Why wouldn't you guys want Pelosi and Crenshaw managing your retirement accounts?

I for one am going to be ecstatic that the best traders in the world are now going to be in charge.

I'm a younger person who will never receive SS. If I was 73 I would still want to get rid of it. 50 years of having your money stolen vs only 25 years of having your money stolen from you shouldn't matter. It's a BS system that is purely a slush fund for the people you hate the most in this country, and is a mere pittance for most people actually planning long term for a reasonable retirement.

Wrec86 Ag said:

---

As a libertarian and financial conservative, I would gladly see the government get rid of the program and let people save their retirement on their own. I've personally just written it off as a tax and plan to never receive it when looking at our retirement. (My wife and I are 36)


Being realistic, that's a nightmare scenario. The first generation that had to do that would fail miserably. Saving money is just not something people do well.

If you told everyone that SS was going away, and their paycheck increased by $100 every two weeks….. they would go out to dinner with that money, or maybe pay down their student loans - the last thing they would do is to invest in retirement. And then we'd have a generation of old people with zero retirement money and a disaster on our hands.


I've come to the realization that SS is a necessary program, and it needs some changes in order to be functional in the future. In order :

1. Raise the retirement age, people are living longer, so the age for SS withdrawals needs to go up.
2. To the point made above, raise the income max
3. And lastly, if necessary, raise the tax rate nominally

---

This is mostly accurate, and sums up most of what I would call a 'devil's advocate' post that I wanted to make.

Point #2 is false. Social security is already 85% taxable income for the vast majority of recipients. The only time the SS benefits are not taxed is when there is no other income outside of SS--this includes interest from bank products, IRA/pension income, and income from 'tax-free' municipal bonds. Raising tax on SS would essentially be an income tax for everyone, and would contribute to the general treasury, not SS. Also should note that the rates for where someone begins being taxed on SS benefits have not been indexed for inflation since 1984, so this is about as 'regressive' as it gets in terms of who is paying taxes.

Prior to SS, the elderly poor would move in with their children or be supported by their children. As many have mentioned, personal responsibility would have to make a massive leap forward to not create a huge population of destitute elderly in the near future. As a financial advisor, I am amazed by the number of folks who have less than $100k in retirement funds 'for emergencies' and get by on only SS checks. Then, any year that they access the retirement funds their tax bill jumps because their provisional income then puts them into taxable range.

fixer said:

---

This is a remarkably bad idea for so many reasons it could have only been dreamed up in Washington D.C.

I'd love to hear a cogent defense of this that does not rely on emotional appeal to socialistic utopias where everyone gets a retirement fund.

---

The defense is this--currently, the only thing that SS can 'invest' in is government bonds. Government bonds essentially only keep up with inflation. Without a growing number of workers supporting a shrinking number of recipients, the 'trust fund' will only dwindle. Furthermore, government bonds fund government spending, so SS will always be 'robbed' for government spending, there's no way around it. Stocks are the only statistical way to outpace inflation, thus the only way to grow a fund with shrinking contributors.

The biggest problem I have with this plan is that government gets even deeper into the business of picking winners and losers. That hasn't worked out in the past.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

I see this as an attempt to dodge some of the consequences of policies that cause inflation, by investing in assets that more or less inflate in value as the dollar itself inflates, allowing them to keep printing and spending more without directly raising taxes, and tax us through inflation, instead of fixing the structural problems. I agree we need to do something, but that something should involve consequences for poor saving Vs consumption choices earlier in life.

---

You're on to something, MouthBQ. And it's true, we ned to do something, but what can be done that will not only keep those who are currently receiving SS from taking their votes to run rampant on their representatives to the point of ousting them and also not piss off every single business, big and small, that counts on those SS dollars coming to them because of their customer's SS checks? I'd imagine there'd be a lot of lobbyists for both parties living in representatives' offices and front porches at that point.

It's easy to tell someone younger who, let's say, is making six figures that it won't be there for them and they'll have to count on their investments/401ks. I'm sure there are plenty who would be just fine, but when there are plenty of stories around talking about how many people are making six figures or more and are having trouble getting by, what percentage of the population is actually going to agree to this being taken from them?

It's been a great talking point/wedge issue for politicians, but aside from talk and tweets, I can't see any of them doing anything that will actually change things with SS. Like most things, it seems like it's easier for them to tweet about how they're going to do something, yet in the end, as always, they just kick the can down the road.

