Roosevelt's grandson defends Social Security

Keep your hands off my Social Security. When I was not able to work and had no income or insurance, Social Security disability sustained me. Now that I am 66, it is still my only income, and I don't know what I would do without it. It isn't even really enough, and I had to apply for rent assistance to have a roof over my head. I also am grateful for Medicare. My grown children are both married and have young children. Both daughters and their husbands work full time jobs just to keep their homes going. They do not have any extra income to pay for my support.

I clearly can not see the coorelation to John McCain and the comments boasted by this ad. Mr. Roosevelt is reading from a cue card and cannot even look into the camera. Typical of the DNC, as they spew this rhetoric you cant get them to look you in the face.

This is a yet another attempt for the DNC to de-rail the train wreck of a campaignand party that they have moving forward now.

Question: Where is Hillary and why has she not come out and publically declared her support for Obama? tsk tsk DNC wrangle your troops.

The only good thing that I can see out of all of this (the election process) is that the independants now just call themselves Democrats .
Now that is a politician. Yeah Baby.. Get those votes any way you can.

Lets stick to the issues. The real issues. Like how you are letting a man with only 75 days of senatorial experience run for President. Oh and the rumors about Caroline Kennedy for Vice Pres ? ? ? ? ? A soccer Mom and an in-experienced senator, and you wonder why people do not listen when you speak.

Best of Luck. Your going to need it.

Social Security was just a socialistic way to control Americans and cement the democrats hold on power for over 40 years. Who in the hells not going to vote for someone thats going to give them money!!! If you will check the original name was social security SUPPLEMENT! Then in the 60s the dems came up with medicare/medicaid then started sapping the social security money by giving out
"disability" which is mostly a total joke!! The people who opposed social security had it right as by proof of its instillablity now and thats its almost broke. Yet stupid people in this country still want the govt to solve problems that they should be taking care of themselves, This country has been ruined by all the aliens and other lazy non working people in this country who simply sponge off taxpayers . social security is nothing more than one more communist nail in Americas coffin.

I absolutely agree! If it isn't your political "style" to consider something so democratic, try reviewing just how well privatizing has worked in other areas...hum....

What happened to the surplus will had 30 years ago.Distributed to too many government agencie,s. No body seem,s to want to answer.

SS WORKS OK,,,,ITS THE FREE SWINGING FUTURES MARKET, HOLDING EVERYONE ELSE HOSTAGE,,,SOME ONE WHO CAN NOT PROCESS CRUDE OIL,SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BUY OIL,,,ALL COMMODITIES PRODUCED IN THE USA,SHOULD GO DIRECTLY TO THE PROCESSORS,,,,TAKING THE LONG RUN AROUND SPECULATORS, COST EVERYONE,,,MORE AT THE PUMP AND THE SUPER MARKETS

What happened to the surplus will had 30 years ago.Distributed to too many government agencie,s. No body seem,s to want to answer.

how come please who do not contribute to social security are collecting benefits

Why is John McCain collecting Social Security if he is against it?
He says he puts his country first. He collects his Senate fat paycheck , his Navy pension and his Social Security. He gets his health care through the Government rather than buying his own. Meanwhile people are unemployed, no health insurance, losing their houses, tanking their credit ratings , rising living costs and energy prices.
McCain is another Washington hack, time for a change.

OBAMA 08

As a Physician in a area, northern Idaho, where a high percentage of my patients have poor insurance or no insurance, it is inconceivable that privatization of healthcare would ever work. Everyone is so upset by the profit margins of the oil companies; the people wouldn't believe the profits of insurance or pharmaceutical companies. They make the oil companies look like small potatoes; they keep it to themselves. The plans by both candidates for healthcare are no different from 1992. What's wrong with this country? Isn't is obvious that politicians can only make empty promises to the people, while they make deals with big money?

