[DanSC]

The American budget has been a hot topic of late, and I found this column interesting. Here goes.

$1:

Grand Rapids, Michigan (CNN) -- I think I stopped trusting the U.S. government right after learning that for 40 years, instead of treating a small group of poor, uneducated people officials had identified as having syphilis, officials not only withheld the diagnosis from them, but the cure as well, just to see what would happen if the disease went untreated.

This was done even if what would happen was eventually death, which is why burial insurance was given to the unsuspecting victims as if the government was doing them a favor.

And this didn't happen a very long time ago either.

In fact, the first wave of Gen Xers were out of diapers while the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment was still going on.

Once you see how hard Uncle Sam sucker punches people he identifies as expendable, you learn to keep your guard up whenever he comes around.

It is for this reason that Social Security is nowhere in my retirement plans.

Perry, Romney spar over Social Security VP: Perry should find out who Ponzi was
Call me crazy, but the idea of trusting the government to take care of me, to provide me with "security" when I'm old and frail is far more frightening than the thought of me trying to make it on my own.

I'm not yet 40, so theoretically I still have plenty of time to have my own plan in place. Yes, I've paid into Social Security. No, I don't expect to benefit from it, at least not at the level those who are currently collecting are benefiting. And I don't know anyone in any line of work my age or younger who does.
We are not as mad about this switcheroo as much as we are mad that the reform can keeps getting kicked down a road that's getting shorter and shorter by a bunch of politicians who know better but are too afraid of losing voters who won't be around when the money's all gone anyway.

Anybody with a high school diploma and a calculator can see how entitlement programs are damaging the economy and that some sort of reform is necessary to ensure their long-term solvency. And yet during budget and debt ceiling talks, Democrats such as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid responded as if the Republicans wanted to sell voters' first-born babies into slavery.

On Monday, President Barack Obama introduced another plan without touching Social Security. The Democrats won't even support the modest changes recommended by the president's own debt commission, including phasing in a two-year increase in the retirement age over the next 65 years and raising the ceiling on payroll taxes. They keep mocking us with talk of protecting the middle class when in reality protecting the middle class would have been passing a budget and introducing entitlement reforms before the extras from "King of the Hill" got into Congress.
But just as GOP presidential candidates are saying whatever they can to appease their base (except for Jon Huntsman, which is why he is in last place), the Democrats are just as guilty of pandering to the home crowd, even if the desires of that crowd aren't nearly as much to blame for the economic trouble the country finds itself in as the Bush tax cuts and relaxed Wall Street regulations.
It's all a game, and election after election, we keep getting played.

Remember Obama didn't say he and the members of Congress might not get paid if the debt ceiling wasn't raised, but that Social Security and military checks may not go out. And he's the one being accused of being a socialist. Can you imagine what the rhetoric of a good ol' fashion free-market capitalist would sound like?

Here's a hint: Rewatch the video from the CNN/Tea Party Republican Debate last week in which Wolf Blitzer asked if society should let an injured 30-year-old man without health insurance die. Much was made about the cheers that could be heard coming from some of the crowd, but I was far more disturbed by the lack of chastising that came from the stage immediately after the cheers. You mean to tell me the possible next leader of the free world doesn't have an instant rebuke to people who cheer at the mention of uninsured Americans dying?

And I'm supposed to trust that person to have my best interest at heart when I'm at my most vulnerable?

The Great Depression gave birth to Social Security.

The Greatest Generation fed it and made it strong.

Today the sheer number of the baby boomers is slowly strangling it to death.
And because politicians continue to use Social Security as one of its many chess pieces to manipulate people to vote a certain way, one day we'll speak of it much in the same way we speak of dial-up Internet access. Only instead of laughing at how long it used to take to log on, we'll be shaking our heads, reminiscing back to the time when government actually cared.

Except for me.

As I hinted earlier, my faith in government went out the door the moment I found out it was controlled by people.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/20/opinion/g ... ?hpt=hp_c2

[martin14]

I'm 44, and not worried about my government pension.


I'm 100% sure it won't be there when I retire.

[Wada]

It's 12 grand a year! That's why most over 65 and healthy are working and the rest are barely getting by.

[andyt]

Wada Wada:

It's 12 grand a year! That's why most over 65 and healthy are working and the rest are barely getting by.

Yep, it should be doubled. Unlike the US, our CPP is in good shape.

[bootlegga]

andyt andyt:

Wada Wada:

It's 12 grand a year! That's why most over 65 and healthy are working and the rest are barely getting by.

Yep, it should be doubled. Unlike the US, our CPP is in good shape.

Yeah, that's brilliant, double it now and have it run out before all the Boomers are retired (the first turn 65 this year) - who gives a fuck about future generations.

The entitlement age should be bumped by a couple of years first, but for fear of alienating voters, it won't be done for years.

[Pseudonym]

Do a slow increase in the retirement age until it becomes solvent. I'm planning on working until I'm 75 anyway.

And tighten up the program so it isn't a slush fund for politicians. If I have to live with this kind of social welfare, I don't want it built on a bunch of IOUs.