C@LAg said:

---

or... get rid of social security.

problem solved.

---

**** you it's NOT solved. Those *****s stole money out of every paycheck of mine for decades. They are going to ****ing pay me back. Young people still can't get it that social security is not a charity.

Aglaw97 said:

---

I've been paying into SS for over 30 years and am convinced I will never see a dime. I believe the program is needed only because if it were cancelled the government would just create a separate entitlement and cash is fungible so I'll be paying for it one way or another through taxes.

The next 3 things that will happen to prolong SS are raising the eligibility age, broadening the streams of income that can be taxed for SS and means testing. If you make more than about $100k individually or $200k married, you will get means tested out or significantly reduced.

---

Its already means tested. This is another big lie about fixing this thing. Read up on how benefits are calculated to see that a worker with a record of paying employment taxes against $50k in income gets about 80% of the retirement benefit of a worker paying against the max wage base every year. Likewise, somebody who barely makes their 40 quarters of paying in will get better than half of what the $50k worker gets. Benefits acrue at a much higher rate on the first dollars earned than the last.

The other problem is that, as we always see, people with the means to do so will set up their retirement income such that they continue to be able to receive benefits. The feds will always be chasing this, and the problem will get worse as pensions continue to be phased out.

No Spin Ag said:

---

when there are plenty of stories around talking about how many people are making six figures or more and are having trouble getting by, what percentage of the population is actually going to agree to this being taken from them?

---

Well that's the real problem. We are a cancer patient complaining that our bandaids might be taken away. The issue isn't that people won't save responsibly (I mean it's true, but that isn't the real issue). The issue is that it's becoming harder and harder for those who do save responsibly to retire comfortably, even with SS as an added bonus.

We need to address our spending and regulatory policies that are devaluing American wealth. Once we have those nailed down, then we need to look at SS.

DallasAg 94 said:

---

School funding is part of the Social Contract. Who do you think paid for your kid's education 25 years ago. If you don't want to pay property taxes... move. You'll pay either through Income Tax, Sales Tax, or Property Tax.

I like living in Texas with Property Tax over Income Tax because it allows you to grow in career success and still have control over you Taxation.

People used to look down at us because we lived in an old shanty. Once the kids are gone, we'll likely move back to a shanty.

---

Its not just a social contract. A 73 year old has a vested interest in an educated populace to go to work providing services that said retiree relies upon. Much better to have a population of socialized teenagers who can read enough to earn a living (fixing his car, repairing his house, serving him at a restaurant, etc.) rather than just turning to a life of crime and beating the 73 year old to death for his wallet. Also, the recent graduate will immediately be contributing to SS in order for the 73 year old to continue receiving benefits, which is far better for society than consuming tax dollars via incarceration.

Where the social contract part of this comes into play is that all of us are paying property taxes for education and creating socialized graduates who can read enough to support themselves without government assistance. What we are getting is indoctrinated socialists who are grossly underprepared for the workforce, thus the need for more education/indoctrination via college.

Why do we keep talking about Social Security as if it's a separate thing and will run out? The funds come from the budget. They'll just print more money like they always do and go deeper in debt.

Don't forget to tax more for it, too!

DallasAg 94 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

If it makes you feel any better the reason that Blacks have a lower life expectancy is they have a much higher rate of death among the young and people on welfare or other government benefits for their entire lives (which is disproportionately Black) also tend not to live as long because of drugs and violence. So in effect the people who are bringing the average down don't contribute to SS. Blacks that live responsible lives live just as long as any other race.

---

That sounds like inflammatory racism, to me. How dare you identify such things among a "certain" population.

To your point, I think I saw a study decades ago that basically said, if you consider people from the age of 30... once they reach the age of 30, life expectancy is about the same among all races.

---

I'll assume you're being sarcastic. If not, you must have glazed right over Statistics 101.

Quote:

---

buttigieg has a rail team standing by.

---

No doubt.

Wrec86 Ag said:

---

As a libertarian and financial conservative, I would gladly see the government get rid of the program and let people save their retirement on their own. I've personally just written it off as a tax and plan to never receive it when looking at our retirement. (My wife and I are 36)


Being realistic, that's a nightmare scenario. The first generation that had to do that would fail miserably. Saving money is just not something people do well.

If you told everyone that SS was going away, and their paycheck increased by $100 every two weeks….. they would go out to dinner with that money, or maybe pay down their student loans - the last thing they would do is to invest in retirement. And then we'd have a generation of old people with zero retirement money and a disaster on our hands.