A lot has changed since 1935. There was no minimum wage, the country was strong, and the dollar was still backed by a substance of value (silver). Flash forward to today, the government is bloated, inefficient, wasteful, and robbing the social security fund to spend elsewhere, everywhere, and the dollar is a worthless fiat currency. It is past time to shut down this wasteful bureaucracy. Give me my money so I can invest it for MY future, not yours, not wall streets. Both candidates plans fail to address the core problem: government! If the government is doing it, it will ALWAYS cost you money. Why give them the money for fifty years just so they can hand it right back to you at a depreciated value after inflation? ... and charge you for the service!! ridiculous

Thank you James Roosevelt. And I thank your grandfather over and over for his intelligence and foresight and compassion for our country and its citizens.

I graduated from high school in 1939 and signed my Social security card on my first full-time job. Now, I am living independently and adequately on Social Security and other pensions I earned over the years.

I feel very depressed at this time because of the continued nastiness of the Bush/Cheney administration and particularly depressed over the DNC lack of leadership in forwarding their impeachment.

Thank you.
OBAMA 08!

Social Security is a boon-doggle for the taxpayers and a slush fund for the Federal Government! The individual choice of where to invest their earnings was taken away by "legalized plunder" of the U.S. government and ripped out of their paychecks.

The individual would have realized more gain for their retirement if they had a choice on where to save our invest it. The Social Security System does not deposit the money in any interest bearing account. In Fact -- there is nothing but I.OU's in the Social Security Fund.

Basically -- it is a Ponzi scheme and that is why Social Security is in such trouble.

By the way -- where in our U.S. Constitution does it state that government is allowed to get into the Insurance Business? Let alone, taking our earnings and allowing the government to dip, steal and take it for purposes not intended -- thus leaving it full of I.O.U.'s!

How can any one possibly want to eliminate Social Security. It is the differance of  life and death of many impovreshed people today. Even with my pension, I would have trouble making ends meet without Social Security and Medicare. I understand there is a limit of $102,000 salery taxable. I believe it should be raised to at least $500,000, Or unlimited amounts. Those people should not mind. They basically have so much money, They can spend millions on baby photographs, Thousands on a bottle pf wine, thousands to see a baseball game and many more foolish things. Why is Social Cecurity struggeling, when all this money is being wasted?

"After a lifetime of playing by the rules and working hard, there was no guarantee of a secure retirement. My grandfather, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and a majority of Americans thought that was wrong. They believed that lifting our seniors out of poverty is a reflection of our nation's core values."

That's right, James, there was no guarantee, and there still isn't. No one has the right to a guaranteed secure retirement. Using the force of government to seize property from citizens and redistribute it is NOT a core value upon which this country was founded. You, sir, are despicable, and so is this socialist program.

How about telling Barak Obama and the Democrats to keep their hands off my wallet?

I agree that the Social Security program is needed for those individuals who are impoverished. But, its benefits should ONLY be for those individuals who are, indeed, in a state of stark poverty. Compare the TOTAL benefits for recipients of the first five years of its existence with the TOTAL benefits of recipients in 2008. Its benefits to family members and heirs is ridiculous. The benefits (NOT dollar amount) should be the same in 2008 as were the benefits were in, say, 1947.
Why should a millionaire be eligible? Why should a person receiving a military retirement be eligible? Why should an 18 yr-old son of a deceased person be eligible. It's a bloated system. Keep it for ALIVE poor people ONLY!!!!!!

The average SS check is only $895/month which equals to $10,740/year.

The accepted poverty line for the US is appr. $10,787 for a single person. That makes sense. SS was designed to keep you at least at the poverty line.

Here's an idea. Why don't you save some money while you work and let that be your retirement. I know, not everyone has the money to save. Well, if we didn't have to pay for SS we could save that money which would produce much larger returns and we could pass it down to our children and our children's children.
or if you just really love SS, then how about getting congress to stop spending that money as soon as they get it.

o

John McCain has no shame when he collects social security, even after a rich 100 million dollar wife. He wants to ruin those people who wants depend of the social security amount. Let the rich pay full share of 6.2% contribution on full gross amount of earnings.
Let the capitalists know that only social security protects capitalism in America. If social security is badly tampered, poor will revolt then capitalists will have to run like hell.

"After a lifetime of playing by the rules and working hard, there was no guarantee of a secure retirement."

That's right, James, there was no guarantee. There still isn't. No one has the right to a guaranteed secure retirement. Using the force of government to seize property from citizens and redistribute that property is NOT a core value upon which this country was founded.

