.
May 13th, 2009
04:00 PM ET

Confident Social Security will be around when you retire?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

The recession is taking its toll on Social Security. The government says the trust fund will be paying out more money than it receives by 2016 - a year earlier than expected. And unless changes are made, it will be gone in 2037 - that's 4 years sooner than expected.

A man dressed as a Social Security card is pictured during a rally in D.C. to protect Social Security.

As a result, Social Security recipients probably won't get cost-of-living increases in 2010 or 2011 - something that's happened every year since 1975.

Here's the problem: Social Security is funded by payroll taxes. And with 5.7 million Americans out of work since the recession started, and another 4.3 million jobs being filled on a part-time basis, there's just not as much money going in. With nearly 80 million baby boomers getting ready to retire, the demand for benefits is rising.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner says the administration will tackle Social Security once health care is addressed. Whenever they get around to it, the options are limited. Either raise revenues, which means increase the taxes people pay into Social Security, or cut benefits. That could mean raising the retirement age - which is already scheduled to increase to 67.

Both choices could be political suicide - but something's gotta give. Washington has known about Social Security's problems for years and has chosen to do nothing about it.

Here’s my question to you: How confident are you Social Security will be there for you when you retire?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

R. from Chicago writes:
This has been a problem on the horizon for years, if not decades, and yet no one seems to have made it a priority to figure out a solution. I'm 42 and don't expect to see a dime when (make that if) I ever get to retire, yet I've been paying in my whole adult life. Maybe I should ask for my money back now, while they still have it.

Katie writes:
As a 30-year old, I've been saving/investing under the assumption it would never be there for me. I just wish the money that my employer and I are putting into Social Security would go towards something investing in MY future.

Mike writes:
Jack, Why isn't the complete income of people taxed for Social Security? I believe only the first $105,000 is taxed. Think of the taxes on the millions some people are drawing for a salary. Not even counting their bonuses… Poor people are taxed on every dollar they make.

Patrick from Lake Stevens, Washington writes:
Yes, I am confident it will still be around, Jack. For years, folks have been predicting Armageddon on Social Security and it has not happened.

Nathan from Oregon writes:
Jack, If Social Security, the biggest government entitlement of all, doesn't work and is going broke, then why do we think creating more expensive programs in health care, education and other social services will work?

Patty from Bristol, Pennsylvania writes:
Dear Jack, Good Lord, no. I'm 42 years old. With two wars to pay for, a broken health care system and don't forget the obscene tax cuts for the super-wealthy, people of my generation will be lucky if we are not living on the street.

Terrance from Hartville, Missouri writes:
I don’t know, Jack, but one thing is for sure: if we had put it into the stock market like the Republicans wanted, it wouldn't be around now!


Filed under: Social Security
soundoff (300 Responses)
  1. JOY

    We are retired and getting SS. We want it for everbody's kids.One man on tv said it was one of our most succesful programs ever. Obama must keep his promise and raise the cap. what would the old people do without SS JOY IN OHIO

    May 13, 2009 at 12:55 pm |
  2. Kevin in Dallas, TX

    I'm 26, so it will be long gone when I retire. But that's ok, because I've known my whole life that it would be gone before I retire, so I just consider it an income tax. Same with Medicare, it'll be gone before I can use it too. My retirement have never expected a single penny from the government, you just can't (and shouldn't) rely on them.

    May 13, 2009 at 1:00 pm |
  3. Jerry; Alpharetta, GA

    No problem for me, I am already on Social Security. But I can't tell you how many times I've heard that the system was going broke. What really is broken is the entire system of collecting taxes and balancing that against expenditures. The USA needs an entirely restructured tax code. Also, when these dire predictions are made we should be told the assumptions that went into the thirty year forecast. Did they assume the recession was going to continue in a downward spiral for the entire thirty years? Let me know the outcome you want and I can put forward a projection to support it.

    May 13, 2009 at 1:05 pm |
  4. Dave, Brooklyn, NY

    I am retired and it’s only ½ there. According to what I was told 45 years ago I should be getting almost the maximum benefit, but instead I’m getting a little more than half. If they didn’t muck around with it and kept to the rules, it would have been one of the very few well run government programs in history. Now it is a failure because they turned an exemplary, albeit forced, retirement plan into a giant ponzi scheme. Must have taken lessons from Bernie Madoff.

    May 13, 2009 at 1:08 pm |
  5. John in Virginia

    Not confident all- I always knew that Bill Clinton would probably be the last American to get Social Security. But now Obama's policies are causing businesses, small and large, to start shutting down, which will leave fewer payroll taxes to collect and drain the fund of the rest of its money. Boy, a lot of fools who didn't save for their retirement are going to be really mad! Ironically, these are mostly people for voted for Obama in the first place. Way to go, O!

    May 13, 2009 at 1:12 pm |
  6. Charles Gibson

    On the issue of social security. What happened to the blank check that President Reagan supposed to have put in the social security system in the 1980's to pay for the Star Wars Program?? If we cashed that check the social security system may run a little longer than 2037.

    Charles from Colorado

    May 13, 2009 at 1:13 pm |
  7. Milan

    I expect social security available when I retire in worthless amount (future vlaue adjusted for inflation) – social security tax should be abolished.

    May 13, 2009 at 1:15 pm |
  8. Keith - Ohio

    Jack, There's more to the problem than you point out. Most of the problem is/was caused by Congress. They have been 'borrowing' from the 'excess' funds every year. This means that there should be a lot more money in the pot, plus all of the interest that, that money would have earned.

    While Congress is at bailing out, have them pay back all of the money they have been borrowing, then shut up about how bad off S.S. is.

    How about hiring someone to slap Congress' hands everytime they have them where they don't belong.

    May 13, 2009 at 1:15 pm |
  9. Tina Tx

    I am not holding my breath and I have 10 yrs to go. I could find a sugar daddy but their 401k's have tanked so I might sell off and pack up and move to an island somewhere and live off the land.

    May 13, 2009 at 1:16 pm |
  10. mack from michigan

    I,m absolutly confident Social Security will be there Jack and I'm right at the end of that baby boomer line you talked about. You mentioned there are some 80 million of us baby boomers and history will probably describe us as the most self-centered and self-absorbed generation ever. History will also describe us as politically savvy and dedicated voters when our self interests are on the ballot. As long as the democracy survives our Social Security benefits will be intact.

    May 13, 2009 at 1:18 pm |
  11. Jerome, Montana

    Maybe the congress and the executive branch should admit that they have been stealing Social Security funds for many years to cover things and then lowering taxes to make themselves look good. What do they care their retirement comes from other sources. A question Jack. Why does the media ignore this fact? This is really important and people do not understand this.

    May 13, 2009 at 1:19 pm |
  12. Ron Temecula

    Hi JacK:

    Here is the real question? How many seniors will be depending on Social Security for their sole income? I'm guessing that number is getting higher and higher. Since the private sector does not want to pay any retirement benefits. And most families are not able to save, and those that did, lost it to Wall Street. What politician in their right mind would knowingly end Social Security and Medicare while giving large amounts of government assets to those that perpetrated this economy in the first place. I doubt you will see an end to Social Security or Medicare. Or possibly another system will take it's place.

    Ron K. Temecula, CA

    May 13, 2009 at 1:20 pm |
  13. Terry from North Carolina

    Jack
    I am one of the lucky ones I am 65 on social security and I have a pension from a large healthy corporation. If one or the other goes bust I will be OK if both go bust I will come and live with you.

    May 13, 2009 at 1:24 pm |
  14. Russ in PA

    Not confident at all, particularly if we are expecting Geithner, and the merry band of power grabbers to do anything other than spend or tax us into non-existence. When will we all learn that government is the problem, not the solution?

    May 13, 2009 at 1:24 pm |
  15. Scott-San Diego

    Not confident at all and not only because of the trouble it is in now, but because I have worked many years planning for my retirement. This administration likes to reward those who are not responsible and punish those who are. Perhaps they should quit giving benefits to people who here illegally and people who have never paid into it. If the government can keep taking tax payer dollars to fund AIG and the Automobile industry, why can't they put some of the funds into Social security?? And how many members of congress are expected to live off of Social Security benefits?

    May 13, 2009 at 1:25 pm |
  16. LM from Fayetteville, NC

    Well my stepfather helped write social security program. He was alive when Johnson took the program and used it for food stamps and all sorts of things to make the Great Society. He said the program was written as a supplemental pot of money to add to a person's retirement. It was never meant to take out IF you didn't put into it. Because he knew the program was conceived, written and approved to have those who withdrew also deposit into, it was a very good program and if it had stayed as formed, it would have been an excellent source of an additional income to retirees. In my opinion, it will go broke because too many are ONLY taking out.

    May 13, 2009 at 1:27 pm |
  17. AndyZ Lynn, MA

    I've contributed for over 42 years. I am only a few days away from submitting my retirement paperwork. Hopefully Social Security will last that long.

    May 13, 2009 at 1:27 pm |
  18. erico miami beach

    Didn't we just bail out the Automakers and Wall Street with MEGA BILLIONS of dollars ? Let's do the same with Social Security. The funding to come from the pay-back of the (recent) bail out money loaned. I'm sure that will pacify the skeptics.

    May 13, 2009 at 1:29 pm |
  19. Thomas Minehart

    Jack-

    No, I am not confident I social security will be around when I retire, but then again, its not enough money to retire on in the first place.

    Thomas Minehart
    Philadelphia, PA

    May 13, 2009 at 1:31 pm |
  20. Jenna

    How confident are you Social Security will be there for you when you retire?

    It will be there for me, I'm not worried.

    It's what the GOP always screams to the nation.

    Guess they didn't get the memo that we as a nation are sick and tired of leadership by fear!

    Jenna
    Roseville CA

    May 13, 2009 at 1:31 pm |
  21. Matt from Green Bay, WI

    Jack,

    As if college tuition wasn't enough to worry about as an 18 year old college freshman. Now I have to worry about not having Social Security, what's next?

    Really?

    May 13, 2009 at 1:31 pm |
  22. Lisa in Shelton, CT

    Jack – hmmm- how good are those mathemeticians?

    May 13, 2009 at 1:32 pm |
  23. David in San Diego

    Your statement, "As a result, Social Security recipients probably won’t get cost-of-living increases in 2010 or 2011 . . . " is incorrect. COLAs are based entirely on the year-to-year change in a specific index of consumer prices, not the current or projected health of the Social Security system. But to answer your question, my wife and I are both retired, both receiving SS as a supplement to our employer pensions–so, yes–it is and will be around for us.

    May 13, 2009 at 1:35 pm |
  24. Jack From WV

    While we have the Democrats in charge right now and since they were the first to borrow against Social Security and I don’t think they ever paid that back I believe it will be gone by the time Obama leaves office if not before.

    May 13, 2009 at 1:36 pm |
  25. Jessie

    I'm retired and getting Social Security. It's a godsend. America needs this program and our government must fix it. But don't bring back the Republicans who will privatize Social Security and impoverish the elderly. Jessie Flagstaff AZ

    May 13, 2009 at 1:38 pm |
  26. MIKE FROM CHICAGO

    I don't think we'll need it as the current administration is taking such giant strides towards socialism and the republicans are to busy trying to find themselves. We will all be on some sort of government releif- may be they can re-invent it- call it "social safe haven" or something. I still laugh when I think about Al Gore and George Bush debating it. May bee we should call it " the lock box" as it was to sacred to even touch.

    May 13, 2009 at 1:38 pm |
  27. Conor in Chicago

    Jack,

    I am 31 and scheduled to officially retire in 34 years. That'll be 2043. Worried about social security? No Jack, I'm not. I am worried about there being a planet. I'm worried about living in a Post World War III environment. I'm worried about dwindling resources as the world population explodes.

    You older folks get to worry about social security. Us younger ones get to worry about much much more.

    May 13, 2009 at 1:40 pm |
  28. DaBird

    SS is another Ponzi scheme. They knew it was going to go under 25 years ago. Congress is corrupt. We need term limits.

    I am 50 and it won't be there for me. The retirees are selfish and don't want to give up anything. "I've got mine, now you go get yours".

    Congress should cut benefits by 25% to retirees now and start from scratch.

    May 13, 2009 at 1:41 pm |
  29. James in TN

    Let's see i'm 27. I can't retire till i'm 64. What do you think?

    May 13, 2009 at 1:41 pm |
  30. Angela

    I'm 28 and I've never believed that social security will be around when I retire. If it is, It will be a pleasant surprise, but it seems foolish to bank on social security as your only source of income in retirement. That's a real part of the problem, too many people my grandparents age thought they didn't need anything other than social security, so they never saved anything. – Angela, Merrillville Indiana

    May 13, 2009 at 1:44 pm |
  31. Carol Auburndale, Fl

    Jack, Not confident at all. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why Social Security is going broke. All one has to do is look at all the good paying jobs that our government has let be outsourced from manufacturing, computer tech service, banking jobs, ect., ect. Those good paying jobs have been replaced with $6-$9 an hour jobs. People making that wage don't pay in tax dollars like jobs paying $18-$20 an hour jobs do. If we, the People don't put our foot down and demand our jobs be brought back home where they belong Social Security is not the only thing that isn't going to be there. There will be no United States of America.