I've come to the realization that SS is a necessary program, and it needs some changes in order to be functional in the future. In order :

1. Raise the retirement age, people are living longer, so the age for SS withdrawals needs to go up.
2. To the point made above, raise the income max
3. And lastly, if necessary, raise the tax rate nominally

---

You are correct

It's necessary for the feds and politicians.

Aside from that, no, it is absolutely not a necessary program. It is not the responsibility of the federal government to plan retirement for people. That is their own damn responsibility, and if they don't - sucks to be them. Go beg from friends and family.

Horse with No Name said:

---

Aglaw97 said:

---

I've been paying into SS for over 30 years and am convinced I will never see a dime. I believe the program is needed only because if it were cancelled the government would just create a separate entitlement and cash is fungible so I'll be paying for it one way or another through taxes.

The next 3 things that will happen to prolong SS are raising the eligibility age, broadening the streams of income that can be taxed for SS and means testing. If you make more than about $100k individually or $200k married, you will get means tested out or significantly reduced.

---

Its already means tested. This is another big lie about fixing this thing. Read up on how benefits are calculated to see that a worker with a record of paying employment taxes against $50k in income gets about 80% of the retirement benefit of a worker paying against the max wage base every year. Likewise, somebody who barely makes their 40 quarters of paying in will get better than half of what the $50k worker gets. Benefits acrue at a much higher rate on the first dollars earned than the last.

The other problem is that, as we always see, people with the means to do so will set up their retirement income such that they continue to be able to receive benefits. The feds will always be chasing this, and the problem will get worse as pensions continue to be phased out.

---

Probably worded it poorly. When I said means tested, I mean anyone over a threshold will get zero with the argument being you made enough to prepare for retirement and the money available should go to those who didn't make enough in their lifetime.

Also, the absolute FIRST thing that needs to be done across the board:

Educate people to the point that SS is not, never was, and never will be, intended to be a retirement program. It was designed to be a supplement to retirement as a result of the great depression and FDR's goal to be a monarch who controls every aspect of lives.

It went from being a supplement to retirement over the years to be billed as retirement, and hat meant a whole lot of people were duped into thinking they didn't need to save because social security was there already.

IT'S NOT A FUGGIN RETIREMENT PROGRAM AND NEVER WAS

Aglaw97 said:

---

Horse with No Name said:

---

Aglaw97 said:

---

I've been paying into SS for over 30 years and am convinced I will never see a dime. I believe the program is needed only because if it were cancelled the government would just create a separate entitlement and cash is fungible so I'll be paying for it one way or another through taxes.

The next 3 things that will happen to prolong SS are raising the eligibility age, broadening the streams of income that can be taxed for SS and means testing. If you make more than about $100k individually or $200k married, you will get means tested out or significantly reduced.

---

Its already means tested. This is another big lie about fixing this thing. Read up on how benefits are calculated to see that a worker with a record of paying employment taxes against $50k in income gets about 80% of the retirement benefit of a worker paying against the max wage base every year. Likewise, somebody who barely makes their 40 quarters of paying in will get better than half of what the $50k worker gets. Benefits acrue at a much higher rate on the first dollars earned than the last.

The other problem is that, as we always see, people with the means to do so will set up their retirement income such that they continue to be able to receive benefits. The feds will always be chasing this, and the problem will get worse as pensions continue to be phased out.

---

Probably worded it poorly. When I said means tested, I mean anyone over a threshold will get zero with the argument being you made enough to prepare for retirement and the money available should go to those who didn't make enough in their lifetime.

---

If that happens, then we might as well just go full socialist as a nation because there would be very little incentive to do much to get to that threshold.

Which will be systematically lowered as time goes on, like every other threshold.

I'm 100% for elimination of the ponzi scheme. But it should be done in a manner that the money forcibly taken from me under the threat of law under the guise of being "my money" that the feds are holding for me to supplement my retirement should be returned to me. Because it is my money. Not the feds, not yours, not that guy over there. My money.

There are absolutely mechanisms to phase out this theft. But they absolutely will never see the light of day because that would mean federal boots on our throats are fewer and Washington will never abide by such a concept.