Propaganda is only effective for so long. When SS is bankrupt and there is no retirement fund available only then will change occur, and too late. If people don't realize that living on present ss 'benefit' is still poverty level then they are living the life of priveledged elite in ingnorance.

Ponzi schemes are illegal for good reason. They cannot deliver. Someone always gets cheated.

McCain and this neosocialist descendant of FDR are both right.

If you are a neosocialist who believes that America's core value is something far to the left of freedom, all redistribution programs have appeal; however, if you hold that freedom is the central American value, intergenerational theft at the point of government's gun can mever be condoned

Hoorah for FDR
Hoorah for his Grandson
Hoorah for Obama
John McCain we know who's money you live off of but some don't have the luxury of marrying into the rich. Social Security is all they have, as little as it is don't take it away, unless you want starved people on your memory forever.

I will sign my name because I know I am telling it like it is.
SSG RonnieL. Reno, Retired

The tragedy of social security is not that any Republican wants to privatize a portion of the investments. The tragedy is that Congress has chosen over the 73-year history of the program to spend the annual surplus rather than invest it to protect the program into perpetuity. Now the program is forecast to drop into the 'red' sometime around 2037 unless something different is tried. Increasing taxes is one way, but a novel approach may be to stop Congress from spending the surplus on things like earmarks!! Imagine that!!

The people of Mass should not be crying about Social Security since it was one of their native sons who unlocked the trust fund, and doomed the system to it's eventual bankruptcy.

VP

People like Thomas, post #5, make me sick. The are what is wrong with this country. They are self centered and only concerned about themselves. They are the people that would see a mugging happening on the street and cross to the other side. They could see someone choking and look back down at their newspaper.

How you treat the elderly is a direct reflection on the society as a whole. Thomas' society is not one I want to live in. Thomas would rather an elderly person go hungry or without medication so he could have a flat panel TV.

The myopic Thomas' of this country are an embarrassment to humanity

Thomas is an embarrassment to humanity.

Type your comment here...

Democrats started SS, but they just could not keep their hands off my money; they are the ones who took from me by taxing SS and putting it into their pockets. They just have to tax, tax, tax, tax. Obama will really tax if he gets in with a Democratic congress. Look what happened in France with all their socialism; corporations did not want to establish businesses there. The present leader of France is attempting to make France less socialist but is having to fight all the way. Obama will make the U.S. like Cuba or Russia. He's lying now, changing his positions to suit the voters, but if he gets in, he'll do what he wants. He'll dismantle our military and we will become defenseless against the rougue nations, Islam and others. He's a joke

Social Security is nothing more than a bottomless piggy bank that politician's have stuck there grubby little hands into for the last 70 years and put it trillions in the hole , this piggy bank is suppose to have a locked door only to be opened when we the people need it for retirement . its our money ,and not for Washington to do with it as they will !

The Democrats, not the Republicans, have misused the entire Social Security (SS) funding system by altering the basic use of funds and allowing more and more individuals who have not paid their fair share into the system to use these funds. Why is the SS funding system now available to the Federal Government as General funds? Why don't memberbers of Congress pay into the system like us hardworking Americans? Why are illegal aliens being considered as eligible for withdrawing from the SS system when they are not even USA citizens? Why are we doubled taxed on SS funds when we start withdrawing our earned benefits?

What is he thinking? Thanks to the Democratic Parties mishandling of the social security trust fund, there is still no guarantee of a secure retirement.

Proponents of Social Security are complete fools. If you instead
invested all your ss payroll taxes into a private savings account
in a bank at regular 4.5% interest, then it would grow to nearly
$1,000,000 by the time you retire.

That would provide you a check of over $3000 a month without
ever having to touch the principle, or over $4000 a month if you
wanted to draw down the principle over a number of years.

When you pass away, you could then leave your remaining
principle to your family, a charity, or the government if you choose.

But no, FDR instead devised a corrupt system that prevents regular
individuals from accumulating such wealth.

Welcome the tha Astroturf campaign against Social Security.

It is obvious that these posters against Social Security are part of a campaign to try to create the illusion that Americans are against Social Security.