    May 13, 2009 at 1:44 pm |
  32. Paul Austin, Texas

    It will be around in some form or reformation in some way that will work. Social Security was formed in the 30's and has had additions added to it, SSI, disability, ECT. and is long over due for a reformation. You see Social Security was never ment as a retirement but only the icing on the cake of retirement you know a supplement to retirement.
    Pull SSI and disabiliy out of Social Security and make them a different Department of Disability Needs then Social Security would be fine.

    May 13, 2009 at 1:47 pm |
  33. david from virginia

    Not at all. I'm 35 years old and I'll be shocked if it's still around. That being the case, one wonders why I'm required to contribute.

    May 13, 2009 at 2:02 pm |
  34. Samir from Florida

    Being that I'm 29 years old, I'm confident that social security will not exist by the time I retire. It's a legalized Ponzi scheme and I can't do anything about it because it comes right out of my paycheck. My thoughts are to let Social Security die out and as soon as it does, it will stop being deducted from payroll checks. With 401(k)s more popular since the social security days, I don't think the effects will be that bad.

    May 13, 2009 at 2:04 pm |
  35. Melissa

    Shortly put, yes.

    People are overreacting. Like usual.

    May 13, 2009 at 2:06 pm |
  36. Jane (Minnesota)

    I'm sure there will be something around, but it may not even come close to the taxes I've paid into it so far is my guess. I'm saving on my own for retirement-I'm lucky enough to be able to. If Congress doesn't save Social Security, it could mean several of them will not survive the next election afterward. My guess is they don't want to lose the access to all their perks.

    A hint to Congress: You took off the income limit for the Medicare tax during the last scare – it's probably time to take off the income limit for the social security portion of the tax.

    May 13, 2009 at 2:11 pm |
  37. Matt Toohey

    Jack

    What's retirement? As long as Congress doesn't have to pay into Social Security and Medicare I have no confidence in the system since there is no incentive to keep it solvent.

    Matt
    Rockford

    May 13, 2009 at 2:11 pm |
  38. Rich

    First off there is no Social Security trust. That money has already been allocated in projected benefits to retired and disabled people and what is not spent on benefits is spent on government programs as congress deems necessary. Social Security has become the pocket that the legislature picks and they have picked it clean. The only hope is to privatize Social Security and pull it from the hands of the greedy government leaders. If they are allowed to have access to these funds they will continue to spend them and not on what they were originally designed for. Every time this topic comes up in congress the congressional leaders start sweating like a whore in church because they do not want the American people to see what they have done to and with those assets.

    May 13, 2009 at 2:12 pm |
  39. RNM, Chicago

    This has been a problem on the horizon for years, if not decades, and yet no one seems to have made it a priority to figure out a solution. I'm 42 and don't expect to see a dime when (make that if) I ever get to retire, yet I've been paying in my whole adult life. Maybe I should ask for my money back now, while they still have it...

    May 13, 2009 at 2:14 pm |
  40. Andi in Grayslake, Illinois

    Hi, Jack. I'm kind of back-and-forth on this issue. I want to believe Social Security is going to be there, but I'm hard-pressed to see how it can be. As a nation, we only look ahead when it meets our political needs (e.g. the Stimulus plan being paid for by our poor grandchildren but unless global warming is indeed a 'hoax', it won't matter). I guess I don't really have an answer. Sorry to waste your time!

    May 13, 2009 at 2:14 pm |
  41. Christine from Edmeston, New York

    It's terrifying. It's not as if my Social Security benefits were going to make me rich, but I had to practically deplete all the rest of my retirement resources just to survive the past year without losing my home and my health coverage. I don't have enough years to build any of that retirement cushion back up, so whatever is available through Social Security is going to be my only hope.

    May 13, 2009 at 2:15 pm |
  42. Steve of Hohenwald TN.

    There`s another option Jack. How about we legalize weed, and use the taxes to save social security? No taxes raised, and nothing cut, a win win situation. When we get old, we can all kick back, relax, smoke a good doobie, and be proud knowing every time we fire up, we are doing our duty as americans. Now what were we talking about?

    May 13, 2009 at 2:15 pm |
  43. M from NY

    Retire? Who could afford that? I would consider myself blessed if I could work up to the day I am dead and buried.

    May 13, 2009 at 2:16 pm |
  44. dan in Tucson AZ

    I don't see how. It pays out more to people than they put in because people live longer now. Eventually it has to go broke. I certainly am not counting on it. national health care can replace medicare, so that may be around if the Republicans don't mess it up.

    May 13, 2009 at 2:18 pm |
  45. Richard, Syracuse, NY

    As a Disabled Vet I am not worried. But if our Government would stop taking money from SS and leaving and IOU we would have enough money to generate a long term stable account.

    Add to that the idea that people come to this country and become a Citizen. then they bring over their Parents and Grand Parents who apply for SSI. NO ONE should get any Social Security if they did not pay into the system. The ONLY exemption to that is the spouse of a person who worked all their lives. At some point in time we have removed the requirement of a person being a sponsor to be financially responsible for the person they sponsor into this country.

    May 13, 2009 at 2:20 pm |
  46. Larry, Ohio

    Jack,we got into trouble when the government decided to use Social Security for everything except what is meant for,I am retired now and I'm not very confident Social Security will even be there for me next month!

    May 13, 2009 at 2:20 pm |
  47. Chad from Los Angeles, CA

    I won't retire till around 2045, the only way i'll see it is if I get disabled now... Wish me luck!

    May 13, 2009 at 2:23 pm |
  48. Jon-Paul

    I am not confident at all that Social Securty will be around when I retire. I have the benefit of knowing that very young (I am only 22). I am able to save for my retirement immediately. Those who are approaching their 40's and 50's are in the toughest spot. They grew up expecting something from the government when the retire (poor folks). This will be the major crisis for my generation to tackle.

    May 13, 2009 at 2:25 pm |
  49. LUCI - ILLINOIS

    I'm not sure about it, but am prayiing it is not taken away. My husband is 75 years old. He worked at three different jobs and they all closed. He didn't get enough years in toward retirement to get enough to live on. We will be two old people on the street, since social security is our main income. We are too old and ill to find a job now.

    May 13, 2009 at 2:25 pm |
  50. BRUCE, ST PAUL, MN

    The report you refer to assumes an annual growth rate of 2.6 percent which is a half point lower than our historical norm. The adjustment may come in the form of more workers due to immigration, a higher rate of employment, and citizenship for our coworkers from Mexico. Conservatives and the financial sector have been trying to put social security into crisis or at least convince us of it, for many years. They have not given up on privatization. It sticks in their craw that there is a federal program that they can't siphon money from.

    May 13, 2009 at 2:26 pm |
  51. wickedcats

    Well, you would think the money coming out of your paycheck would go towards your retirement. You like to think there's a little account set aside with your number on it that nobody touches. No.

    If I see any of my money when it's my time to retire, I'll be surprised. At this rate, I'm going to spend my final years over a fry cooker trying to make ends meet.

    May 13, 2009 at 2:27 pm |
  52. Mike, Syracuse, NY

    Not at all. With the current Obama spendfest in progress, there won't be any general funds available to supplement SS. By then most of the federal budget will be going to just pay the debt interest.

    May 13, 2009 at 2:32 pm |
  53. Graeme from Ottawa

    If this White House blocks the release of the torture photos they are no better than the Criminals that ordered it. Coming from a Liberal that makes Michael Moore look like a neo-con, the question is does Barrack Obama want to be the next torture president or does he want to turn the page. Only full disclosure and prosecution where applicable will turn this nasty page of American history. I am waiting...

    May 13, 2009 at 2:33 pm |
  54. Mike Murphy North Port, Florida

    Under Clinton we were told that Social Security was in trouble. The Republicans denied this. Under Bush we were told Social Security was in trouble. Democrats said it was fine. Under Obama we are again being told Social Security is going bankrupt. I expect that any day now the Republicans will tell us that it is fine.
    Politics as usual in Washington!

    May 13, 2009 at 2:37 pm |
  55. Lynda from Greenville,NC

    As an intelligent 24 year old I know it won't be around and that I shoud consider my SS taxes a gift to the government. With that in mind I've had a personal retirement account since I had an income and was allowed to invest in a Roth IRA.

    May 13, 2009 at 2:38 pm |
  56. Gina

    Jack,

    About as confident as I am that my 401K will have recovered in 2037. Not very.

    Gina
    Philadelphia

    May 13, 2009 at 2:41 pm |
  57. Aaron from Denver

    I am 25 and am sure that it will not be around in 2040 when I retire. I am really hoping they just scrap the thing in a phased out approach so that the long time particpants get something out of it, while giving my generation a chance at financial security through government mandated individual retirement programs.

    May 13, 2009 at 2:43 pm |
  58. Jackie in Dallas

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Since my retirement is likely to be postponed indefinitely, I don’t know. It should still be around when I’m 65, but whether the money available will keep me above the poverty level is another story all together!

    May 13, 2009 at 2:44 pm |
  59. Lisa in Ga.

    Yep, Jack, yep...... can't say the same for the Republicans though.....

    May 13, 2009 at 2:45 pm |
  60. Michael in Albuquerque, NM

    Social Security was the one program that actually worked. It worked so well that it was plundered by all parties. Now they have taken so much out of it that there is speculation of its collapse. But, rumours of Social Security's demise are greatly exagerated. The great depression didn't kill it. World War 2 didn't kill it. Massive mismanagement didn't kill it. And, misappropriation by congress didn't kill it. Social Security is one tough operator. Americans are not of the mentality to cut back or let it go. We will go first class, and to hell with any naysayers. It will take some work and cooperation. Social Security will be here for generations to come.

    May 13, 2009 at 2:45 pm |
  61. Chuck in warren, Ohio

    Jack: Let the Hedge Fund Manager's pay for it. They caused most of the down turn and the reason no one is working!

    May 13, 2009 at 2:46 pm |
  62. Tom Mytoocents Fort Lauderdale Florida

    Jack

    Anytime you believe the government will take care of you it will likely end in disappointment

    May 13, 2009 at 2:47 pm |
  63. chris

    you would have better odds of winning the lottoe or get struck by lightning than see ss when we get there there will be nothign cause our govt robbed the bank our bank cause of govt waste that is why ss will not be there

    May 13, 2009 at 2:48 pm |
  64. Kyle Irvine, CA

    Jack,
    I've got a better chance becoming president then I do collecting Social Security. It's vital that the American people take matters into their own hands and start investing their own money into private retirement accounts and stop depending on Social Security.

    May 13, 2009 at 2:48 pm |
  65. David Bebeau,Springfield Missouri

    Jack
    I am so glad you asked this question.Yes it will remain.However it
    is NOT broke for all of the false reasons our do nothing congress tells
    the people of America.It is broke because every administration has
    plundered the trust fund for 50 years and not paid it back.Now they
    all act surprised that its broke.This is one of the biggest lies congress
    tells the people every year.
    David

    May 13, 2009 at 2:48 pm |
  66. David in Texas

    I gave up on social security being around years ago with our national debt rising. My wife confirmed this and reminded me that she married me for better or worse but not lunch. I guess that I will be working until my last day on earth.

    May 13, 2009 at 2:50 pm |
  67. Richard in Colorado

    I'm drawing social security now and I can remember when back in the 60's and 70's the word was that social security would be worthless when we got to retirement age. Of course the word was put out by the same whiners as now. (the conservatives). We do need to keep on top of it to make sure it will still be there for our children and grandchildren. If it wasn't for the socialistic programs we have, we would be a much poorer country.

    May 13, 2009 at 2:54 pm |
  68. Denny from Tacoma, WA

    Since I am retiring this year, soclal security should still be around. My concern is if it will stay around. I think it will because there is actually no "real money" in the fund, but adjustments will probably be made.

    May 13, 2009 at 2:54 pm |
  69. Al, Lawrence KS

    There has always been enough money to fund Social Security. All of this doom and gloom talk just disguises the fact that Congress spent all it. Remember when Al Gore proposed that we put the Social Security funds in a "Lock Box"? Instead, we put it in a cookie Jar.

    May 13, 2009 at 2:55 pm |
  70. Alex (CT)

    I'm a high school senior right now so I'll probably be retiring in... oh, probably 2060 or around there. Social Security? Come 2060 I'll probably say to myself "Oh yeah, that old LBJ-era stuff. But now, what did it do again?"

