Regarding Social Security. An article from the (U.S. News)http://money.usnews.com/

With Rotten Rebel’s Comments Highlighted. With my comments Highlighted.
What You Should Expect from Social Security
usnews
This article Written by
Kimberly Palmer, On Tuesday October 19, 2010, 3:27 pm EDT

And commented on by me.I am sure you will find it worth while, Please write to others, and pass on the link to this blog to them. I thank you.
The Rotten Rebel

You've probably heard the news: Social Security recipients aren't getting a bump up in their benefits next year. The Social Security Administration recently announced that because inflation has been flat, there will be no cost of living adjustment for seniors.


Whether or not you think that's a good thing depends a lot on your age. Seniors are upset, but younger workers have reason to celebrate the news: Fiscally conservative choices now could mean a stronger system later.No they do not. because before they see a dime, Social Security Will Be Insolvent.

There are plenty of reasons for 20 and 30-somethings to worry about the future of their Social Security payments.

Yes. Reason 1. Social Security will be insolvent by that time, due to our government borrowing from it to the point where it will be so in debt that it cannot possibly pay anything to anyone. Not just senior citizens, every American. They are borrowing from a system that was when created, made in such a way that it was not to be ever borrowed from. And so ordered.

But the greed of our government, rewrote the laws, so that they could. Now YOUR money is in the hands of your government. Not in yours. And if you don’t do something to stop them, YOU will not have any money. YOU will be broke, out on the street, homeless & starving, and living from small hand outs.
Sort of like they are in other (Socialized Countries) Socialized, I said. Yes… So many now, are talking about (Socialization) of our medicine. Bad Idea.

Next they will socialize the rest of YOUR government. And YOU are not doing anything about it. “Oh! It’s in the hands of our government now. What can we do? Boo hoo!!”

Well people of this country. You are not helpless. Ever hear of the revolution? Well, it’s time for another one, weather you believe it or not. Our country is NOT, and has NOT been in the hands of the people for a very long time. And needs to be put back into the hands of the people NOW!

I will not say that it’s the republicans that are the bad guys. I will not say that it is the Democrats that are the bad guys. It’s both sides pointing the finger at ea h other, and WE THE PEOPLE PAYING THEIR SALARIES WHILE THEY BICKER. .How long are we going to allow them to do that, before we say, “Enough is enough?”

It’s time people. Time for a new revolution. A revolution, where the people take back what so many fathers, sons & daughters died to protect. Now… If you are not upset enough, read the rest of this report. More to follow.
Continuing…

The Social Security trust fund will start taking in less than it pays out around 2016, and by 2037, as today's 30-somethings start thinking about retiring, it's scheduled to run out. At that point, if nothing changes, the benefits will shrink to about three-quarters of what they are now because only money that is then being paid into the system will be paid out. (Yes. Paid out to government officials that illegally dipped into this fund in the 1st place. )

Workers have clearly gotten the message that they're largely on their own: Just-released numbers from Charles Schwab reveal that almost half of the general population say they do not plan on counting on Social Security as a source of income in retirement.

The uncertainty over future benefits has led to a debate over whether the current budget and entitlement structure is fair to young people, who may never see all of the money that they pay into the system. (Social Security benefits are based on a person's average earnings over his lifetime and depend on the age of retirement; the current maximum benefit received is $2,346 per month for those who retire at age sixty-six.)

"They should be upset, and concerned that Social Security is structured in a way to give them less than they might otherwise receive. They'll certainly get less than their parents and grandparents, and they're stuck in a position where they are either going to pay higher taxes or get lower benefits, or, what's worse, both," says David John, senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

As Andrew Biggs of the American Enterprise Institute puts it, "There's no way Social Security is as good a deal for a 20-year-old as it is for a retiree today."

The AARP, which represents retired Americans, has a different perspective. It is quick to point out that there is such great political support for Social Security that it is not in danger of slipping away. The organization released a statement opposing the cost-of-living freeze after the Social Security Administration made its announcement late last week.

While the AARP is right to point out that Social Security isn't going anywhere, it's possible that it will undergo major changes in the coming decades. Here are some of the possible shifts:

Higher taxes, especially for high-earners. Social Security is funded through payroll taxes, which are currently capped at $106,800. That means workers don't pay Social Security taxes on income above that amount. Congress could raise that limit.

A higher retirement age. Changing the retirement age to 68 from 65, instead of the 67 it's currently scheduled to reach, could mean a reduction in benefits for younger workers since they'd have to wait longer to collect their payments. If premiums or Medicare-related taxes are increased or benefits are reduced, that would also have a major negative impact on young workers' retirement finances.

A new government-backed investment plan. Some academics, including Alicia Munnell, director of Boston College's Center for Retirement Research, have proposed an altogether different method of risk management--one where the government bears the brunt of the risk. She imagines a new kind of guaranteed account, where the government would guarantee that beneficiaries receive a certain rate of return on their investments.

[Visit the U.S. News Personal Finance site for more insight and money management tips.]

If the market plunged before they retired, then Uncle Sam would make up the difference. If a relatively modest guaranteed rate of return were chosen, such as 6 percent, then she says the government would rarely have to step in, so the cost would be minimal. Another option is to guarantee just a 2 or 3 percent return but to allow investors to keep any higher return provided by the market. If the government found itself needing to pony up during bad periods like the current one, then, Munnell says, "it can take on more debt and spread the losses over several generations," instead of forcing the soon-to-be retirees to absorb most of the pain.

I’m sorry, but that’s BULLSHIT!
If the new (Socialized government has it their way, You will just be their work slave. That’s all. Poverty stricken, homeless, out on the street. Not allowed anything in your pocket. No savings, no retirement. NOTHING! Standing in the bread lines, just like you see in the former Soviet Union. That’s what this (Socialized) crap is. The medicine is only just the beginning people. That is why it has to stop NOW!)

Regardless of what changes, one thing is certain: Young workers need to save more on their own, because government programs are unlikely to comfortably fund a relaxing couple decades by the beach.
( More like not at all for that matter. Unless we the people, stop the madness. You have been warned.)