The fact that they are estimating SS will be insolvent in 9 years is a testament to the fact it was a flawed system to begin with, but that's how pyramid schemes work. In 9 years people that are 70 years old will have been born in 1962, which is basically the tail end of the baby boomers. I don't know what the population drop off situation is after that but that's the issue that's staring them in the face, they don't have enough bodies working underneath the bodies receiving SS. This is a reason that you could see significant immigration reform, they'll want citizens to back fill the taxation gaps that they are looking at. If they don't have enough natural citizens they'll make it easier to immigrate. I guarantee retirement age is only a piece of the puzzle they're looking at trying to address this issue.

Fair enough, and I'm not really directing all this at you, but there's still a couple of problems... First, so many people don't understand how SS works and how it accrues that politicians get away with throwing terms like 'means tested' around with no push back. Second, what you're proposing gives more problems with accounting for how benefits accrue and how to keep up with who made what. Making an already complicated system more complicated only adds to the control government has.

"The Rich," meaning the top 1% in income changes every year. Many times by as much as 25% of the total. Somebody selling 100 acres of inherited land in central TX can hop into the 1% in a given year, then go back to being a truck driver/teacher household for the rest of their careers. This transaction wouldn't affect SS because its not earned income. Likewise, an insurance agent could have the sale of a lifetime one year, earning a huge commission, then go back to being solid middle class for the rest of his career. Both examples have the same accrued earnings/net worth over a lifetime--would one or the other be means tested out? Only the insurance agent contributed part of his windfall (I know its above the wage base). The next logical step is the wealth tax and reporting on one's net worth.

About to run a train?…more like about to run another train

The middle class must be eliminated to reach Marxism nirvana

I wonder how the three counties that opted out of Social Security are doing?

I suspect fairly well, since the Dems would be living outside the bank just to belittle the participants in the program. I used to follow the progress and returns, but haven't heard anything about it in many years.

All three counties are south and west of Houston, I just can't remember which ones.

schmellba99 said:

---

Also, the absolute FIRST thing that needs to be done across the board:

Educate people to the point that SS is not, never was, and never will be, intended to be a retirement program. It was designed to be a supplement to retirement as a result of the great depression and FDR's goal to be a monarch who controls every aspect of lives.

It went from being a supplement to retirement over the years to be billed as retirement, and hat meant a whole lot of people were duped into thinking they didn't need to save because social security was there already.

IT'S NOT A FUGGIN RETIREMENT PROGRAM AND NEVER WAS

---

People say this all the time, but when SS was implemented, there was a crisis of elderly poor. It was and always has been, a retirement plan for the lowest income group. The problem is that its become a retirement plan for a group of people that should have had plenty of income to save for themselves but haven't. Of course, we could argue that the reason they didn't save for themselves is because of over taxation, but that's different story.

You will not get your money back before retirement age unless you're disabled. I'm 46 and have said for years that I would sign up immediately for a plan that makes me the first one that is ineligible for benefits, even though I would keep paying for the rest of my career. I would do that, not because I'm an altruistic and generous guy, but because it would eliminate the third rail of politics and remove the control aspect you mentioned.

fasthorse05 said:

---

I wonder how the three counties that opted out of Social Security are doing?

I suspect fairly well, since the Dems would be living outside the bank just to belittle the participants in the program. I used to follow the progress and returns, but haven't heard anything about it in many years.

All three counties are south and west of Houston, I just can't remember which ones.

---

Probably about as well as retired TX teachers or retired pastors (these often opt out, too). That is to say, fine if they saved the money that didn't put into SS, and not so well if they didn't. The other question to ask is, "How many of those that opted out had a major disability with no personal disability income insurance?" How many died with minor age children and no significant life insurance?

MaroonStain said:

---

Newsflash: there is no Social Security fund. All contributions go into General Fund and all payments are from General Fund. There is no set aside Social Security fund.

---

. Yep, no lock box

Tex100 said:

---

MaroonStain said:

---

Newsflash: there is no Social Security fund. All contributions go into General Fund and all payments are from General Fund. There is no set aside Social Security fund.

---

. Yep, no lock box

---

But there's a crapload of IOU notes left on the kitchen counter!!

schmellba99 said:

---

Aglaw97 said:

---

Horse with No Name said:

---

Aglaw97 said:

---

I've been paying into SS for over 30 years and am convinced I will never see a dime. I believe the program is needed only because if it were cancelled the government would just create a separate entitlement and cash is fungible so I'll be paying for it one way or another through taxes.

