I agree, however, raising taxes alone will not solve the problem.  In 1950 there were 6 beneficiaries per 100 workers paying in.  By 2050 there are projected to be 50 beneficiaries per 100 workers paying in.  We have only made this problem worse by increasing medicare benefits which are already rising faster than inflation even without the new drug program.

Something has to give.

You asked about how my parents were going to afford retirement.  I told you.

As far as inheritance, you are wrong again.  My grandfathers wealth will divided 3 ways & pass through my mom.  Since she & I are not on perfect terms, and she is not the most financially responsible person, so I don't expect to see any of it.  I will see one third of one half of whatever my father has.  He does well, but whatever I may end up getting probably wouldn't pay off my mortgage, much less cover my retirement. 

I am, in actuality, one of the salaried workers you describe.  My retirement plan depends solely on what I save in my 401k & having a paid off mortgage when I retire.  I do not expect any SS/medicare or even a penny of inheritance.  I expect to live comfortably, and it hasn't taken anything more than minimal efforts, just good decision making & a responsible personal budget.  This is something anyone of even modest means should be able to do assuming they don't get caught up in debt, consumerism & poor life choices such as dropping out of school or having children outside of a stable marriage.  Sure there are hard luck cases, but that is why it SS/medicare should be a safety net rather than 20+ years on the dole.

That is only relevant if you plan on living in another country when you retire.  I won't be converting any of my dollars to euros unless I move to Europe.  Everything else is reflected in the inflation figure.

Please feel free to elaborate on whatever you think I am missing in SS/medicare benefits with actual empirical data.  I am anxious to see what you have to back up your anecdotal assertions.

The "Me Generation" is a synonym for baby boomers.  I'm not a baby boomer, and when I referred earlier to the "me" plan, I was referring to a retirement plan where I am responsible for "me," not the govt.  Personal responsibility seems to be sadly lacking among retirees such as yourself who feel entitled to rely on the shrinking ration of workers such as myself to support you.  We know the benefits you enjoy will not be there when we get to be your age, and you are complicit in this failure by expecting the govt to take care of you even when you may be able to care for yourself. 

SS/medicare were intended to be a safety net.  There is no question about this.  Again, when SS was established, the retirement age was the same as life expectancy at the time.  The program was never intended to give people a 20+ year hand out to those who can easily work or rely on their own savings.  I am sure you have no problem continuing to bankrupt future generations you will leave behind; you will not have to pay the bill. 

I didn't go to high school in Utah, but why not add one more incorrect assumption to your list. 

Studying history is certainly worthwhile, but the problem is that people like yourself always expect that the future continue just like the past in linear fashion.  Look no further than all of the rhetoric about how Saddam & Iraq was just like Hitler & Germany to see how misleading this mentality can be. 

The fact is that the business as usual program of increasing life expectancy & increasing benefits for retirees is a train wreck in slow motion.  I have no problem raising taxes to cover reasonable benefits, but raising taxes will not be nearly enough.  Sooner or later will have to either scrap the programs all together or cut benefits.  The fool is the person who chooses to ignore the problem so that they can take their hand outs without any consideration of the bankruptcy they are creating for the generations left behind.  This is a blatantly selfish mentality thinly veiled behind some hard luck anecdotes of starving seniors.  Sooner or later more people will catch on, and the party will be over. 

Calling military retirement benefits welfare is plainly ridiculous.  I am no fan of McCain, but I honor his service, and he is entitled to the military benefits he has earned.

If he benefits from his wife's inheritance, then that's his business, and has no relevant bearing on this discussion.  FWIW, I favor taxing inheritance as regular income from the first cent.  That is, however, a completely different discussion worth its own thread.

It is clear that politicians of both parties lack the political courage to address the growing entitlement problem.  I have no hope of seeing a solution until it is far too late to salvage even a means tested system.  Certainly the war in Iraq has been a costly misadventure in terms of both lives & money.  I have a brother in law who will be serving a second tour there in about a month.  I can only hope for him & ever service person there to return safely.  I sincerely regret what better use the money & lives could have been put too than there.  Unfortunately, there is no easy solution at this late point.

As for China, we are probably quite lucky that we have a country so willing to finance our consumerism.  The truth is, our fates are now tied.  As our dollar falls, so does the value of the vast amount of our debt they hold.  I only hope that this doesn't lead to more protectionism as seems likely based on recent political rhetoric.  Protectionism hurts both sides of the lost trade relationship.  Ironically, our best tool for exporting democracy is trade.  In the long run we may follow our failure to produce a democracy in Iraq militarily with a failure to nurture positive political developments elsewhere with protectionism.  In any case, these are also subjects deserving of their own thread.

Medicare and Medicaid are in financial crisis.

Not Social Security.

Here are some facts about Social Security: http://www.socsec.org/publications.asp?pubid=507

Unfortunately, Quarken, in lumping the issues together, along with your insistence the programs should be a means tested "safety net" instead of the intent of the programs as established, you fail in the essence your case.