    May 13, 2009 at 2:57 pm |
  71. Marie Ontario

    Governments in all the modern Industrial world look after the citizens with social programs like universal health care and a form of social security.

    The problem with America is their penchant for world domination that drives them to spend the majority of their tax dollars on military and munitions rather than the welfare of it's citizens and the most vulnerable.

    My guess is time has caught up to American and it is at a crossroads where it will have to decide where to spend it's tax dollars and who benefits the most if these dollars are spent on things other than social programs for it's citizens.

    May 13, 2009 at 2:57 pm |
  72. Jim Peckumn

    Jack,
    All the government has to do is keep razing the retirement age. My question to you is: "Will you still be alive at that age?"
    Jim

    May 13, 2009 at 3:00 pm |
  73. Jack Martin

    Jack
    I am confident that it will be there for everybody. Not to worry. With the bailouts for those overpaid and incompetent imposters running our corporatations we have had a revelation. Our government has money to spare. Our congress has provided not only tax cuts for the rich but extra money for their undeserved bonuses. Surely there is money left over for the working people.
    Jack in Boynton Beach FL

    May 13, 2009 at 3:03 pm |
  74. J Atlanta

    I'm totally confident SS will be around, and totally confident that officials will print as much money as necessary to meet those federal obligations, which basically imposes a tax via inflation while deteriorating even further the integrity of the monetary system. I have little doubt that benefits will be adjusted downward over time, thus denying those who pay the most their due. SS has been a Ponzi scheme from the start, and politicians have always been willing to kick this can down the road. And on this, I have total confidence that the can will be kicked some more. Politicians don't have the guts not to spend this income as it comes in like drunken sailors and such will be the case until this scheme crushes the system that sponsors it.

    May 13, 2009 at 3:04 pm |
  75. Daniel Indiana

    It is a scary thought, but at almost fifty-six and having been unemployed for over a year and a half and struggling, I find it a frightfully realistic vision that it will not be there for me in my old age. The realistic way to reinforce it is to increase the taxes. Lowering benefits is not realistic for millions of Americans for whom it is their only source of retirement income. They already struggle to survive, as I will when I, myself, retire and have only Social Security for my retirement. Another help for the program would be for those that "detest" Socialism and social welfare programs to refuse their benefits when their time comes for retirement, that includes Medicare. Since they don't believe in it and don't agree with it, they should refuse to accept their share. Unfortumately, their greed and hypocracy won't allow them to do that.

    May 13, 2009 at 3:05 pm |
  76. Jim Bailey

    The money would still be there if every Congress since F.D.R. hadn't BORROWED from the fund and FORGOT to pay it back.
    And don't even get me started on the Medicare/Medicaid mess created by the drug/medical suppliers and double billing 'health' providers.
    Jim Bailey
    Cripple Creek

    May 13, 2009 at 3:08 pm |
  77. Nancy, Grand Ledge,MI

    I'm confident that it will be there. The baby boomers are a pretty big voting block, and I'm in my late fifties. But it may not matter much, I'm not confident that I'll ever be able to retire.

    May 13, 2009 at 3:09 pm |
  78. Tony from Torrington

    I just started to collect after reaching the age of 66, having put 48 years of payments into the fund. I will be lucky to be able to collect at the age of 70 if this administration continues their spending spree.

    Forget the kids of today, they will not only be paying into Social Security, they will be paying higher payroll taxes, sales taxes, taxes on products and services their whole lives and there STILL won't be anything left for them in the Social Security fund.

    Wake up America. The alarm went off and you have hit the snooze button several times too many!

    May 13, 2009 at 3:19 pm |
  79. Frank from Peterborough

    It's too bad Bush and the Republicans didn't get their way and invest all social security monies in the stock market and the problem would be solved by bankrupting the program and letting senior citizens swim for it.

    After all what harm would have done to have just one more screw up in their administration which would have eliminated the worry and need for fixing the current system.

    May 13, 2009 at 3:20 pm |
  80. Mari, Salt Lake City, Utah

    No, Jack, we are not. We have known for some years now, that Social Security will be insolvent and we, Baby Boomers, can't count on SS for retirement. Sad but true.

    May 13, 2009 at 3:20 pm |
  81. Patty.D. Bristol, Pa.

    Dear Jack, Good Lord, no. I'm 42 years old. With two wars to pay for, a broken healthcare system and don't forget the obscene tax cuts for the superwealthy, people of my generation will be lucky if we are not living in the streets.

    May 13, 2009 at 3:21 pm |
  82. Ron from SF

    Actually, I'm very confident. We addressed it in the 80's and we can do it again. At some point, the political will arises to the point that it can be dealt with and yes, I'm sorry but taxes will go up. I've paid too much over the years to walk away from it–just because I won't pay a bit more for the next 12-15 years. In for a penny, in for a pound. Now, if you try to take it away, you're going to have a violent and bloody fight with those of us who paid into the system for 35 years and are approaching retirement age.

    May 13, 2009 at 3:22 pm |
  83. Geri - Mead, OK

    Historyy repeating itself. I figured they would use this banking/ Wall Street crisis as a ruse to screw up or destroy social security and medicare, just like they used 9/11 to roll back privacy rights, wages and benefits. Notice however that the nation's treasury did get spread out among the very richest among us leaving no money for anyone or anything else. The cowards running this show can't seem to do things the "right" way like be up front with the American people who actually foot the bill, they would prefer to do things through ruse and subterfuge. And to think we continue to re-elect these nitwits. Which probably means doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results from the same people constitutes insanity on the part of the electorate.

    May 13, 2009 at 3:23 pm |
  84. Independent Joe (Brainerd)

    Jack,

    While growing up in Wabasha, Mn I remember my father complaining almost daily about what a waste of money it was that he paid into something that would not be there for him. In six months he will draw his first check.
    So the answer to the age old question; "Will social security be there when I retire?" Well Jack my answer is yes. Will it be enough to feed me??????????????????

    Independent Joe

    May 13, 2009 at 3:24 pm |
  85. Gigi

    My Son will be ready for social security in 10 years. I've already told him don't depend on it, after the last eight years of run-a-way spending, you'll need to work till seventy or older. It will be good for you to learn what issues are important. You were snowed the last eight years. While they were busy lining their pockets they were emptying yours, your kids and their kids. That tells you how confident I am.

    May 13, 2009 at 3:24 pm |
  86. Robert S., Metairie

    The solution should focus on creating new jobs where payroll taxes will be collected instead of throwing in the towel and gutting social security. Also, the Bush solutiion, which would have put the funds into private investment accounts, would have resulted in most people losing half their funds in the past two years.

    May 13, 2009 at 3:24 pm |
  87. don (in naples, florida)

    NO!! Next question.

    May 13, 2009 at 3:25 pm |
  88. George in Florida

    Not confident at all, Jack. That's why I plan to sell all my assets and give them away. This way, I'll get under the poverty line for sure and qualify for Government assistance......

    May 13, 2009 at 3:25 pm |
  89. Alan - Buxton, Maine

    If the morons who have run our government would have kept their greedy hands out of the fund, there would be plenty of money to go around for a long time. The Social Security fund has been raided repeatedly and the money spent on someones pet projects instead of being used for its intended purpose. I fully expect it will run dry long before the necessary corrections can be made.

    May 13, 2009 at 3:26 pm |
  90. Gina

    I am not confident at all that Social Security will be there when I retire. I'm 47. However, this is no surprise to me and have been preparing myself for the last 10 years. What concerns me is that I'm paying into a system that will not benefit me. So where's my motivation to continue to contribute? Have these funds been misused, are there people receiving benefits who shouldn't be?

    Medicare is even more a concern to me. Why can't I put my parents on MY healthcare NOW? They allow children, domestic partners, step children, adopted children, why can't I cover my parents? (Who are both in their late 60's). Isn't that a solution we can implement now and quite easily so benefits will be available beyond 2017 for those who do not have children willing to do so?

    May 13, 2009 at 3:29 pm |
  91. Jim from Chicago

    Certainly a lot more, now that talk of the insane proposal to privatise a portion of our future benefits and stick it into the stock market has subsided. That was one huge bullet that we dodged.

    May 13, 2009 at 3:30 pm |
  92. Linda in Charleston, SC

    I have 4 years and never intended to retire but after what I have gone thru this past year trying to find a job, I'm just going to retire and be done with it. I think I'll probably become a beach bum and live off the ocean in a tent somewhere. All of a sudden my ambition and faith that this world will allow me to work for a living is gone.

    May 13, 2009 at 3:30 pm |
  93. odessa

    i am not worrying at all because i have to work everyday to save my money..the problem with social security benefits is raising the age instead raising taxes on the wealthiest americans..they haven't paid anything for a long time and now they must pay..lower and middle class families are being screwed for too long of not earning their money while the rich is getting wealthier by the minute.make them pay and they will stop acting like idiots..i don't trust wall street at all because they are crooks so why should we give up our money to them.folks of the social security should lower the age retirement to 60 because you work for any company too long and waiting for a certain time to collect your money is a total joke..government already using our money for interest instead let us decide..putting into wall street isn't going to help or cd market accounts..we need better solutions for this and i hope that president obama isn't listening to the gop leaders because it's a political foil waiting to disrupt our government.

    May 13, 2009 at 3:31 pm |
  94. pat in michigan

    Jack the plan has been all along to have it collapse when the baby boomers needed it . that and the collapse of the stock market to steal the working classes savings add up to the end of normal life as we know it.
    But don't ask the republicans to help out they have all the money they need.screw the working class and blame it on the unions cause we all know its the unions who engineered the collapse of the banks and the real estate market and wall street.

    May 13, 2009 at 3:33 pm |
  95. Remo .............. Austin, Texas

    Jack,
    It should be more like "Social Insecurity". The government has been robbing from it for years. I'm surprised it has lasted this long. Realistically increases should have been done years ago, but politicians have been (I'm trying to be civil here) wimps. They have been more worried about getting re-elected than doing the right thing.
    Now I'm faced with my kids paying for the corrupt bail-outs and supporting me.
    Thank you Mr. Obama, your Shooting Star has fizzled. We're now getting sucked into that Black Hole you created with your recovery program partially developed by those who created this mess in the first place.

    May 13, 2009 at 3:34 pm |
  96. J. Weidenbach

    I'm a baby boomer and social security was already being mismanaged when I was a teenager. I hope the current administration is able to make some improvements so that retired citizens have the quality of life they have worked so hard for.

    May 13, 2009 at 3:38 pm |
  97. Bonnie

    I just filed for benefits yesterday and I sure hope they will stick around .
    I need every dime I can get !

    May 13, 2009 at 3:42 pm |
  98. Tom K in WA

    Hi Jack,

    In my age bracket I can’t get Social Security until age 70. I think it is more likely that the government will outlaw retirement before they fix Social Security. No, I do not expect to receive Social Security benefits.

    Tom

    May 13, 2009 at 3:59 pm |
  99. Terence

    Jack, Social security will always be around and fully funded. Without it people will all be on the welfare and food stamps as there will be nothing else for our seniors to survive on. Our voters will not let this happen to their parents or themselves suffer in the future.
    Terence, Piscataway,NJ

    May 13, 2009 at 4:01 pm |
  100. Linda in Arizona

    I'm confident they will do something. They have to. Want a bunch of old people sleeping in the streets? Didn't think so.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:01 pm |
  101. Michael Sullivan from Lafayette, California

    Jack - Like you, I'm a pre-baby boomer, but unlike you, I'm retired from
    my nine-to-five profession - I'm concerned that Social Security will slip and slide into entitlement oblivion in the very near future unless we raise
    the cap on Social Security taxes so that the wealthiest of our citizens pay
    their fair share - it's about time!

    May 13, 2009 at 4:01 pm |
  102. John, Fort Collins, CO

    I started collecting Social Security in January, but I find myself still working. At this point I'm wondering if even I will still be around when I retire.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:05 pm |
  103. Helene Keil

    Whne is the media going to educate the public that the sooner they
    get into the stores, the sooner the economy can get back on track.
    The media has done their damage by talking us unto a recesssion,now how about talking it out of it. You guys are the ones that can make "things right" by telling the public that if the stores make
    profits, their lives will get better.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:06 pm |
  104. ingrid, new york

    i am confident that something will be there for me. however i am not sure it will be around for my daughter who is now 25 so believe me i have told her to start her IRAs etc. now!