The next 3 things that will happen to prolong SS are raising the eligibility age, broadening the streams of income that can be taxed for SS and means testing. If you make more than about $100k individually or $200k married, you will get means tested out or significantly reduced.

---

Its already means tested. This is another big lie about fixing this thing. Read up on how benefits are calculated to see that a worker with a record of paying employment taxes against $50k in income gets about 80% of the retirement benefit of a worker paying against the max wage base every year. Likewise, somebody who barely makes their 40 quarters of paying in will get better than half of what the $50k worker gets. Benefits acrue at a much higher rate on the first dollars earned than the last.

The other problem is that, as we always see, people with the means to do so will set up their retirement income such that they continue to be able to receive benefits. The feds will always be chasing this, and the problem will get worse as pensions continue to be phased out.

---

Probably worded it poorly. When I said means tested, I mean anyone over a threshold will get zero with the argument being you made enough to prepare for retirement and the money available should go to those who didn't make enough in their lifetime.

---

If that happens, then we might as well just go full socialist as a nation because there would be very little incentive to do much to get to that threshold.

Which will be systematically lowered as time goes on, like every other threshold.

I'm 100% for elimination of the ponzi scheme. But it should be done in a manner that the money forcibly taken from me under the threat of law under the guise of being "my money" that the feds are holding for me to supplement my retirement should be returned to me. Because it is my money. Not the feds, not yours, not that guy over there. My money.

There are absolutely mechanisms to phase out this theft. But they absolutely will never see the light of day because that would mean federal boots on our throats are fewer and Washington will never abide by such a concept.

---

My opinion is based solely upon the way we are trending in general as a society. I'd wager even money this happens once the available funds become critically low

Horse with No Name said:

---

Fair enough, and I'm not really directing all this at you, but there's still a couple of problems... First, so many people don't understand how SS works and how it accrues that politicians get away with throwing terms like 'means tested' around with no push back. Second, what you're proposing gives more problems with accounting for how benefits accrue and how to keep up with who made what. Making an already complicated system more complicated only adds to the control government has.

"The Rich," meaning the top 1% in income changes every year. Many times by as much as 25% of the total. Somebody selling 100 acres of inherited land in central TX can hop into the 1% in a given year, then go back to being a truck driver/teacher household for the rest of their careers. This transaction wouldn't affect SS because its not earned income. Likewise, an insurance agent could have the sale of a lifetime one year, earning a huge commission, then go back to being solid middle class for the rest of his career. Both examples have the same accrued earnings/net worth over a lifetime--would one or the other be means tested out? Only the insurance agent contributed part of his windfall (I know its above the wage base). The next logical step is the wealth tax and reporting on one's net worth.

---

I hear you and I'm surely not a fortune teller. I'm just reading the winds and tea leaves. But we already do this for multiple areas both under tax law and other proposed government financial aid (see the recent, albeit questionably legal, proposed student debt relief). And it's not a stretch to expand it to SS benefits if things become dire, which I'm not sure how they don't when you have a top heavy pyramid scheme that's living longer and draining the available funds from a population that's decreasing and not working as much/long.

Aglaw97 said:

---

Horse with No Name said:

---

Fair enough, and I'm not really directing all this at you, but there's still a couple of problems... First, so many people don't understand how SS works and how it accrues that politicians get away with throwing terms like 'means tested' around with no push back. Second, what you're proposing gives more problems with accounting for how benefits accrue and how to keep up with who made what. Making an already complicated system more complicated only adds to the control government has.

"The Rich," meaning the top 1% in income changes every year. Many times by as much as 25% of the total. Somebody selling 100 acres of inherited land in central TX can hop into the 1% in a given year, then go back to being a truck driver/teacher household for the rest of their careers. This transaction wouldn't affect SS because its not earned income. Likewise, an insurance agent could have the sale of a lifetime one year, earning a huge commission, then go back to being solid middle class for the rest of his career. Both examples have the same accrued earnings/net worth over a lifetime--would one or the other be means tested out? Only the insurance agent contributed part of his windfall (I know its above the wage base). The next logical step is the wealth tax and reporting on one's net worth.

---

I hear you and I'm surely not a fortune teller. I'm just reading the winds and tea leaves. But we already do this for multiple areas both under tax law and other proposed government financial aid (see the recent, albeit questionably legal, proposed student debt relief). And it's not a stretch to expand it to SS benefits if things become dire, which I'm not sure how they don't when you have a top heavy pyramid scheme that's living longer and draining the available funds from a population that's decreasing and not working as much/long.

