

"So when you find yourself bankrupt and out on the street, are you still gonna be preaching "free markets are KING" and "pull yourself up by the bootstraps"? Let's face it - conservatives are selfish bastards who don't want to help out people in need."

And liberals are smug know-it-alls who expect everyone else to provide for them. Look, smartypants, you have two choices: (1) you can sit there and call names, or (2) you can think about practical solutions to the problem. Social Security is structured as a Ponzi scheme, and like all Ponzi schemes, it will collapse -- it's just a matter of time. That's math 101. Ten years or so from now, the revenue required to support Social Security will exceed 100% of the gross domestic product. What do you do then? Repeal the Thirteenth Amendment and make the younger generation all work as government-owned slaves?

So if you want to do (1), no one on this blog at least is going to take you seriously. If you want to do (2), pull up a chair. As I see it, current and near-future recipients have a choice: they can either take a haircut now, or they can face up to total failure of the program a few years from now. As I see it, the first thing that's going to have to happen for the current recipients is that there will either have to be an across-the-board 10% cut in benefits, or some percentage of the benefits (maybe 25%) will have to be means tested. Plus, all future COLAs will have to be cancelled.

For my cohort (I was in college in the early '80s; the math is left as an exercise for the reader), what we will have to accept is a significant increase in retirement ages, plus the same capped benefits as specified above. Plus, there will probably have to be an increase in FICA taxes, either in the base rate or in the maximum income that is taxable. What we should get in return, by Constitutional amendment if necessary, is an unbreakable limit on how much FICA taxes can be increased over current rates, plus a guarantee that the government will never tax or confiscate the assets of our 401K and IRA plans. (Of course, payouts would be taxed like normal.)

For the now younger adults, they should be offered this bargain: a sliding scale of decreasing benefits by retirements year (in other words, the later they reach retirement age, the less benefit they will receive). In exchange, they get an option to cut their FICA taxes, with the provision that the difference plus some additional amount must be paid into a 401k or IRA each year. This should of course be tax deferred, and over and above the existing limits on tax-deferred contributions.

For our now children and future generations, anyone who reaches the age of 18 after a certain year (say 2015) will not be part of the system. They will not pay FICA taxes, nor will they receive benefits. On the day that the last person still in the system dies, the system ends.

Hey, look on the bright ide of things, yellowstone is 100,000 yrs over due for an explosion that could kill all of us.

Maybe we wont need to worry about social security after all, or anything for that matter.

Have you heard about the Donut Hole medicare checks for Medicare Part D?

Currently, Medicare beneficiaries are expected to buy Part D insurance policies that cover 75 percent of their prescription drug costs up to $2,830. After they reach the $2,830 benchmark, they’re responsible for the next $3,610.

The gap in coverage – between the initial $2,830 and the $4,550 payout – is known as the donut hole. After a beneficiary reaches the S4,550, threshold, coverage returns for the rest of the year. On Jan, 1, the slate is wiped clean and the cycle repeats itself.

conservatives are selfish bastards who don't want to help out people in need.

If I remember correctly, conservatives are much more likely to help out people in need. At least this appears to be true based on people I know.

Conservatives hate paying the government to help someone out - after the government has skimmed some off the top and delivered 3/4ths of it to people who are not truly in need.

I will give you a great example. My nieces get free lunches at school. This is because every other Monday they go to school directly from their Mom's house and they qualify for free lunches based on her income. The other nine days they go to school from my brother's house and he makes way more then the qualifying line - but they are still qualified. If they never went to school directly from Mom's they would not qualify. They are not allowed to pay because that would mess up the schools records system. If they ever qualify they always qualify because they cannot track whose house the kids came from on any particular day.

"Most of them wouldn't have a clue how to do this. Half would put the money in fixed income making less than inflation. Most of the rest would be looking for the next Microsoft and losing their shirts.

I invest my wife's and my own retirement accounts mainly in blue-chip, dividend paying stocks. The more research I do, the more I realize how much I don't know."

I agree that some people wouldn't know how to invest well. But why should everyone have their freedom and options curtailed just because some of the population are too feeble and stupid that they feel they need big brother to hold their hand throughout life?

The problem of "rational ignorance" is actually much worse when it comes to government control of resources and provision of services compared to private control. The reason is simple. The average voter knows they have little chance of influencing public policy, as compared to influencing their own personal financial choices, so they devote little time to informing themselves of the issues or taking action to influence policy. The net result is that it is much easier for vested interests to dictate public policy.

My new job doesn't have prescription coverage, which means I'll have to pay list for several of my meds.

One of the manufacturers will provide their (my) meds FREE if I make less than what they consider too poor to afford list for their meds.

They consider $72,500 a year for a family of three to be able to afford their meds.

List price for meds is like the MSRP of a car - nobody actually pays it. It's either paid by an insurance company (at a discount) or they make them available at a massive discount if you just ask.

> If I remember correctly, conservatives are
> much more likely to help out people in need.

If I remember how this goes, conservatives are much more likely to help through private donations... But the individual States of the Union which take the most money back from the federal government (heretofore — I mean to hereto-fucking Barry-fore) tend to vote conservatively.

This is what made the 2008 election such a pisser.

As much as I might-

• want to (rudely) sex Ms. Palin (after five kids!) in a naked, angry way...

• admire her for her ethical clarity in so many conservative concerns...

• want to see the people she most annoys get even angrier...

...there's just no way to cast a conservative vote for a ticket composed of the political leadership of Arizona and Alaska. It would be a contradiction in terms.

(Yes, I know about the Bridge to Nowhere, I know she did what she could...)

Really it boils down to the simple axiom:

We are so fucked.

Tough to dispute.