    May 13, 2009 at 4:07 pm |
  105. Clyde from Pensacola

    Not very confident at all Jack, but I don't recall anywhere in the bible where "God" told man to retire and collect social security.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:07 pm |
  106. Michael McDowell

    I am confident Social Security will be around, as long as we institute term limits to remove the bozos in Congress who are constantly stealing from it to fund their other projects.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:08 pm |
  107. Tim

    Back to ss really I have no idea where this money comes from they gave to the banks

    May 13, 2009 at 4:08 pm |
  108. Roger Zoeller

    No It won't be Jack thats why I"m taking what I can get now. before the well goes dry

    May 13, 2009 at 4:09 pm |
  109. Larry

    I'm 52 and confident Social Security will be around but in a much different form than is currently available. It will be smaller and probably cover medical but no livinig expenses.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:10 pm |
  110. j/NJ

    How confident are you Social Security will be there for you when you retire?

    Not confident, SS is a massive govt bureaucracy or worse...while the concept is progressive the implementation is arguably totalitarian...this federal subsidy in particular has been mismanaged from the start and not unlike all govt subsidies opting out is virtually impossible...

    May 13, 2009 at 4:10 pm |
  111. laylah B Los Angeles

    I won't hold my breath.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:10 pm |
  112. Jordan

    I'm 27 Jack. Was that question a joke?

    Jordan in Atlanta, Ga

    May 13, 2009 at 4:11 pm |
  113. Rachel A.

    Jack,

    I'm 31, and I'm 100% sure my husband and I won't see a dime. We're planning for our retirement accordingly.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:11 pm |
  114. Stephen Fox

    Social Security should be well-regulated and turned over to all of the insurance companies (because that is what it is, insurance). Then, it should be *voluntary*. Those who pay in, benefit later in life, commensurate to what how much they have participated in the program. People could come and go, in and out of this system, yet an ultimate record would keep track of how much they participate. Others who didn't wish to participate...would never pay into it–but also would not benefit from it. This is how it should be.

    –Stephen Fox
    Panama City, Florida

    May 13, 2009 at 4:11 pm |
  115. scott

    When Al Gore talked about putting money in a lockbox for social security he was laughed at. People have tried to fix the problem but no one takes it serious until it's to late.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:11 pm |
  116. Colleen (Champaign, IL)

    I'm 22 and my fiance's and I both work for public schools. We're not even sure our state pensions will be there when we retire...social security be available for us?...yeah right!

    May 13, 2009 at 4:11 pm |
  117. Jason, Koloa, HI

    Since when does anyone from your generation care about what happens to future generations, Jack. You and Wolf don't have to worry about all the problems coming down the road, so don't worry about it. I know social security will not be around when I hit 65 in 2037. That's right I'll be 65 in 2037. Thanks for making my day Jack. Good thing I've got a solid 401k going....oh wait.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:11 pm |
  118. madkd

    Some form of social security net will always be in place to support the elderly in our society, however it's not likely to look anything like what we've got now. Radical reinterpretation will be required.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:11 pm |
  119. Bernard Clark

    America is the LAND OF MANIFEST DESTINY! The country has found ways to grow even in the face of hostility, and the idea that in the future our nation will somehow crumble when I reach retirement age is MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING! With a President like Barak Obama I am very confident that Social Security will be there for me! Those who doubt America should be filling the seats of our Universities, and find ways if they think those in power are not doing what they need to do to make sure we have our due when we get to retirement age.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:12 pm |
  120. Lee In Minnesota

    I am on SS already as I developed ALS. (age 63) I think it will be there in the future. Why has the issue been ignored for the past 8 years or more? The government can start first by repaying the money they took from the SS fund for other things...like wars.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:12 pm |
  121. Karen - Missouri

    Why not tell us the ENTIRE story? Other departments have borrowed from the social security fund for YEARS! And never paid back into it. If the Social Security Fund demanded the money back, there'd be more than enough.

    The story today is false and a coverup. As long as more funds go into it, the more is borrowed by other government programs. another propaganda story...make the govt. repay the monies to the Social Security fund. As long as people have been paying in, many of whom die and never collect it, don't you find it curious that suddenly in this economy there's not enough?

    May 13, 2009 at 4:12 pm |
  122. John C

    Well since its set to run out 5 years before I retire, I'm not counting on it!

    May 13, 2009 at 4:12 pm |
  123. Morgan Huston

    I have never thought I would have any kind of access to Social Security. Now that the "depression" is on, I now have no doubt.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:12 pm |
  124. nathan

    Jack, if social security, the biggest government entitlement of all doesn't work and is going broke–then why do we think having more expensive programs in healthcare, education and social service are going to work? We're simply too big to act like European countries. That's not ideology, that's simple math.

    Nathan
    Oregon

    May 13, 2009 at 4:12 pm |
  125. Tc

    Not at all, this country is falling apart.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:12 pm |
  126. Darren

    I bet if Washington D.C. paid back all the money they borrowed out of Socual Security for this self-serving earmark and that lobbyist supported program, it would be around a lot longer than they are now estimating.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:12 pm |
  127. Jamal Saint Petersburg, FL

    I'm confident that it will be there. I am a young man and I have a loooooong time to work, granted I don't get injured in the process. So I feel it will be there, as long as Obama gets the rich to finally pay their share, and at the same time stop allowing weathy retirees from collecting it. I mean Warren Buffett is eligible...isn't something wrong with that picture?

    May 13, 2009 at 4:12 pm |
  128. Katie

    As a 30-year old, I've been saving/investing under the assumption it would never be there for me. I just wish the money that my employer and I are putting into Social Security would be going towards something investing in MY future. Social Security reform needed to happen years ago and is LONG overdue.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:12 pm |
  129. Anthony Markwort

    I am a financial planner from Detroit. We don't include social security proceeds in financial plans for anyone over 35. Maybe a sign of the times, but I wouldn't want to have to tell my clients to settle for less because their government failed them and I was to foolish to see it coming.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:12 pm |
  130. Bill, Chicago

    They can save Social Security like they did the banks. Print trillions of dollars, throw it at the problem and hope it works.But that would be helping main street and the banks need the money more right?

    May 13, 2009 at 4:13 pm |
  131. J Williams

    As a Freshman in college in 1975, I was told it wouldn't be there for me. Guess they were right.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:13 pm |
  132. Guddy

    When all the companies from Caman Island are paying Social Security for there employees and taxes like everybody as to do., this system will have enough money.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:13 pm |
  133. Arnold

    Arnold from Los Angeles writes:

    If our economy continues down its current course straight down the toilet we'll ALL be retired soon. Could we possibly lower the retirement age to 30?

    May 13, 2009 at 4:13 pm |
  134. Max

    Jack, I am quite confident!

    Obama will continue to whack the rich with more and more taxes...he'll make sure that the less fortunate get their social security.

    IThe answer: tax anyone making more than $60K a year with the most tax we can!

    Its only fair.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:13 pm |
  135. joyce from ohio

    If the government would not add in there budget,and quit taking it

    May 13, 2009 at 4:13 pm |
  136. Richard Green

    Jack, I'm confident that it'll still be there whem I'm 67. Raising the retirement age would be political suicide because it shows a complete lack of imagination. The same with cutting benefits. If that's all you can come up with, you don't belong in public service. How about a small transaction tax [less than 1%] on the purchase of the risky derivatives that got us into this mess. It would be a way of adding billions to the Social Security Trust Fund [since the derivatives market is in the trillions] ? Under current rules, those traders pay little or virtually no social security tax on their "income/bonuses/retainment incentives".

    It can be done and with little to no impact on the rest of us.
    It just takes the will to do it.

    Rich Green
    San Clemente, Cal.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:13 pm |
  137. D.C.

    Why not combine Social Security with our healthcare program? By that age, most (if not all) of Social Security funds are likely used for healthcare purposes anyway.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:13 pm |
  138. Diane Dagenais Turbide

    Jack,

    indeed choices can be political suicide but this has to be resolve and it can be resolve if politicians faces together the issue and become explainer of the reality...people much prefer to face reality than be stuck with no changes in sight!

    May 13, 2009 at 4:13 pm |
  139. Nancy in Michigan

    How confident am I ?!?

    I plan to die at my desk of old age...

    Just scoop me up and make room
    for the next victim...

    May 13, 2009 at 4:13 pm |
  140. Sam Gulley

    Not a bit. Airline pilots are forced to retire at 65 for now, and as much as I don't look forward to it I will be working to the very last hour. I know I'll have nothing else.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:13 pm |
  141. Poe

    Re: Washington has known about Social Security’s problems for years and has chosen to do nothing about it.

    Would that be 8 years Jack?

    Illinois

    May 13, 2009 at 4:13 pm |
  142. rich grant

    Jack,
    What ever happened to all the I.O.U.'s that previous administrations put into the kitty? I am sure if we just put back what they took we would be fine
    RG

    May 13, 2009 at 4:13 pm |
  143. Leslie

    It will be around just not in my pocket. I going t Mexico and be a undocumented worker maybe I can get some benifits there

    May 13, 2009 at 4:13 pm |
  144. Sean

    Jack, I'm due to retire in 2049. So I don't know, no confidence, zero percent confidence, whatever. Can percentages go into negative? If so, that's where I am.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:13 pm |
  145. Dan

    Jack,
    I am 35 and not planning on Social Security when I retire. If you think about it, Social Security is nothing more than a Ponzi scheme! Maybe Congress should ask Bernie to help them out

    May 13, 2009 at 4:13 pm |
  146. Austin Barnum

    Unfortunately I am not planning on collecting any social security when I retire. The reserves are being depleted at too fast a rate. Yet, I have confidence in the leadership of our country and the ability of those leaders to find solutions to our problems, eventually. With that in mind, at 21, I plan to start saving now for retirement. I will ensure my own future, while I hope that the government can provide for my children.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:14 pm |
  147. Patrick Wolff

    I am absolutly confident. Confident that it wont be there. I am 22 now, and the way things look i dont expect anything from Social Secutiry by the time I retire.

    Pensacola, Florida.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:14 pm |
  148. Patrick, Austin, TX

    I bet Al Gore's lock box that everyone made fun of is looking pretty good about now. It will be there if I live to be 70 and it will not be enough to support myself.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:14 pm |
  149. Vince DeMattia

    Hello, Jack... one of the things that on one wants to talk about is the fact that prior administrations and Congresses took large sums of money from the Social Security Trust funds with the promise of paying it back. The paying back of those monies... never took place. They need to take some of the money that they're considering paying the investment banks and pay it into the Social Security accounts. The real effect of their having taken those funds is not only the amounts themselves, but the loss of the interest that those funds would have generated. Thank you, Jack... for all you do!! Vince North Fort Myers, Florida

    May 13, 2009 at 4:14 pm |
  150. Zachary, From Massachusetts

    Jack,

    I'm turning 19 tomorrow,and my social security future is turning into social 'insecurity' by the day. When will Washington get it right and crack down on decisions that need to be made? I better be prepared to work until the age of 85!

    All my best,

    Zach

    May 13, 2009 at 4:14 pm |
  151. Mike T.

    Jack, why isn't the complete income of people taxed for social security? I believe only the first 105,000.00 of salary is taxed. Think of the taxes on the millions some people are drawing for a salary. Not even counting their bonuses. Lots of people are making more than $105,000.00. Poor people are taxed on every dollar they make. What a windfall the correction would make. Enough to cover this mess, and keep it going for many years. Mike

    May 13, 2009 at 4:14 pm |
  152. Yvonne Fox Las Vegas

    Dear Jack:

    I am 70 and social security is not enough in this day and age, nor is the medical care under medicare. What are the baby boomers going to do that have to live on less? I'm looking for a fulltime job but I run into discrimination because of my age. I'm willing to work another 5 years just to avoid depression.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:14 pm |
  153. kathy

    it should be, why can't they put some stimulus money into it.
    they give it to everyone else.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:14 pm |
  154. Dr. Mark Lesser

    Jack, when I was a kid, I recall projections about Social Security NOT being around by the time I retired. I am now 44, and the issues have not changed. Each administration has passed this issue on to the next for decades. Do I think social security funds will be there for me when I retire? No way, Jack !

    May 13, 2009 at 4:14 pm |
  155. chester

    why don't the government put back what they took from social security to fund some of there projects? seems we have billions for foreign countries, billions for everyone else but social security and medicare. stop giving so much away for no reason and we can keep social secutity and medicare going. it'sthe two most important things for retirees.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:14 pm |
  156. Sean

    I am 23 right now. If nothing is done by 2037 and if all the projections are accurate, I should probably start saving money in a jar right now.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  157. Cookie Willis

    I am very confident that it will be there.
    .......Although I plan as if it won't be.

    I see no reason they can't print the money just as they printed it for the Banks and Auto dealers.

    If they don't print it....we will all be moving back in with our kids and none of our spoiled kids will want that.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  158. Malibu Bill

    I retired two years ago and live under the threat that the federal government will soon be taking away that which I paid in for over 50 years.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  159. Robert Easterling

    The government has been raping the social security system funds for decades and it has only been in the past 10 or so years that these kinds of questions have been getting raised about its ability to support those who have been paying into it. I have zero faith in social security especially given the fact that despite its faltering condition there are still groups of congressmen who have the audacity to suggest that we start paying social security benefits to illegal aliens who seem to be more important to our government than our own citizens in every respect.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  160. Jack Parkman

    Jack,

    I'm still in college. There's no way Social Security will be around when I retire, at least not in its present form, without raising taxes to a politically unacceptable level.