[Gunnair]

bootlegga bootlegga:

andyt andyt:

Wada Wada:

It's 12 grand a year! That's why most over 65 and healthy are working and the rest are barely getting by.

Yep, it should be doubled. Unlike the US, our CPP is in good shape.

Yeah, that's brilliant, double it now and have it run out before all the Boomers are retired (the first turn 65 this year) - who gives a fuck about future generations.

The entitlement age should be bumped by a couple of years first, but for fear of alienating voters, it won't be done for years.

Good points. It's in good shape because we have successfully resisted those baying for more entitlements. Handing out dream retirements now would be the epitome of idiocy.

[peck420]

When did CPP and Social Security become a retirement plans?

From CPP's web site:

$1:

Your contributions to the Canada Pension Plan provide you with a stable and dependable pension you can build on for retirement.

Your contributions also provide you and your dependents with basic financial protection if you become disabled or die.

Wasn't Social Security the same? A starting stone for retirement planning, not a retirement plan in itself?

[Gunnair]

peck420 peck420:

When did CPP and Social Security become a retirement plans?

From CPP's web site:

$1:

Your contributions to the Canada Pension Plan provide you with a stable and dependable pension you can build on for retirement.

Your contributions also provide you and your dependents with basic financial protection if you become disabled or die.

Wasn't Social Security the same? A starting stone for retirement planning, not a retirement plan in itself?

Irrespective of what the website says, there seems to be a lot that want to retire on it - hence those wanting to double the entitlement for example.

[Psudo]

I can't imagine ever retiring. Maybe if health problems cripple me, but I'd rather live like Charles Shultz: working until a week before my death, giving my life to something I will be remembered for.

However, perhaps apart from the disability bit, Social Security isn't a welfare program. It's folks' own money that they put aside (however involuntarily) into a retirement savings account. The US Government is bound by law and credit rating to repay it according to its contract with the American people. It has gradually devolved into a broken system of taxation as government has raided it's funds again and again, but it is a financial obligation that government cannot responsibly evade.

Maybe the US Government was so eager to bail out industry in order to collect some goodwill to help them renegotiate their upside-down mortgage on our retirement. They owe it to American workers, and they just don't have it.

Pseudonym Pseudonym:

Do a slow increase in the retirement age until it becomes solvent.

That's exactly the kind of renegotiation I'm talking about. I'm all for it, but they have plenty of other Americans to convince.

[andyt]

bootlegga bootlegga:

andyt andyt:

Wada Wada:

It's 12 grand a year! That's why most over 65 and healthy are working and the rest are barely getting by.

Yep, it should be doubled. Unlike the US, our CPP is in good shape.

Yeah, that's brilliant, double it now and have it run out before all the Boomers are retired (the first turn 65 this year) - who gives a fuck about future generations.

The entitlement age should be bumped by a couple of years first, but for fear of alienating voters, it won't be done for years.

The idea is to also double the contributions to the plan, so there's no worry about it running out. And sure phase in a raise to 67 - you can't just all of a sudden bump it by two years.

[Psudo]

How about raising the retirement age one month per quarter? Is that gradual enough?

[Freakinoldguy]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Irrespective of what the website says, there seems to be a lot that want to retire on it - hence those wanting to double the entitlement for example.

Then you have the other side of the coin, people using Lotto 649 and Lotto Super Seven as their retirement plans.

Maybe we could start giving CPP and OAP entitlements out like Greece, it couldn't hurt could it?

[bootlegga]

andyt andyt:

bootlegga bootlegga:

andyt andyt:

Yep, it should be doubled. Unlike the US, our CPP is in good shape.

Yeah, that's brilliant, double it now and have it run out before all the Boomers are retired (the first turn 65 this year) - who gives a fuck about future generations.

The entitlement age should be bumped by a couple of years first, but for fear of alienating voters, it won't be done for years.

The idea is to also double the contributions to the plan, so there's no worry about it running out. And sure phase in a raise to 67 - you can't just all of a sudden bump it by two years.

Of course it will run out. The Boomers represent one-third of Canadians (I think about 25% of Americans). Once they retire and stop paying into it, there aren't enough of the rest of us to maintain it - especially with people living a lot longer than they did when CPP/OAS were first created.

The federal government was terrified of being able to fund CPP/OAS, as well as pay for health care costs for the boomers as far back as the 60s - that's initially why they created RRSPs, which are taxable when people access them. The hope was that taxes on RRSP withdrawals now would either fully or partially cover those increased costs.

No, the federal government needs to bump retirement age right away, but they won't because they know seniors love to vote and are scared of getting kicked out of office.

I wouldn't even phase it in, I would just pick a date a bit into the future (say 2018 or 2020) and say that from that point on, the new age for accessing your benefits is 67/68. That gives people close to a decade to start saving.

[Psudo]

Boots, it's not just about being afraid of being voted out. These are retirement accounts -- people's own money they've put in and are legally entitled to get back on the terms agreed to. It needs a kind of renegotiation of the contract between the government and the American people to choose new terms -- something that legally requires popular support if it's possible at all. If the US Government unilaterally changes the terms of the agreement to just not pay people for 10 years, it's going to drop our credit rating a lot more than the debt ceiling mess did.