Just visit a retirement home and ask anybody there if they think that Social Security should be abolished. Give me a break. The truth is, Social Security is not adequate for the retirement of most citizens, but it is, indeed, better than nothing.

Medicare is saving the seniors from the vissisitudes of our "free market" healthcare system, thank God.

The push behind killing Social Security is the Wall Street crowd (who want all of the money to be invested in the dubious Stock Market) and right wing ideologues who want public nothing and private everything.

Mr. Rossevelt should explain then how he thinks SS should go on for the next generation without raising taxes out the yazoo to fund a stupid ponzi scheme. Or does he want to raise the retirement age up to age 75? and hope most people croak before they get there just as when SS was set up most people did not live that long and never did get SS.

There are a lot of errors in what Roosevelt Jr. is quoting from McCain, plus is taken out of context considerably.

Can someone refuse to collect social security?
Does John McCain at least do that if he thinks it is such a disgrace?
We send help out to other countries in the billions of dollars, but giving US citizens that have helped build and defend our nation for a lifetime are not worthy to be helped?

We should get our priorities straight.

( If we privatize Social Security it will not help the people the program was designed to protect from poverty)

I really wish the left would stop demonizing those of us that WANT, (it would be a choice you know), to invest our own Social Security money. I'm afraid Mr. Roosevelt's grandfather probably turns in his grave every time he sees what has happened to Social Security. To say it's not a disgrace as it is currently run, is delusional. It's a disaster and will continue to be such. Further proof that this government cannot run a social program. I would happily donate the half that was my employers match. Just give me back MY contribution. I will get a greater return than ANY gov't investment.

I don't understand the logic behind criticizing McCain for taking the social security for which he is eligible. I think any of you on social security who complain about McCain that are on their computers right now should complain about yourselves; after all, you have enough time and money to get on the internet on a computer, which means that you are not struggling (or if you are, then your priorities are a little off base), and thus you are not poor enough to deserve it. Tell me, why should someone that paid into the system not get anything back out of it?

And no one is saying, "Let's get rid of social security tomorrow." Rather, the call is for phasing it back out. The idea behind social security is effectively eliminating personal accountability. The government has promised to do your retirement savings for you. However, because the government has promised this service, and many people are counting on it, I do not want those who have been counting on social security for retirement to be left without money; hence phasing out social security. I personally would much prefer to have an opt-in or opt-out type of system, if not eliminate the system all together, for my future. I would rather take my hard-earned dollars and invest them myself than give it to a poorly managed government fund. Remember, the integrity of social security is heavily dependent on who gets elected: one election cycle social security remains untouched, in another it taxes different groups of people, in another it becomes a slush fund, and in yet another it can be completely eliminated. Is this the type of retirement security on which we should depend? I think not.

Participation in social security should be optional like it is with all other retirement plans.One of the many pronblems with social security is that if you happen to die before you are old enough to collect your estate realizes nothing despite the fact that you paid into the fund.

Unfortunately today we are between a rock and a hard place. We all seem to forget Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system. In other words what the workforce pays now is what is paid to our seniors today. All those deductions from paychecks 30, 40 years ago went to seniors 30,40 years ago.

Currently we still run a surplus on Social Security (the same cannot be said about Medicare), but this will not be the case soon as the baby boomers retire and there will be less people paying into SS per senior. (FYI by 2041 if we do not change SS and medicare/medicaid our entire budget will be basically paying into SS, medicare/medicaid and the interest on the federal budget)

Nobody ever wants to talk about taking away the benefits of SS from our seniors because we know people that depend on it that we care about and we eventually know one day we will all depend on it as well. However, the truth of the matter we need to start to slowly change the system somehow, otherwise we may have to change it drastically in order for it to me fiscally possible in the future. I for one would argue for increasing the age that we can collect social security gradually, which would substantially help our financial constraints. Back when SS came out the average lifespan of the American public was 62 and SS benefits started kicking in at 62 and were fully realized at 65. Today our lifespans average 76 years, yet SS still kicks in at 62 to 65 being fully realized. Now im not saying we should move it up to the 76 year range but perhaps a over 10 year shift from the 62-65 range into the 67-70 range.