    Young people like me should have other options. We should be able to invest for our own retirement or even opt out completely. When more than 12% of your income goes to an unsustainable retirement scheme and the government spends the trust fund like it's their private slush fund, why should people like me be trapped in the system?

    Jack Parkman,
    Spring City, PA

    May 13, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  161. Richard Hargis

    Maybe if our Congress people would stop dipping into the fund, it wouldn't dry up. Having said that, maybe we should have thought about the effect of job loss on SS contributions before outsourcing our industry to foreign shores, China, et al. It is unconscientionable to have let this happen to our country.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  162. Ron Z.

    Jack, as with health care, Social Security problems will never be solved by Congress until they are held responsible, look at their benefit package and see how well they take care of themselves, their retirement package and health care are the best of the best! Arrogance is a job requirement for our representatives.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  163. Jim

    Using your numbers, Social Security will be gone by the time I turn 65. Great. Just great.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  164. Steph in Virginia

    I'm 23 now, and considering the benefits age is being raised to 67, that means 45 years until I'm elligible, so no I don't think Social Security will be there when I retire. I'm rather upset that the money I've been working hard for is just disappearing, and that I'm never going to see it again. Why bother put any in?

    May 13, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  165. Mike Bailey Columbia SC

    Jack, I am already getting Social Security Disability so I am confident it will last longer than I will, I have congestive heart failure and they say the average life expectancy is ten years, the CHF was diagnosed in Oct 2002, so the odds are I will be dead before the Social Security funds run out, I don't know what the rest of you are going to do, but I suggest taking the caps off of the income and tax all income for SS and Medicare instead of capping it like they do now, seriously I am sure Donald Trump can afford the extra now that he made all that free publicity off Ms California. Oh they should just go ahead and raise the retirement age to 70, most people are planning on working that long now anyway, due to how far their 401 plans tanked last year.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  166. Dick31

    Jack, how much is in the trust fund today? Answer: Nothing. There is no trust fund, surplus receipts get spent in the general budget, but the fearmongers in both parties keep up this feat scam. SS is paid from current taxes and any shortfall will be paid be an appropriation–something that has never happened won't in the future.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  167. Amanda Mauldin

    I think a better way to insure it will be around is to stop the abuse of the system. I know several people 30 and under who recieve social security disability, and who are not truly disabled, and work "under the table" for other people while drawing social security. I have reported even some of my own family members, one who owns a car dealership and still draws social security disability, but still nothing has been done about it. The social security administration does the paperwork from afar and never sees the abuse going on right under its nose. You would think one would wonder when they see one of their disability clients' name on a car dealership sign, but no..... it is a shame that some people are turned down who truly need social security while others flourish and spend the "extra social security cash" to foot their trips to the auction to buy more new cars for their used car dealership. Even when reported, nothing is done! Think of the money they could be saving for people who truly are in need!

    May 13, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  168. Roy - Chicago

    I am 54 and seriously wondering WHAT will be around when I retire, so I am not confident in the current system as is......our 401K's have been decimated and health care costs keep rising........so everyone realizes there has to be some sort of support structure for elder Americans or there will be a grey revolution in this country.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  169. Harrison - Mobile Alabama

    Social What? I'm more confident that by the time I retire, Republicans and Democrats will actually get along and act civilized, gay and lesbian couples will be able to get married in all 50 states and Fox News will file for bankruptcy.

    ...In other words, I have absolutely no confidence in the future of Social Security at all. unfortunately.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  170. joyce from ohio

    if the government would pay back all they have taken out of ss there

    May 13, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  171. Chris D.

    looks like SS needs a bail out, I'm 47 now so I'm SOL . . . .

    May 13, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  172. Michael

    No confidence at all!!! I am a Gen-Y and Social Security is not even a thought in my mind. In 2037 I will be just thinking about retirement and I know Social Security will not be an option. Social Security is dead to me and all of the Gen-Yers and the only thing we have to do it keep it paying the tax so our parents and/or grandparents can live ok until they pass on. NO Social Security for me and I am fine with that, for now!

    Michael
    New Orleans, LA

    May 13, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  173. Kate

    I am 21 and I do not feel that Social Security will be their for me in the same way it is for seniors today. And I really do not think its fair to make people wait till they are 67 to receive Social Security, personally I feel that 63 is not appropriate for people who work hard manual labor jobs. Congress needs to figure out a way to fix Social Security for the American people who are paying their salaries and ultimately for their retirement.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  174. Joe

    Jack, Has anyone mentioned that the US Government has raided the Social Security Fund for their pet projects? I think we need to restore the money for Social Security Fund to its rightful position , and then we can talk about how we will continue to fund it.

    Let's face it, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and many thousands of people do not need to access these funds that barely prevent many older people from going on welfare.

    Let's live up to our promises and restore the money from Social Security that was stolen in favor of other projects, such as to fight wars, etc. If our government will not do this, then we should take the money out of our defense budget that pays many big business contractors (Hallburton, KBR, etc.) tons of dollars.

    Joe ... Binghamton, NY

    May 13, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  175. Wayne

    I think it will help a lot by lifting the payroll cap on paying social security each year. It isn't going to hurt those that make the higher incomes that reach this cap each year. After all, these higher income earners will want their fair share when they reach retirement age.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  176. working hard in florida

    Hmmm... I am 27 now, so I would say if there are NO more Republicans in office between now and the next 40 or 50 years or so I may be able to cash in on that account I am required to pay in to.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  177. Debb

    Maybe we should start charging the companies off-shoring our jobs, for example the tens of thousands of medical transcription jobs being sent overseas – make the employers pay the social security tax in lieu of paying actual qualified hard-working American MTs, or how about all the Dell telephone operator jobs – if I have to try to talk to someone who I cannot understand or cannot understand me, maybe they should feel the pain too....that ought to bring in some revenue. As far as retirement – my social security statement says I have to work until I am 70 as of now, I bet in 10 years it will be up to 75, maybe 80 – and I do not expect I will draw to much out of the system by then, if I last that long!

    May 13, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  178. Bill from Michigan

    Jack,

    Glad to hear that your retirement is closer than some of the rest of us. While I don't consider that Social Security will allow me to live with any level of comfort, I would like to think that there would be something given the years I have paid into the system. With a couple of small pensions, some retirement, and a bit of Social Security, in another 20+ years I hope to be able to work when and where I want to, rather than as a necessity.

    Keep up the good work.

    Bill from Michigan

    May 13, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  179. Doug

    Pittsburgh, PA 32

    I have no confidence what so ever that I will have Social Security when I retire. It is not even part of my retirement plan. I find it stupid that now people are getting scared, when the Bush Administration warned us of this and even tried to do something. It might not have been the best idea, but at lest it was something. The only thing the Dems did was point fingers and tell them how wrong they where. I am sure the GOP will now just to the same thing to the Obama Administration. God bless our two party system.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  180. Trapper

    Well there are two things. If the politicians would have kept there fingers off the SS funds we would have no problems. And if you are aware of it or not, of legal people in this country. Of them 54% are on SS or SSI. Some never having put one penny into the fund.
    Yes it will be there for me (61) but for how long. But not for my kids.

    Trapper

    May 13, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  181. Karl from SF, CA

    I took SS two years ago at 62 to be sure I got it. Bush's stock market plan scared me. Anybody over 30 better realize that with 401Ks in the toilet and pension plans going belly up, SS may be all they will have to retire on. The anti-tax folks are too stupid to realize this affects them, too. Raise the payroll tax a little and make SS healthy again. By the time it currently runs out I’ll be 92, if I’m even still around, but, if nothing is done, many younger folks will be in bad shape.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  182. Patrick

    Social Security Gone!!!! I'm Living on $795 a month cause I'm permanently Disabled barely living now.....guess I will be living on the streets in the future and begging for food.....I did not ask to be Disabled...I WANT to work again....Just another blow too Veterans like me...It's Becoming a sad word Jack.

    Patrick

    Seattle

    May 13, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  183. Mike

    Not at all confident.

    I would say it will go bankrupt in 2020 not 2037 because the current Obama health plan will accelerate the bankruptcy. When something is taken over by government – IT GOES BANKRUPT. In all, this country will be bankrupt and fully socialized by 2037 and we are gonna see no dime of social security back.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  184. mux

    Government as usual. Don't do anything until the people realize the problem - by which time its too late to do anything about it - and they are ready to make sacrifices.

    Its best to acknowledge we need to get used to a new world order that does not include the luxuries seen in the last 60 years. The reason for this a failure to by us (government & people) to invest in ourselves.

    We can start correcting this now but the dividends will be paid many years from now.

    Be nice to your kids ... you will need them when you retire.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  185. D Dietrich

    For the 25 years of my working life I have never assumed that Social Security would be around when I retire and I have not changed that opinion. Social Security when it was formed was meant to "supplement" retirement and the increasing dependence on it by retirees and the collapse of large companies along with their retirement benefits along with the lack of determination of ANY political party to do ANYTHING about it has led us to realize that this huge PONZI sceme will collapse. It is a terrible tragedy that politicians have a focus on their next re-election rather than the welfare of our elders.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  186. ET in L.A.

    I'm 64, female, out of work for nearly a year, no employment prospects in sight, so was forced to take SS benefits early. I have confidence in the system - for now - but dread what might be in store for those much younger, a vast majority of whom will play by the rules and still not have anything to count on when they're my age. This situation teeters precariously between pathetic and disgraceful.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  187. Dave Lee, Lexington, MA

    An additional problem in Social Security collections is the widespread use of classifying wokers as contractors instead of employees, so the employer has no SS liability.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  188. J from Michigan

    Hi Jack: We recently contacted Social Security about someone we knew were drawing Social Security illegially. The girl that answered the phone was very rude to me and told me, If I were you, I wouldn't worry about it!" She told me to mind my own business. She said if I didn't have that person's social security number they couldn't do anything about it anyway. I had the name, address, phone number, date of birth, place of birth, but not the social security number. Of course, there won't be benefits for much longer, because they just don't care. Discouraged and a bit angry!! J

    May 13, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  189. Pat

    Of course Social Security will be there when I retire, and when my kids retire too – it is a necessity, just like defense and roads and other necessities that government has to provide for. Social Security is doing its job and there's no reason to cut benefits, which are way too low for most people anyway (you try living on less than $1000 a month, Jack!) The trust funds are there because Social Security has run a surplus each year for the last 20 years or so, and they've been used many times to cover yearly shortfalls in Social Security and Medicare. It's no big deal to do that now in a time of severe recession – that's what the trust fund reserves are supposed to do! Over the long run, we need to make up any deficit by raising the wage cap or dedicating some part of general tax revenues to pay benefits. We've already raised the retirement age to 67 – when people who are laid off in their 50's now can't get hired because they're too old, how the heck is anyone older than 67 supposed to get work and stay employed? It's not necessary. Raise the wage base and the long term problem is solved. Don't tell me to bail out Wall Street bankers and their bonuses and then say we can't "afford" Social Security.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  190. Helene Zemel

    Dear Jack

    It's a no brainer. Medicare and social security can easily be saved. Just raise the income cap. This will provide sufficient funds for both medicare and social security while still keeping benefits and the retirement age intact. Right now the burden falls unfairly on the working and middle income class.

    Unfortunately the wealthy senators and house members and their business class lobbyists resist the idea of raising the income cap even though this would cause the least pain.

    I just took early retirement at age 62. No point waiting.

    Valley Stream, NY

    May 13, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  191. Janos Samu

    I am confident it will be there, because I will retire next year, except it will be renamed as "enhanced social security benefits" and will have the same effect as George W. Bush's "enhanced interrogation " for torture and Bernie Madoff's "enhanced investment plans" for his deals.
    Janos Samu, Kalaheo, Hawaii

    May 13, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  192. virginiadem

    You've obviously bought into the disinformation on Social Security ... check out any 401k program ... those are the ones that are really insolvent ... or take Prudential ... less than 3 years of cash coverage on hand ... if you must use fear mongering at least get an opposing viewpoint ... the program is solvent and minor tweeks are all that are needed to make it even more so ....

    May 13, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  193. William Duval

    They should have fixed this years ago but lack the guts. I hit 62 a month ago, and you had better believe that I applied for bennefits before they could cheat me out of the $200,000+ I have paid in over the past 50+ years. If I had been able to invest this money I would be very well off, even with the current stock market.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  194. Bob D, Morrisown, NJ

    I'm sure SS will be there for the early years of my retirement, currently slated for next year. The question is how long will it last. But there are options for balancing the Social Security budget other than the two you suggested in your question.