---

My point, as made in the first post is that it is already heavily means tested and pushing it further will likely result in more fraud and tax evasion than improvement. My second point is that any language viewed as a compromise that speaks of means testing should be fought against vigorously because it is just a trojan horse for a wealth tax.

How many of you SS naysayers on here have your elderly parents or grandparents living with you? Show of hands please.......

Rattler12 said:

---

How many of you SS naysayers on here have your elderly parents or grandparents living with you? Show of hands please.......

---

Two things can be true at the same time--that's why this is so hard to fix. It tacks on generational warfare on top of class and racial strife.

The trust fund...TXAGBQ76 said:

---

We can debate the pros and cons all day, but according to the SSA website:

"What are the Trust Funds?

The Social Security trust funds are financial accounts in the U.S. Treasury. There are two separate Social Security trust funds, the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund pays retirement and survivors benefits, and the Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Fund pays disability benefits.

Social Security taxes and other income are deposited in these accounts, and Social Security benefits are paid from them. The only purposes for which these trust funds can be used are to pay benefits and program administrative costs.

The Social Security trust funds hold money not needed in the current year to pay benefits and administrative costs and, by law, invest it in special Treasury bonds that are guaranteed by the U.S. Government. A market rate of interest is paid to the trust funds on the bonds they hold, and when those bonds reach maturity or are needed to pay benefits, the Treasury redeems them."

It also states these funds have never been part of a "General Fund". They have been part of and removed from the "Unified Budget" numerous times, but the funds were separate line items.

---

The "Trust Fund".

Quote:

---

Here's why the trust fund has no financial value. Say that Social Security calls the Treasury sometime in 2017 and says it needs to cash in $20 billion of securities to cover benefit checks. The only way for the Treasury to get that money is for the rest of the government to spend $20 billion less than it otherwise would (fat chance!), collect more in taxes (ditto), or borrow $20 billion more (which is what would happen). The spend-less, collect-more, and borrow-more options are exactly what they would be if there were no trust fund. Thus, the trust fund doesn't make it any easier for the government to cover Social Security's cash shortfalls than if there were no trust fund.

---

Rattler12 said:

---

How many of you SS naysayers on here have your elderly parents or grandparents living with you? Show of hands please.......

---

I do not but if I had to, I would. Because that's what kids do; you take care of your parents when life flips as it will with everyone. Brother and I have already started discussing how we take care of our mother if my Dad goes first because she can't hear or see enough to live on her own.

The logical thing to do here is to phase it out over time so that folks near the end don't get screwed over but the young have plenty of time to plan for it. And then if you don't plan for it, then tough ***** You're on your own and hopefully your kids or family will take you in.

YouBet said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

How many of you SS naysayers on here have your elderly parents or grandparents living with you? Show of hands please.......

---

I do not but if I had to, I would. Because that's what kids do; you take care of your parents when life flips as it will with everyone. Brother and I have already started discussing how we take care of our mother if my Dad goes first because she can't hear or see enough to live on her own.

The logical thing to do here is to phase it out over time so that folks near the end don't get screwed over but the young have plenty of time to plan for it. And then if you don't plan for it, then tough ***** You're on your own and hopefully your kids or family will take you in.

---

My parents were teachers.

No SS for them.

Dad is doing quite well, but 37 years in TRS plus my mom's survivor benefits at 100% help with that.

I am getting close to retirement. I've got a couple pensions coming (last company and TRS) and my IRA, plus TDA.

Then my GF has a TRS pension too and we own a good amount of property that will get sold off as we get older.

I also "supposedly" have SS coming to me. However, I don't trust the government so it is not in my retirement financial plans at all.

If I don't get it, ok...it won't hurt me (other than pissing me off). But, if I do get it, it's going to be hookers and blow money. I'll set up an account and check it in January. If I have money in there, COOL! We get to use it on whatever the **** we want. If not, oh well, didn't expect it anyways...

policywonk98 said:

---

Personal responsibility revolution needs to take place in a bad way in this country.

---

This...I don't see it happening and am not sure how it could even happen at this point without being preceded by some type of major catastrophe, but it needs to happen.

Can't believe this is where we are. Wishing upon stars.

Franklin Comes Alive! said:

---

Or we could just quit doing this goofy **** & let people save/invest their own money

---

This right here