Obama's plan of keeping SS the way it is and even increasing its benefits would only make the problem worse, even though it does make everybody happy in the short term. McCain's plan of privitizing PART of SS does make sense in that we are currently running a surplus in SS so taking that surplus and putting it in the hands of individuals to WISELY invest is not a bad idea (history has shown time and time again that the best returns come from the stock market). Why should we put our money in a trust fund that acts as Congress's slush fund when we could invest that money to make better returns and insure our future? In the future some time because of these investments we can slowly start weening Americans off depending on this pay-as-you-go system.

Our healthcare today has improved from the days of FDR so that people can work into the older years of their lives. Shouldn't we take advantage of that and work a few more years to help secure SS for when our kids and grandkids get older?

I seriously doubt that the grandson knows anything first hand as to what his grandfather had been thinking. FDR did put Soc Security into place since we were in a depression, people had lost their savings when bank's collapsed (no FDIC back then) and the need to have the elderly give up their jobs so that youth could be hired and ultimately lead to the creation of families. It was the ultimate stimulas package.

But the idea of privatization of Social Security has nothing to do with FDR or a grandson that is out of his league on economics and finance. That would be like the grandson of MLK stating "my grandfather had a dream" and it mean anything.

Agree or disagree with privatization, but recognize it for what it is, one possible way to bailout a plan that lacks the needed assets for the future - and not once has any privatization plan suggested that those currently receiving or within 10 years of retirement would be impacted. If Obama wants to be honest, just like in Germany, 10% of all wages, and I mean all wages plus an employer match. Just be honest Obama, no smoke and mirrors, no redistribution of wealth.

The left wing never ever tells the truth. They just smoke their pot and dream up things.

Yippie I get to pay all that money and yet I will never see a dime of it. I hope you Sloths enjoy it.

Social Security = income redistribution = bad idea

As a 20-something just starting out in the work force, I would like to thank FDR and his grandson for that missing portion of my paycheck that I'll never see returned to me by the time I reach retirement age. Social Securtiy, like the vast majority of socialist programs instituted by the (Demon)crats, may have had good intentions, but are almost always never well thought out.

I think the right wing working class who think Social Security is a Socialistic or Communist idea might want to review how your Republican big buisness cabal has treated Americans. Over many years they became billionaires by not paying your fathers or grandfathers a just wage big enough to live on or save for their golden years. Today,now they go by the name of international corporations and to further reward us working Americans they have unbolted the factories our labor built and ship them to China for the sole purpose of exploiting cheap RED COMMUNIST slave labor. I would like to know what was the point of the Korean War,the Vietnam War,or the whole cold war, ordinary working Americans died to stop the red peril why then did the Republicans betrayed us..

Some of the comments you guys/gals make are funny. Fact, SS is for Older Americans and for the poor and can not work.
If you all are really Christians, I guess is only when it cost nothing, then you can help.
It cost money to live anywhere, it's not free in this country, whats a little more in taxes anyway, your just gonna spend it on some junk anyway... we all make enough. lets all help one another.
AB..

Just think, if S.S. only went to those who contributed to it, all would be fine. The DEMs keep giving handouts to those who did not pay into it from S.S. funds. No wonder it's broke. The DEMs broke it and want to blame the REPs.
By the way, S.S. is supposed to supliment retirement not be the only source of retirement funds. Although the DEMs won't admit it, each of you is responsible for saving for your future.

Unfortunately today we are between a rock and a hard place. We all seem to forget Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system. In other words what the workforce pays now is what is paid to our seniors today. All those deductions from paychecks 30, 40 years ago went to seniors 30,40 years ago.

Currently we still run a surplus on Social Security (the same cannot be said about Medicare), but this will not be the case soon as the baby boomers retire and there will be less people paying into SS per senior. (FYI by 2041 if we do not change SS and medicare/medicaid our entire budget will be basically paying into SS, medicare/medicaid and the interest on the federal budget)

Nobody ever wants to talk about taking away the benefits of SS from our seniors because we know people that depend on it that we care about and we eventually know one day we will all depend on it as well. However, the truth of the matter we need to start to slowly change the system somehow, otherwise we may have to change it drastically in order for it to me fiscally possible in the future. I for one would argue for increasing the age that we can collect social security gradually, which would substantially help our financial constraints. Back when SS came out the average lifespan of the American public was 62 and SS benefits started kicking in at 62 and were fully realized at 65. Today our lifespans average 76 years, yet SS still kicks in at 62 to 65 being fully realized. Now im not saying we should move it up to the 76 year range but perhaps a over 10 year shift from the 62-65 range into the 67-70 range.