    A means test could be adopted, whereby those who have substantial retirement incomes other than Social Security would have their benefits reduced or eliminated in accordance with the level of their other incomes. Warren Buffet doesn't need social security, as I am certain it would agree.

    The caps on the amount of income taxed could be raised, or eliminated. Those who currently hit the cap of over $100,000 can best afford to contribute more towards paying for their parent's benefits.

    The amount of benefit paid could be reduced if needed. Some benefit is better than none. It will take an open mind to address this problem, and full employment certainly wouldn't hurt.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  195. Louise in Alabama

    Cost of living raise? I am still laughing.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  196. Kathi, Bayview ID

    Jack,

    I have worked my entire adult life, paid into Social Security and will be 62 in two years. I currently am unemployed, not on unemployment, and have no prospects for employment at my age. I did not qualify for any stimulus money, or payroll taxbreaks. I will not be eligible for Social Security for 2 more years at a minimum, and now you tell me that because of this economy my ability to get social security will be short lived at best. I'll go you one further. The way things are going, I suspect there may be little or nothing there when I get there in two years. Good thing I have planned well for my retirement, and am watching my investments like a hawk. No one else is watching out for my best interest. The way the stock market has been going, nothing is guaranteed anymore. What a country! Where do you think we went wrong?

    May 13, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  197. Lindsay

    I have come to terms with the probability that when the time comes, I will not have social security to look to. Now days, I try not to get my hopes up so much anymore because I'd rather be surprised than disappointed.

    I am putting money in a savings account and looking to take care of myself in the future, not relying on the government. It is a shame that all of us are dishing out tax money that we will never see but hasn't it always been that way?

    Minneapolis, MN

    May 13, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  198. Michael Jozwiak

    The solutions open to social security reform are obvious: increase the tax base and limit the payments to the rich. You stop paying into the system when your income reaches $106,000 or so, which gets raised every few years. People making more than than don't pay beyond that level. Raise that cut off point to $500,000 or higher and you increase contributors, therefore increasing contributions. Next, don't pay SSI benefits to the rich and use both earned income and investment income to determine this! If someone takes in $100,000 in dividends they can still get SSI checks! That's ridiculous.

    Michael, Houston.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  199. Fannie Lou Ash

    Re: Social Security Runnin Out:
    Bah Humbug: for many years it was common knowledge that our government , when running low on income, would skim the cream (funds) off Social Security and replace with IOU's to it's convience to spend it else where.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  200. Bob Kramer

    It'll be there. Hey, we're living longer. Indexing full retirement age to increased lifespan isn't cutting benefits, it's just preventing benefit creep. Try continuing at a month-per-year pace – like we have been. No one over 35 gets impacted at all, and you whack 2/3rds off the 2089 shortfall. It'll be there.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  201. Juan Martinez

    While it would be a great benefit for the generations to come the matter of fact is that the current trends will run Americans out of any chance for having any benefits. Of course it is definitely early for someone barely reaching their 20s to be discussing this subject it is out of my hands because I am unemployed because of my dedication to my studies. Stil the Social Security debate has been going on years before I was ever born, and someone in the last 50 years has been able to plan for actions in any case social security fell off of its track. The problem is because the American public continues to linger in their decisions to spend, invest, and properly assess the economic trends there will not be a benefit for the generations to come.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  202. Steve Weintraub

    As a recently retired Social Security employee, I am confident that SS will be here for the next generations. A simple fix that no one wants to talk about is it eliminate the cap on FICA taxes that are paid. Yes, it means that those making more will pay more, but what a concept that would be. Think of all the money that could have been saved if we didn't have those previous Social Security panels spending all those hours and tax payer dollars to come up with absolutely no solution.

    Steve
    Delray Beach, Florida

    May 13, 2009 at 4:19 pm |
  203. Joe Miszkiel Murfreesboro, Tn.

    Jack;
    Social Security was fine and prosperous until the congress, back in The '70's or '60's I can't rememberwich, took Social Security out of it's own funding package and put it in the GENERAL FUND so they could use the money for other purposes. It was set up to be replenished and was doing fine with the future forseen in its own funding package and the greedy congress not being able to use the money for their pork. What a sad example of abuse of funds.
    Joe Tn.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:19 pm |
  204. Nathan Duty

    Jack,

    Lets face it the crooks are stealing our Social Security benefits simply because they can and we have allowed it.

    Take a look a the Public Employees Retirement System in California, today it is around 180 Billion dollars strong and that's after losing over 40 billion dollars and it is still stong, why? Well simply put, it is because politicians cannot get their dirty hands on it.

    The California PERS progam is a prime example of what Social Security could be and should be if it were not for the greed and coruption of our elected officials and that's both Demorates and Republicans.

    How about doing an indepth study of the PERS program and then compare it to Social Security. How about opening the eyes of the people so they truly understand the mess and how it was allowed to happen.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:19 pm |
  205. SHERI

    I am 31 years old, and for the last 15 years I have had no choice but to pay into the social security pot. The system will inevitably fail because the funds have been mis-managed for too long. I can not rely on the government to manage my money well or provide for me and my family. So my question is, what happens to all the money I've put into that SS pot all these years. I think my generation deserves to be reimbursed for all the money we've invested, but that we will never see.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:19 pm |
  206. stanley dorsainville

    i am currently 19 years old and the idea of reciving social security benefits when i am ready to retire is an idea that is wasting my time because if i am lucky enough to survive the effects global warming then i should be grateful enough to be alive

    May 13, 2009 at 4:20 pm |
  207. Vannessa

    I am 49 years old. I started to work when I was 15. 5 years ago, we had a forum about social security and people said that the money is going to pay for welfare and if they don't work, they shouldn't get social security. If you are a housewife all your life, you don't qualify either.
    You didn't pay nothing in. I have resolved to accept the fact that I will not get my social security, someone is already getting it or it has been gone for a long time. We have to stay healthy as long as we can, work until we die and then its someone else's topic. Next topic.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:20 pm |
  208. Mike Smith

    I have confidence that some relatively meaningless program will exist and we are paying 10's to100's of thousands of dollars to support a generation that did not insist that their representatives act in a fiscally responsible manner. We must, in fairness raise the retirement age further and ultimately block polititians from taking funds out of intitlement programs to pay for todays favorite pork package. Swine flu posses less risk to most of us than the pork that polititians use to get re-elected every cycle.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:20 pm |
  209. Eric Williams

    I am so not worried about Social Security, I am more worried about saving my home from foreclosure and urging congress to overall the bankruptcy rules to help us investor owned loans.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:20 pm |
  210. Dave - Minnesota

    Social Security is still the most sound protection for retirement. If its trust funds had been placed in the stock market like George Bush wanted, it's assets would have declined by 40% or more. The 2037 date in the Trustees' Report only means that this is the date the trust funds would be exhausted, but FICA taxes of those working at that time would still fund about 75% of future benefits. This shortfall could be quickly corrected by lifing the cap on FICA contributions, which has been another tax break for the very wealthly.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:21 pm |
  211. patricia jenkins

    I am 66 and will probably outlive my benefits. You cited high unemployment as a contributing cause to the SS deficit. Does Corporate America further diminish the revenue to SS by outsourcing?
    I think outsouurcing is an offense to the American workforce and another tax dodge for the 'fat cats'!

    May 13, 2009 at 4:21 pm |
  212. Dr,. Paul R. VeHorn, Ph.D.

    Of course it will be there Jack...Social Security is not going to Pot...Pot is going to Social Security...it is a lot easier for politicians to legalize and tax Pot to fund Social Security than it is to let Social Security go up in smoke...the only people against legalizing pot are the drug dealers and their fellow tavelers who will be out of business...so the Boomers save the Nation again!

    May 13, 2009 at 4:21 pm |
  213. Hooker Jay (From Monroe MI)

    Jack, as a 35 yr old male with Fibromyalgia, Chronic Fatigue, and severe Sciatica inherited from my father, Social Security disability or SSI isn't being here for me as I type this as it requires a long, hard slog involving lawyers for roughly 2 to 4 years. And judging how close the Bush Administration fedayeen came to privatizing it, I'll probably never benefit from it if age or my health issues forces me into retirement - it'll be successfully privatized by then! It's exactly what the Santellis, Madoffs, Kramers, and Wall Street schysters want ... and they'll eventually get it like everything else. Wall Street has been running roughshod over Main Street for my entire life so far and I don't see a break in the monotony any time soon. Again, what the status quo wants, the status quo gets.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:21 pm |
  214. mary shaw, colorado springs co

    Yes, I'm retiring at the end of the month. I've worked for the Federal Government for 44 years and that's enough for any sane individual.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:21 pm |
  215. Rosemarie A Stone

    If President Obama doesn't mess with the Social Security system, it will be there for us. No COLA for 2010 and 2011 is appalling and a financial travesty for the elderly. Is Obama going to tell everyone to keep our rent, food costs, gasoline, utilities, health insurance, prescriptions, etc. to remain stagnant while he prevents us from getting the meager COLA stipend? I dare say not! What he is doing is reprehensible and unconsciounable. He'll spend billions throwing our taxpayer money on failed enterprises, but to preserve the dignity of the elderly's lives–he refuses. What an insensitve jerk he has turned out to be!

    Rosemarie, Vero Beach, FL

    May 13, 2009 at 4:21 pm |
  216. Mark in New Jersey

    Some of the solution is common sense. First, remove the pay in cap. Most people don't realize that people that people stop paying SSI after $95K. Second, keep SSi in SSI. Many times throughout the years money has been taken out of SSi for things other than SSI. Third, launch an investigation on where the money from SSI has gone through the years.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:22 pm |
  217. Brendan O'Connor

    Jack, I'm an 18 yr. old college student I've got to say that I am not confident in any way that social security will be around for me. When the program started people received benefits at 65 which also happened to be the life expectancy at the time. Now the life expectancy is fast approaching 80 and benefits are received at 67. The system is flawed, please allow me to keep my money and spend it how I choose.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:22 pm |
  218. Tom decatur al

    I am confident that eventually, no matter how much the gop (in fact the more) fights Obama, change will come to washington through elections and the new congress will find a solution!

    May 13, 2009 at 4:22 pm |
  219. Shaun Holtwisch

    I'm 29 years old, and there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that our generation will not be able to rely on social security when it's time for us to retire. Hell, people are losing the money they put in their 401K and other stock options as well. I figure I'll just start putting my money under my mattress and call it a day.

    -Shaun (Belleville, IL)

    May 13, 2009 at 4:23 pm |
  220. MIKE VAUGHN

    Jack, I'm 56 and I'm not very confident Social security will be in place when I retire. I'd be a helluva lot more confident if the Congress would eliminate the $ 90,000.00 wage ceiling on deductions. The wealthiest in this country who use and abuse the lower income working classes need to pay their fair share into the system. This would solve the SS funding concern. Mike Vaughn, Huntingdon, PA

    May 13, 2009 at 4:23 pm |
  221. Chad from Los Angeles, CA

    I won’t retire till around 2045, the only way i’ll see it is if I get disabled now…Not much to look forward to these days!

    May 13, 2009 at 4:23 pm |
  222. Donna Crouch

    While the federal government was bailing out the banks, insurance companies and auto makers, my husband and I were forced to "bail out" of our jobs after many years of loyal service (38 and 26 years respectively). At ages 62 and 64 in a recessionary economy not of our making, we've found it impossible to find suitable employment. Consequently we have had to "retire" years before we planned, filing for reduced retirement benefits from Social Security and depleted 401(k) accounts. Now the government tells us (again) that because so many people are out of work, the Social Security system is at risk of failing. If the government can bail out the financial industries and auto makers, shouldn't they also prop up the Social Security system?

    May 13, 2009 at 4:23 pm |
  223. Jeff Crocket

    For 70 years the government has lied about this social security routine!
    The government has never set aside any money but spent it!

    Socialism doesn't work on a grand scale! Ask the Soviets?

    Jeff in New Britain, CT

    May 13, 2009 at 4:23 pm |
  224. Jaycie, Los Angeles

    For a long time I've wondered why the Federal Government isn't required to pay interest on our money that is in the Social Security "Trust Fund". Our government "borrows" this money freely but doesn't give us anything back for the privlege as it does to China and Japan when it borrows money from them. Even if the interest was only 2%, compounded over time, our money in the Trust Fund would be able to pay out benefits into the indefinite future. I've never heard anyone raise this idea in public before.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:23 pm |
  225. Janice From Delaware

    Jack

    To be perfectly honest, I always said that I doubted Social Security would be available when I retired so this is not a new threat or worry.
    They have been "robbing Peter to pay Paul" with this fund for years.
    All I can say is "Shame on the people who are independently weathy and take monthly checks from this fund " when my poor grandmother is living on $600 a month.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:24 pm |
  226. Jay

    I am very confident my government pension will be there when I retire, and that I will able to cover all of my medical expenses. Then again, I live in Canada, eh!

