RW>>"Those who want to overhaul Social Security make their case with the

 ...

 TW> AND it is NOT workable.

 Yes, it is.

 TW> Forgettign that though the Medical
 TW> Advances are making people live longer, Thus DRAW longer
 TW> requiring even more input.

 Not all that much. The average increase is rather small. There
 has been some significant increases in the past, but they have
 reduced the rate of increase. And the increase in the life
 expectancy has mostly resulted from reducing the early death
 rate, which does not increase the Social security burden as much
 as it adds workers to carry the burden.

 In 1940, if you were 20 years old your life expectancy was 71
 years. In 2004 it was 81 years. True they have added 10 years,
 but in 1940 your life expectancy at birth was 58 years. Today it
 is 80. In 1940 about 5% of all children died before age 1, today
 it's a bit under 1%. That adds a lot of years to the total. In
 1940 about 7.5% of the population died by age 20. Today it's
 about 1.2%.

 TW> Think abort ot! Teh Socialist
 TW> FDR specificlky designed the "Olsd Age ASSISTANCE" program
 TW> so that MORE then 1/2 of those paying in would NEVER live
 TW> long enough to collect.

 Not exactly correct. As of 1940:

 Half of those born would not collect, but if you made it to age
 20 you would probably collect for 3.5 years. Of those who made
 it to age 40 they would probably collect for 6 years. As of 2004
 we had only added 8 years to that expectancy.

 TW> forgetting the FALLING payer pool
 TW> that means that the Curent collection start age should be
 TW> somethign over 77

 While the life expectancy has increased, the ability to continue
 to work has not kept pace. Most of all because if you are over
 50 you will have a hard time finding a job.

 TW> The system is a LIBERAL FRAUD and should
 TW> be drasticaly changed. The two best options is to base the
 TW> Psy in on the Payer to reciepient ratio. For So those
 TW> approx Three should be paying over $30 PER month if the
 TW> typical per person pay out is $1000. AND the Retirement age
 TW> should be Over 77 Years old. NOW how do you think that
 TW> would work??

 Pretty poorly. As I have told you before, according to the Bush
 administration Social Security trustees, the Social Security tax
 took abut 4.5% of the total GDP. At the worst projected period
 in the future it will take about 6.5%.

 IOW, a shift if 2% of the GDP fixes the problem. Since total
 taxes take about 30% of GDP, it should be possible to shift 2%.
 Or, even better, reduce unemployment to about 4% or less, and
 hold it there.

RW>>"The Social Security tax has been raising more money than is
needed to pay
RW>>for current benefits, in order to build up a surplus to help finance the
RW>>retirement of the Baby Boom generation. All of this surplus is lent to the
RW>>U.S. Treasury when the Social Security Trust Fund buys bonds from it. The
RW>>money is then used to finance the federal deficit, just like any other
RW>>money the government borrows."

 TW> The so called TRUST fund is also a FRAUD evern since LBJ
 TW> opened it up to be Spend as Desired by the Politicans to
 TW> pay for his FRAUD the "Great Society".

 Since the Social security trust fund has always been invested in
 federal funds, how do you figure that has changed?

 TW> Those IOU's are rappidly declining in Value and soon will
 TW> be Wrothless JUNK bonds. Ironicly because of the LIBERAL
 TW> Socialist FOOL gluttionious spending money we DO NOT HAVE.

 You mean GW Bush.

RW>> TW> That means for the system to be on a SOUND Fiscal basis Each
RW>> TW> Contributor should be paying a little over $333 PER month.

RW>>Check out how it works before making wild claims like that one. That's
RW>>what I'd call O'bama scare tactics to ease the increase in SSI deductions
RW>>from wage earners he's got planned for the future.

 TW> With the bonds beomming Worthless, And incidnetly they
 TW> NEVER have drawn enough Interest to Keep up with Inflation,
 TW> THEN WHAT.

 What else would you do? The average 401K has lost about half
 it's expected value under this administration. Social security
 has historically paid off better and any other retirement fund.

 TW> Those paying WILL have to pay 1/3 of the
 TW> reciepient cost today and in 2010 1/2 of the average
 TW> reciepient Draw. OR we face Masive TAX increased to cover
 TW> the SCAM.

 Or, we reindustrialize the country, cut unemployment, remove
 illegal aliens, and reregulate our financial sector. Oh, and
 reregulate the utilities.

 TW> NOTHING WILD about THAT Claim!! NOR what I said before.

 Nor much meaningful. Saving social security is not that hard,
 it's getting past the lobbyists for the investment and energy
 industries that is the problem.


BOB KLAHN bob.klahn{at}sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

 * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a