Obama's plan of keeping SS the way it is and even increasing its benefits would only make the problem worse, even though it does make everybody happy in the short term. McCain's plan of privitizing PART of SS does make sense in that we are currently running a surplus in SS so taking that surplus and putting it in the hands of individuals to WISELY invest is not a bad idea (history has shown time and time again that the best returns come from the stock market). Why should we put our money in a trust fund that acts as Congress's slush fund when we could invest that money to make better returns and insure our future? In the future some time because of these investments we can slowly start weening Americans off depending on this pay-as-you-go system.

Our healthcare today has improved from the days of FDR so that people can work into the older years of their lives. Shouldn't we take advantage of that and work a few more years to help secure SS for when our kids and grandkids get older?

Let me ask a simple question of you Libertarians, neo-fascists and the like: If you were to take Social Security away, what do intend to do with the millions of seniors who have that as their only life line? When you claim to be a "patriot" and love your "country," does that or does that not include its residents? It sure doesn't sound like it. (Keep in mind that the current crop of seniors are the WWII generation)

So, what's it going to be?
a. Let them starve
b. Gas them like a good neo
c. Take them away and turn them into Soylent Green

The world awaits your decision on the seniors since your solution is so simple.

Dear federal government,

Please stop stealing money from my paycheck for this doomed and foolhardy welfare program.

Thanks,
Tom

Government sucks, to many Lobbies usually the Families related around U.S. State Rep. and U.S. Congressmen and for us the working force is nothing left: I would like to invest my own money for retirement. It should be flexible for people like me that I want to do my own investments; be nice to get the Voucher option for my grand kids education.Public School are getting to big and without competition. I paid with my own money my kids education and send them to Private Schools how nice and mentally clean are they with no human ignorant. Now I have to paid for College. I feel like this country is has to many Socialist or a low intellectual ideology people. Not every body is lazy or poor in America ! Please shrink this enormous Government! Both parties are above the lawLaw and Legal Mafias....
They get a salary raise every year for their incompetent jobs?

Social Security is a major reason to vote against McCain. Defend Social Security. Americans need to look out for themselves, because you won't get anything from the current neocon Republican running for president. Conservative reactionaries have been trying to roll back FDR's efforts for the past half century, but offer nothing to replace them.

I may not work very hard when I get off disability, may kill your children in a drunk driving accident, get a lung transplant before you for smoking too much, and have more children than you so I can get a welfare check, but dammit, I am an American! and I deserve to retire at that same age as you!

Obama 08!!

How many senior Americans live in poverty now?

In financial advising, I saw elderly couples, both receiving Social Security, having to work at Wal-Mart together to make rent.
Receiving one $700 a month check means absolutely nothing today.

Do you want to know how much appeal Mr McCqain has to the 9 to 5ers who have to work for their living, let me remind you that appearances of a candidate is all most Americans can base their judgements.. Listening tio promise of where they stand is silly.. they , the candidates.. both of them... all of them...are on their best behaviour and avoid, if possible offending anyone by making positive statements, from which they cannot extract themselves, if it becomes necessary.

Mr McCain is a slow thinker... he has no solutions that have any validity to them... he has a suitcase full of worn out cliches... if he had no advisors and writers, he would be as dumb before a microphone as some cartoon character...

If he has any knowledge at all it is so well hidden as to be non existent.

Our America is in serious trouble.. on the one hand a neophrte, Mr Obama who comes across as a circus barker.... saying nothing of value, but saying it well.... fine orations... on the other hand we have Mr Mcain, who, for some strange reason, the republican party has been uable to halt the upcoming crash..Obama winning the oavl office...I blame the repub party for sitting on their hands and allowing a positive loser to gain the nomination.....