    May 13, 2009 at 4:24 pm |
  227. Russ in Johnston, IA

    I think there will be some version of SS around when I retire, but, WOW – what we could have funded with the trillions$ thrown at Wall Street, AIG, and 'bankruptcy is not an option' Chrysler & GM. There are 9 huge banks, an untold # of smaller banks, a too-big-to-fail insurance giant, and who know how many other recipients of 'the bailout' $$ that should be 1st in line to pony up tax money for whatever Washington is trying to sell us on. These elected morons let this calamity happen, and now expect to tax the public that just bailed out these companies while at the same time losing half of their retirement money? I don't think so! Talk to Wall St., Obama, and get some major tax $$ from them before trashing the public's wallet – AGAIN!

    May 13, 2009 at 4:24 pm |
  228. Rolando DePuy

    I really expect it to be there. If not we are going to become a third word country, worst than the biggest depression that we have right know, our streets are going to look like India. What a disaster, just because no President or lawmaker have been willing to face the problem.
    That is not going to be beautiful...

    May 13, 2009 at 4:24 pm |
  229. B.F. WESSINGER

    Social security is in trouble because congress has continually robed the funds placed there for retirement purposes, and used for other things not regarding retirement.. That is what I believe.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:24 pm |
  230. loretta

    I am drawing S.S. at this time.I would be more confident that would be there for others. If they would raise the amount you must pay on.
    When I first entered the Work force, the top amount you paid S.S, taxes on was $6000. Now i believe it is a little over $100,000.Why stop there?

    May 13, 2009 at 4:24 pm |
  231. Anthony......NJ

    Oh, where is Albert Gore's lockbox when we need it? We were swimming in surpluses and the future looked unproblematic. So we elected George W. Bush because he seemed more in touch with Joe six-pack. Now we're destitute and George is on the ranch enjoying a retirement plan called influence.
    Social Security now has to be salvaged by president Obama who has been left with the remnants of a completely failed administration. Maybe we would have been better off with the more esoteric president Gore! America, what were you thinking????

    May 13, 2009 at 4:24 pm |
  232. Bill Elliott

    With all of the concern about the solvency of Medicare and Socal Security, why does Obama and Pelosi and want to give these benefits to illegal aliens, who have never contributed any resources to these programs, when there are millions of citizens who have contributed to these programs that will be left out in the cold. This just does not make sense, what kind of a government have gotten ourselves into.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:24 pm |
  233. Lindsay

    Also, I don't get how people can honestly think there will be money left in SS when the officials have said it's running out like oil. People who think you can live on it when most can't NOW, are living in la-la land. Don't rely on SS for living off of.

    Thanks!

    May 13, 2009 at 4:24 pm |
  234. Fannie Lou Ash

    Re: Social Security Shortfall
    For many years it has been common knowledge that our government when was short of funds it would take the money from social security and replace with I O U's. These were never replaced. If the government would redeem the iou's with money there would be no concern of Social Security going broke.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:25 pm |
  235. Nancy, Tennessee

    Okay, so now I want to label Congress as the Madoff of Social Security. We all know that Social Security funds have been tapped into for years. Somehow everyone wants to forget about the IOUs that were put in SS by our own government. Its time someone came up with a solution to fix SS without penalizing the baby boom generation that has paid into the system for years. I want to retire and not at age 67 or older. My body says retirement is mandatory and soon!

    May 13, 2009 at 4:25 pm |
  236. Diana McKnight

    Jack:

    I'm already retired, so I don't think this threat will impact me–much. However, I do think it's time to at least start "plugging the holes" in this system. There are a lot of people (government workers) jumping on board who have paid in very little for a very short time in order to reap the benefits. If you want to play, you have to pay–no waiting until they are about to retire, then working in the private sector just long enough to qualify.
    Diana, Roseville CA

    May 13, 2009 at 4:25 pm |
  237. Adrian Martin

    I've known for years that Social Security will not be available by the time I retire (I am 26). Regardless of the government's action or non-action on this issue, the country's population is constantly growing. People are also living longer. Plus, any chance of Social Security even lasting for the next 50 years was obliterated by the horrible budget planning (if you can even call it a plan) by the Bush administration.

    In addition to that, this is a Capitalist society, and as such business and profit will always take precedence over the well-being of citizens. Almost anyone who has ever spent time in the workforce can tell you that.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:25 pm |
  238. Larry

    Jobs being sent overseas is the culprit here.For the sake of big profit they are turning their back on the country that gave them their start. Corporations and Politicians could care less about the American people. Thats why they send jobs to cheap foreign labor markets And the Politicians let them. Revolution anybody!

    May 13, 2009 at 4:25 pm |
  239. Jeremiah Smith

    Maybe Congress can fix Social Security by piling on more taxes on "the rich." Most of "the rich" went to school, made considerable sacrifices in life and showed discipline with their money. I'm sure they will be happy to take on this burden. Since they likely have saved what's left of their money for retirement, they can just give their Social Security contributions to those who continue to live off of the government.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:25 pm |
  240. David Colburn

    Jack, I am no genious but if one would remove the ceiling more than enough money would be available. That would be a tax increace but one all making over 200,000.00 should be able to afford.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:25 pm |
  241. Scott Stodden

    Jack Im only 32 yrs old so I got a long way to go till retirment and I dont believe unless something is done now that Social Security will be around when I retire. Its a shame that after all this time the goverment never did anything about it, why cant we depend on our goverment to be there when we can no longer work. Hopefully President Obama will address this crisis

    May 13, 2009 at 4:25 pm |
  242. Laurel

    Yes, I believe that Social Security will be there when I retire. The US government made a commitment it now has to honor. Many retiring seniors found out the hard way this year how very unreliable "privatized" Social Security can be. Many workers investing in 401k's that changed jobs in years prior to this down economy found that not all choices make money for their funds. Some found that they actually lost money in their 401k in so called good times.

    When is someone going to investigate, report, and do something about, the money that was "borrowed" – ( I call it raided ) from the Social Security Trust Fund back when the Veterans funds were in trouble. Those funds, when recovered, would go a long way to make the Social Security Trust Fund more secure.

    I don't care if you read this on the air or not. I just want a responsible reporter to look into "the Raid" and help the legislature find a way to recover the money.

    Laurel from Junction City, OR

    May 13, 2009 at 4:25 pm |
  243. Samantha R. Starr

    If President Obam doesn't mess with the Social Security system, it will be there for us. No COLA for 2010 and 2011 is appalling and a financial travesty for the elderly. Is Obama going to tell everyone to keep our rent, food costs, gasoline, utilities, health insurance, prescriptions, etc. to remain stagnant while he prevents the elderly from getting the meager COLA stipend? I dare say not! What Obama is doing if reprehensible and unconsciounable. Obama will spend billions throwing our taxpayer money on failed enterprises, but to preserve the sanctity and dignity of our elderly's lives–he refuses to help us. What an insensitive, despicable leader he has turned out to be!

    Samantha Starr, West Palm Beach, FL

    May 13, 2009 at 4:26 pm |
  244. Paula in Wisconsin

    Jack,
    We've all known for sometime it would not be there.The government has used it for other things like always and probably hoped they would put it back.The taxpayers get ripped off by everyone.I have no doubt this is just another mess Obama will have to clean up.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:26 pm |
  245. Ralph Nelson

    I did two tours of Vietnam and was exposed to Agent Orange. I have worked only five months since and do not have enough work credits or $850 a month pay periods (about 35, I have over 40 but Army only paid $264 month, not $850) to qualify for Social Security or Medicare. I have little health from VA (once a year physical) though 100 percent disabled. They won't sell me health insurance (too disabled). So it doesn't mean "beans" to me. Ralph, Yakima, Wa.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:26 pm |
  246. Brendan O'Connor

    Jack, I'm an 18 yr. old college student I've got to say that I am not confident in any way that social security will be around for me. When the program started people received benefits at 65 which also happened to be the life expectancy at the time. Now the life expectancy is fast approaching 80 and benefits are received at 67 and we sit around wondering why there is no money left. Also now with the baby boomers retiring on my generations paychecks there is simply no way that there will be enough for me to see a cent. The system is fundamentally flawed. Washington needs to allow us to keep the money we make and spend/save/invest it how we choose.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:26 pm |
  247. Paulette,Dallas,PA

    My husband already gets social security. I'm not sure what is going to happen with the rules by the time it becomes my turn in a few years. I think I will probably be OK. I'm concerned about our son and his children. What,will retirement age by 100 by then? All of these thieves have been "borrowing" from the social security fund for many years. Start paying that money back.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:26 pm |
  248. Josh

    I have absolutely no confidence in the SS system anymore. It was a good idea in 1935 when it had first started but just like most other government funds, they were porrly managed and maintained. I am 24 now and I am concerned about my future and what is going to be the best route for me to take. SS is a thing of the past. Everyone should just assume that it isn't even an option anymore

    May 13, 2009 at 4:27 pm |
  249. Tom H.

    I'm 22 and have worked since I was 16. I guarantee you that I will never see a penny of my social security money when I retire.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:27 pm |
  250. Allen in Hartwell GA

    Jack, my wife says that the only way to save Social Security is to require anyone over 65, who can't work and support themselves, to turn themselves in for early termination.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:27 pm |
  251. Debbie in San Marcos, CA

    Well I sure hope so. Its another issue pushed under the rug by Bush. I want a refund of his salary for the eight years he was in office...he did nothing except start a war the whole time he was in office. He managed to run a successful shell game with what was going on with the country. Funny how so much stuff has hit the fan since he left office.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:28 pm |
  252. Dave

    Years ago there were many billions of dollars in the SS fund. Our thieving politicians couldn't stand the thought of so much money they wanted to spend for other things. So they decided to dump the money into the general fund. They paid for wars and other pet projects. Now the money is running out and guess who is will suffer for it. We should send the past politicians a bill for the money they stole from the taxpayers. Funny how nobody talks about this!

    May 13, 2009 at 4:28 pm |
  253. Jay, Denver

    It won't be there for me. But I'm 33. I have years to develop my own ponzi scheme for retirement.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:28 pm |
  254. Hope

    At least Bush tried to bring attention to this matter. Most presidents prefer to put their head in the sand. The way Obama is spending money, mabye it doesn't matter. The country will probably go bankrupt anyway.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:28 pm |
  255. william

    jack why don't they pay social security the monies plus interest back that they have been taken over the years.or use the stimilas money for SS and medicare old people will spend the money

    May 13, 2009 at 4:28 pm |
  256. Dr. Robert Johnson

    All of a sudden I feel like I am applying for welfare. What happened to the large amount of money I had deducted from my pay over 38 years of practice.? Excuse me,but "entitlement" infers I did nothing to arrive at this point in my life. How about calling it " investment return"-at least I feel that I had a stake in my "Golden Years".

    May 13, 2009 at 4:29 pm |
  257. Roger Boyer

    I am not sure that the money myself and others that are at or near retirement age have put into the system the past 40+ years will be there but it should be there. The system was set up to be self supporting, and then money started getting pulled out for other reasons by the politicians. And sure there is less money going in........but if it is not going in, it would not be paid out in the future. that is also the way the systems is suppose to work. If Obama or any one else thinks the economic crisis has been bad, just wait until our social sercurity is not there when we need it........That will be a crisis!

    Roger Boyer

    May 13, 2009 at 4:29 pm |
  258. John Coady

    The politicans have been raiding the Social Security Fund for years . Those raided monies were spent on thier pet projects & other programs, so the politicans wouldn't have to be the ones to raise taxes. SS taxes were levied to pay for SS, stop raiding the Fund & repay the funds that were taken. Then there will be enough cover to SS & Medicare claims .

    May 13, 2009 at 4:29 pm |
  259. George

    Jack, the government has been robbing the SS system since at least the 1980s to make the budget deficits look better and promising to pay it back. Obviously that will never happen. The government gives away billions to those who don't deserve it and will probably "screw" the little people of their earned SS benefits. George Bush's dream of only the wealthy having anything has come true. Hold off building the fence at the border with Mexico because the little guy will have to cross it in order to make ends meet.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:29 pm |
  260. steve Larson

    Jack, how come no one remembers that government allowed pharma to set the prices for prescriptions. The veterens put their requirements out to multiple bids for the best prices for medicines; possible for the veterens.