In addition, the Medicare and Medicaid shortfalls, in the long run, might be resolved by the establishment of a single payer health care system for all.  While on a personal basis, my
spouse and I receive our medical care through the military program promised and then later denied to those who chose to make a career of the military, which was "free health care
for life" for the retiree and eligible family members, the Tri-Care-For-Life substitute to avoid settling a massive law suit, was created in which we pay our Part B Medicare and then
all deductibles and copays are paid by TCFL by the DOD. 

Under a universal health care plan I think most would agree the savings might be quite large and there is also the medical care provided through the VA.  Those costs as our rise constantly as more and more veterans of the current and previous wars live longer and require more care. 

Just a thought I suspect might resolve health care short falls in current programs providing  equality of healthcare for all and adding the savings that are the result of all the current variety of Federally paid for health care benefits might contribute both in equal treatment for all as well as save funds in the long run.  Wonder what McCain's attitude toward a
universal health care plan might be.  I think you know, but his plan for tax credits is quite a useless one, though he and his family hardly require assistance and are also well covered though both his military retirement and his status as an M.C. to say nothing of the ability to pay for any care required provided by his heiress spouse.

Aha, the truth comes out Quarken.  It's really about that income distribution. Standard GOP talking points about programs that provide economic benefits to any group.  You apparently ignored the reality that many continue to work as well as lose benefits in the process and continue to pay in past age 65.  In addition, one more factor of your true resentment is evident, I and others of my generation are only a group of greedy elderly who are taking your funds as a salaried worker to enjoy all the benefits of being excessively rich and playing daily at your expense. 

While admitting the real problem isn't SSA, you also while accusing me of providing no reasoning other than my personal greed, you follow the typical GOP Party line about universal
health care. Maybe the shoe is really a better fit on your foot and you are classic for that generation who bought the GOP philosophy since Reagan's reign.  "Greed is good. I've got mine. Screw you."  Any opinion about raising the income cap? The current one is hardly realistic. Maybe end punishing those who continue to work and earn with some realistic indexing of the tax code rather than continuing to discourage employment and even savings in the IRAs the single available program still available to many working class couples as though the Roth may for some work out better, those distributions can still be an issue.

If the future foretells your dire predictions, maybe you had better try and establish a better relationship with Mummy and hope she becomes more responsible?   

Unfortnately, Quarken, in a discussion of this singular issue related to the topic of McCain's fiscal lack of responsible plans, while claiming I can't rationalize the continuation of SSA for those who might require the funds being paid into by those who remain employed, which BTW includes those who have past retirement age for maximum benefits, you've made it
clear your objections remain what you began with which is "ME." 

Not atypical for someone who is young with little life experience and few personal responsibilities. As one ages, there are a variety of changes in the process of both living and earning a living.  SSA provides a supplement as it was designed to do after one reaches retirement age, which BTW has already been raised 2000 was the last year full benefits are paid at age 65, Reality check, few are able to actually save the numbers required to provide for a reasonable retirement and even those such as my late 40s and early 50s offspring as with many other families though none are destitute by far, earn an amount that would provide for their current needs, raising and educating their children and also providing elderly parents. In your case Quarken, while claiming the elderly are the greedy ones, in reality it is you who is selfish and greedy.  But just to show a bit of reality about how many of those "greedy" elderly are living high on what you are providing, it is far from the claims you make.  Check the average benefits and see if you believe the typical retiree's SSA is a livable amount in today's U.S. economy? 

So with this link to SSA for the actual figures, it is an effort in futility to attempt to discuss this issue with you as should be obvious to those who have been participants in this forum must understand well, as only JPN bothered to comment on your posts and even with his comment, you continue the same old argument. 

Further discussion is ended here from me. Your argument is based on greed, your personal greed and a lack of real life experience. 

BTW, just to share on a very personal basis, because I worked for years in non-covered jobs including service jobs, teaching jobs, and collections  were not extended to many jobs, including the early years my spouse was serving in the military some until the mid-1980s, after payment of Medicare Part B, my SSA deposit each month is a $336. Not a unusual result, particularly for women who in my generation stayed at home in the unpaid position of child rearing and providing unpaid labor for families.  Not an issue for McCain with his beer heiress trophy wife. It appears you've become convince wealthy, "greedy" elderly are the norm. Hardly true. The second link provides the information re: legislation during Reagan's reign.  You may want to take the time to inform yourself about the major changes that took place then. 


http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/ssa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=310&p_created=959284761



http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/1983amend.html

Despite all the conservative rhetoric to the contrary, there's little evidence that the government won't keep its promise. The latest projection shows that SS is funded through 2046. This date keeps shifting out farther and farther into the future.

But if you're truly worried about it, be sure and vote for Barack Obama. He supports extending the payroll tax cap so that high-income earners contribute more to the system. That alone will push the 2046 date so far into the future that even your grandkids won't have to worry about SS.

McCain? He wants to destroy SS altogether by privatizing it. Although he claims that he doesn't support privatization of SS. He just supports diverting SS contributions into private accounts...or something...

Ah, no, it's Republican rhetoric designed to scare people into allowing the privatization of SS.