Wow, do I hate libertarians! What a bunch of selfish, delusional simpletons. I would LOVE for them to spend a week in their own version of Utopia. A world where there is no public infrastructure. So instead of sitting on their fat a$*es complaining about the big bad evil government taxing them, then can instead enjoy of life where criminals and warlords kill their children, rape their wives and impose a 100% income tax. A perfect utopia free from the government. Of course there's no such thing as it's just a fantasy. The reality is that if they had their way they'd quickly end up like Nicholas I.

Being fiscally sane and a Libertarian are two very different things. People here are simply trying to say that we cannot continue on the path Social Security is taking us for much longer unless we want the US government to go bankrupt. We are currently in 9 trillion dollars of debt paying 2-3% interest on it every year. Thats over 8.5% of our budget in interest. Imagine if every month just to pay interest on your credit cards costs you 8.5% of your pay check. Any financial advisor would tell you you're insane. However the federal government does not have a financial advisor, just the American people to vote in who will spend the most money on them.

Currently Social Security is in the black, but at this rate by 2015 it will be in the red and by 2041 will go bankrupt. If we want to help our senior citizens and those that are not as well off, we need to change Social Security substantially, whether that is privatizing a portion of it (remember we are still in the black so we can afford it at the moment), increasing the retirement age (people are living longer and healthier lives, no reason for them not to work longer as well), cut benefits to the rich and upper middle class (then again where do we draw the line and if I paid all that money into Social Security shouldn't I get something out of it?), or increase taxes (something nobody wants to do, but would make sense in the current situation).

So what will it be America?

SeanO,

Your version of Utopia has already been tried, and failed, in reality. The term for it, I believe, is called "Communism".

Please see the history surrounding the fall of the Soviet Union.

Have a nice day!

I can see that the social engineers as usual cannot use cognitive thinking. In other words -- put one foot in front of the other.

Social Security -- if it had been lawful (constitutional) should have started out with a savings account that garnered interest and dividends. Instead -- not only has it not been put into an investment account but it has been draining out the earnings of everyone who has it held-out from their paychecks.

We have seen a continuous increase in the deductions over the years while our government has been "borrowing" from it for decades. Our young people will have to have more and more deducted from their earnings to keep up with the ever increasing retiring population.

No one is saying that Social Security should be killed overnight. What is being said by those with cognitive thinking is that it should be gradually weaned out of the system so that those currently and soon to be retiring will still get their retirement. Those who are just coming into social security deductions from their earnings -- as well as those in their 20's, 30's and probably 40's should be able to make a choice as to whether or not they want to find another means to put away for their retirement.

This country was founded on freedom and choice -- not government Big Brother mandates.

What is selfish is stealing from the young and their future stability to satisfy the wants of future retirees. At the pace Social Security is heading our young people will not have enough earnings to live on with all the increased government deductions that will be taken from their earnings. So much for the American Dream.

I am collecting Social Security now, but I would like to see the future stabilized for our young people by finding the means to wean them out of the Social Security Government System and have a private ability to fund their retirement.

People are not greedy, nor selfish because they want to keep more of their money. I volunteer at a food pantry. Do you think that our youth of today would not volunteer to help those less fortunate and use some of their time and money to set-up private organizations, foundations and entities to help those less fortunate if they could keep more of their earnings?

I have found in too many of my peers (seniors) a "you owe me attitude" launched at our younger generation. Every day I see young people help and put in time at the food pantry that I volunteer at. These young people deserve a future and a decent retirement down the road without government sucking the life blood out of their earnings. Our young are altruistic and intelligent. Why aren't you socialists concerned about the government leaving them nothing but I.O.U.'s is the Social Security "TRUST" fund? There is no "TRUST FUND" for them to use in the future, because the goverment has been 'BORROWING" it -- and the only way to replace it is to increase the taxes on Social Security to pay it back.

Why hasn't the government placed Social Security into a true "TRUST FUND" all these years that earns interest/dividends and made it unlawful to e "BORROWED" and used for other purposed then retirement?

Selfish? I am a senior who is concerned about my children, grandchildren and all all of our young people and their future if they are taxed out of their future in order to pay back the I.O.U.'s our government has burdened them with.