    This is also how Canada, and much of Europe obtains drug prices far thmselves; far below what we pay in the US. President Obama can and should break the strangle-hold pharma and similar groups have over Congress; and finally iits citizens. This is part and parcel of our spiralling health costs.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:30 pm |
  261. arnold

    so tried of crooked politians stealing from the S.S. surplus fund and never paying it now they say they can't run the country wit out it. I'm one of the many thousand vet's that have been diened benifits i'm going to be 67 in june i took reduced benifits 62 , because i'm scared they won't have any money but we give bonus's to wall street and banks who caused the problem why isn't any one going to jail over this sorry about the spelling I had eye surgary this morning . I have always said put the politions on SS and when they found out they can't live on it they would change it till then nothing will change sorry its a little ILLINIOS where are politions make car plates

    May 13, 2009 at 4:30 pm |
  262. Jack in Los Angeles

    On February 3, 2001, when George W. Bush said "My plan will keep all Social Security money in the Social Security system where it belongs.", I knew Social Security was a goner. Sure enough, Bush and the Republicans quickly proceeded to drain the huge surplus left by President Clinton and spent our Social Security money like drunken frat boys. Hey...at least we can be thankful that Bush and the GOP didn't get their other big wish...investing our Social Security money in the stock market, or it would already be long gone.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:30 pm |
  263. Pat

    Comment on Jaycie's comment: the Federal Government DOES pay interest on the trust fund bonds, that's part of what goes into the trust funds every year from general tax revenues.

    On Rosemarie's comment about no COLA – that is not a decision by the President, it's an automatic result of the drop in inflation. It has nothing to do with the current levels in the reserves, and it's not discretionary – it's been in the law for decades, as part of the automatic COLA statute. Obama has nothing to do with it.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:30 pm |
  264. William Hunter

    For decades, the politicians have been raiding earmarked taxpayer funds to fund other programs, and for decades politicians have been warning about the pending bankruptcy of the social security system. This is like a banker robbing his bank, and then conplaining about his bank going bankrupt. Replace the millions that have been stolen from the social security system first, and cease raiding the hard earned taxpayer contributions, and then fix the system, if need be.

    William, Ft Lauderdale

    May 13, 2009 at 4:31 pm |
  265. Dan from Alliance, OH

    I'm about to retire unless it dies today I should get it. But my children will not have any so I hope they understand saving.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:31 pm |
  266. Jerry

    Yeah, and I will be right there to collect my $4.00 a month.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:31 pm |
  267. Adam Thousand Oaks, CA

    Jack, the whole system is a giant ponzi scheme. Like all Ponzi schemes, when more people are taking money out than is getting put in, the whole system collapses. I am counting on $0 from SS when (if) I retire. Of course corrections need to be made, but in typical American fashion, if funds runs out in 2037 we will seriously talk about fixing it in 2036. There are far too many reelections to run for between now and then.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:32 pm |
  268. John Hesperia CA.

    hello jack,love your show . Well I believe if the fed can spend all the money on stimulus, then can one have faith that money will be there when we need it. Probably not . So I say ,do what you can to prepare for whats to come. Another stimulus!

    May 13, 2009 at 4:32 pm |
  269. Paul

    Jack, what legal recourse if any will we have if we get to our retirement age and there is no money to pay us? It seems only fair to me that I am at least entitled to the money I put in to SS with an increased value indexed with inflation. Our Congress better find a way to fix this issue soon or I suspect there will be pandemonium in this country in 2037.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:32 pm |
  270. towncrier27455

    The social security resolution lies with the legislature. When they have a vested personal interest, the solution will come quickly. Put all the government as participants in the program and eliminate the special program now in place for government officials and employees.
    Anyone else thinks this will be change we can believe in.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:32 pm |
  271. Ed from Tallahassee Florida

    No it won't. Because everyone is too scared to do the right thing.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:33 pm |
  272. Angela Washington

    I am sure it will not be around. However, Military personnel whom have become disabled past and present, as well as others with disabilities will suffer the most . Most of us are able work our way around things, if we stop the madness of name brand items, big spending and living above our means.The rich will also have to pay more in taxes to level the playing field.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:34 pm |
  273. Dennis A. Kahoun

    When congress spent the social security trust fund surplus for the last twenty years or so, they said don't worry. The money will be repaid by the full faith credit of the government. It is time for PAYGO....not cutting benefits and raising retirement age.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:35 pm |
  274. lynne from lattimore, nc

    Putting the cart before the horse, aren't you Jack? You got to have a job before you can survive and even think about retire....

    May 13, 2009 at 4:36 pm |
  275. Dave in Saint Louis!

    I am 34 and have know for over ten years I was never going to get it! But Uncle Sam still has no problem taking it out of my check...BS

    May 13, 2009 at 4:36 pm |
  276. Ron Temecula

    Hi JacK:

    Here is the real question? How many seniors will be depending on Social Security for their sole income? I’m guessing that number is getting higher and higher. Since the private sector does not want to pay any retirement benefits. And most families are not able to save, and those that did, lost it to Wall Street. What politician in their right mind would knowingly end Social Security and Medicare while giving large amounts of government assets to those that perpetrated this economy in the first place. I doubt you will see an end to Social Security or Medicare. Or possibly another system will take it’s place.

    Ron K. Temecula, CA

    May 13, 2009 at 4:36 pm |
  277. Jose in McAllen TX

    Didn't President Bush warn us that SS was in trouble? Ah, but the democrats in congress shot down any ideas from President Bush and they didn't offer any ideas of their own. Hopefully the dems in congress will finally address this issue, instead of just saying 'NO'.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:37 pm |
  278. Bruce Brandt

    Jack
    Not sure, but I have been paying in since I was 12 years old and had a newspaper route. I am now 61 and have never stopped working or paying in. As I understand it ,the trust fund has no assets and is only backed by a promise from govt. For years and years much of the excess of IN money vs. OUT money has gone into the general fund spent on who knows what. Sounds like the fund has been raided and all the govt workers and govt employees who do not pay into social security have benefitted from those SS funds. Of course the same govt guys who complain about social security want the general public to guarantee their public employee pension systems. Fix it by not raiding it and move money into it from other bloated programs.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:37 pm |
  279. rpb Viburnum Mo

    Because af the W.E.P. I can't collect social security I can only collect my teacher retirement. unless I put 3 more years into social security. So in my opinion WHO CARES!!!!!!!!

    May 13, 2009 at 4:37 pm |
  280. ken jefferson city mo

    Jack, If the people who made over 100,000 a year paid in maybe it
    wouldn't in bad shape and that will be a program that the republicans
    will cut in 2016 like they always wanted to do.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:38 pm |
  281. Walter

    Jack............I have worked more than 35 years and have already lost most of what I saved for retirement. I am still working and do not think there will be any social security benefitsbenefits for me to depend on when I retire in a few years. My wife retired after working 32 years but is now looking for work that is hard to find as we are scared of the future!

    May 13, 2009 at 4:39 pm |
  282. Harold L. Smith

    Jack;

    I have been drawing (and saving my S.S.) for 18 years now. I never was all that hung up on COLAs. It just told me that that prices had been going up faster than we could catch them.

    I know some people won't believe this but we actually have everything we need to get by and still have enough left over to save!

    When one has what he needs then one can live very confortably on $25,000 a year. Two cars and a new home furnished all, paid for

    May 13, 2009 at 4:40 pm |
  283. Kathy in Chicago

    Hell no Jack and who's going to reimbursement for all the money they have been taking from my paycheck over these years? We going to shake down the dead? The baby boomer generation is going to have to work until they drop dead as far as I am concerned. They want to fix healthcare, well if they fixed social security and medicare and took less out of my check every week, I could afford my own healthcare. Duh

    May 13, 2009 at 4:40 pm |
  284. A. E. Newman

    Social security is the original Ponzi scheme that relies on an ever expanding work force to pay for an ever expanding retirement population. Since conception, they have used the surplus to pay for other projects. Now that he pig is about to enter the python, why would you expect it to be there when you retire?

    May 13, 2009 at 4:40 pm |
  285. SHIRLEY-OHIO

    Lets see, I am 47 so, I will have to work 20 more years, damn did you have to ask that question Jack. I hope mine will be there 20 years from now.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:40 pm |
  286. Dennis North Carolina

    YES

    May 13, 2009 at 4:40 pm |
  287. Kooky in CA

    Jack, Social Security will be fine if we just tweek it a bit. To those misinformed about the loans out of the trust with IOUs and some former Presidents changing it they need to go to the official Social Security site and click on the "History of SS" and read it. I found it researching all those stupid emails that spread these lies.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:41 pm |
  288. Sean

    I am 34 and have no confidence at all that social security will be there when I retire. The system has been broken for years and you're absolutely right, Jack – no one in Washington seems to want to make fixing it a priority. What's going to happen when people don't have enough money when they retire? Is everyone's home going to be foreclosed upon? Is everyone going to have to line up at food banks to feed themselves? There are so many retirees who can't make ends meet – this is the thanks they get for a lifetime of working hard and doing what is right. Some reward! And this trend will continue unless something is done about it.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:42 pm |
  289. DON IN WESTPORT, MASS.

    What a laugh. As long as there are rich people running this gov't the common citizen will not see any relief.
    Jack, give me one good reason why a rich man should care about social security to begin with. Just one.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:43 pm |
  290. fred d weaver oklahoma city

    Ever since Republicans in office i knew Social Security funds will behurting because Republicans want to get rid of socil security. If Republicans get back in office then ill kiss social security goodbye. Democrats wll save social security if Obama stays in office,

    May 13, 2009 at 4:45 pm |
  291. Bill

    Not confident at all. Who can afford to retire. I figure I will have to continue working another 10 years after I pass away in order to pay for this economy.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:46 pm |
  292. Ralph Sato

    There are too many scare stories being spread in the media about the future of social security. Some of the estimates about the ultimate cost of social security over the next 100 years ranging well beyond $7 trillion are clearly wild estimates intended to scare people. Remedies proposed by the Bush administration based on these prognosis such as privatization do not even address the problem of solvency of social security. I do not favor an increase in the payroll tax rate because it is already a burden on the struggling middle and lower classes and will make it more difficult to continue the popularity of the program. But I do favor President Obama's proposal to raise the cap on payroll taxes for those making over $100,000. This will help improve the future solvency gap of social security by between 30% to 50%. It will also reduce the regressivity of the social security tax. I do not favor reducing the benefits nor the basis of schedules from the current wage based to an inflation based schedule. Raising the retirement age any further than the present is acceptable only if it does not become an up-escalator for future increases. The inter-generational war argument is flawed because social security clearly helps reduce the burden of supporting older parents which was the case before 1935.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:46 pm |
  293. SHARON: Anchorage, Alaska

    It won't be. At least not in it's current form due to the abuses of the past & current congressional decisions & approval by White House administrations. Social Security is the largest Ponzi scheme in existence. Pay the future with money saved from past investors; yet the persons who made those decisions will never be held accountable.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:48 pm |
  294. Richard New Hampshire

    We,along with our employer pay in to Social Security every pay check.The government was supposed to get us interest on this money.Where did that money go?Social security's retirement age means little.You get less money if you retire at age 62 and more money if you retire at 70.
    The present problem is the economy is forcing more older persons to take social security,because they can't find a job.Not to mention the stock market killing retirement funds.
    The money will be there,what will do us in is the inflation the country will experience.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:49 pm |
  295. dnielsen61

    Jack,

    You only stated two ways to save Social Security, you forgot to mention the third way to save it. That is by the United States Government repaying the $200 Billion dollars a year that the government has been borrowing from it since Reagan stated doing that to fund his tax cuts for the rich back in the 1980's. Just the principle alone is over $5.2 Trillion dollars. If the government put back into Social Security was it has borrowed, with the interest it owes Social Security will be saved.
    By the way, please don't let those people at the Peter Peterson Foundation know that we know this. Mr. Peterson might have to spend more of his BILLIONS trying to hide this fact.

    Dan in Elmhurst,Illinois

    May 13, 2009 at 4:50 pm |
  296. Dick in Minnesota

    I don't plan to retire until my body is fully retire to the cold cold ground.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:51 pm |
  297. Mary, Boise, Idaho

    The FICA maximum this year is $106,800. No one pays FICA on earnings above that amount!! Correcting that loophole would be a start to increased social security funds. Why do those who earn the most have this special treatment? (Remember that medicare has no such maximum.)

    I do wonder if social security as I know it will be available for my kids. It doesn't sound good.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:51 pm |
  298. Robert Utter

    I dont see why we dont just eliminate the S.S. fine we pay every paycheck, and just pull the funds out of thin air, it's my understanding that the banks and the government do it and no one is making them change anything, only seems right.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:52 pm |
  299. C. Farrell, Houston, Tx

    Social security will still be there. By the time the government re-calculates how long social security recipients live, they will raise the retirement age. We'll just need to outlive the retirement age of 100 years old.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:53 pm |
  300. Rick, Greencastle, Indiana

    Where is this SS fund? There is no special fund that they keep separate from all the other taxes the Government takes in.

    May 13, 2009 at 4:54 pm |