So what makes illegals special? I'm paying boatloads of money into Social Security and given my age, it's unlikely I'll see a dime either.

On a related subject, I think the volunteer xenophobes are despoiling the name "Minutemen", but that's just me.

It has irritated the hell out of me for several years watching so many businesses in my town and surrounding ones hire more folks from south of the border than locals, although I have thought about buying a few rent houses, considering they pay about $50.00 a month rent per person, and there's usually anywhere from 8-35 people per house. But...in the last year I've got to know a couple who own a business that employs mostly Mexicans and now I see why. They are the ones who will show up every day and work without a lot of bitching. Granted, this is a greasy, dirty job and starts out at a pretty low wage. But there aren't a lot of jobs to choose from right now, and a person who has good attendance and does the job, does get a raise after 30 days, 60 days, 6 months, and one year. Their turnover is so high that they do start out low. I have had to look at it from their side lately....still sucks though...

That's only true if the Republicans are allowed to dismantle it, which doesn't seem likely at this point.

HM, dismantled or not, I will never see a Social Security payment regardless of who's in charge of it. The system was never meant to be permanent, and can't be sustained. What I expect will happen is that the level of eligibility will be slowly lowered until it is the equivalent of welfare for old people. I'm not on welfare now, and I don't intend to be when I'm old.

Near as I can tell, it is Welfare for Old People.

Actually, i've even seen old people on both social security and welfare. rare, but it happens.

The system was always meant to be permanent and, even if nothing is done, the worst it will get will be a reduction of benefits to 70% of scheduled benefits. That's after it "goes bankrupt". Scheduled benefits are higher than current benefits.

As for when that will happen, here's the history of the projected date:

source?

This is my source (I didn't link before because I had just saved the graphic).

http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/3/24/9175/05678

They claim the ultimate source is the trustees' annual reports, which should be easy to fact check, but don't have a link.

So basically what the graph says is that the system is engineered to seem to be ready to fall apart when folks who are, at the time of the projection in their mid to late 30s, are starting to actually think about things like retirement ...

What's being manipulated? The people, or the numbers that make up the chart, or both?

Got it - it looks like the trustees base their assumptions on a flat GDP somewhat lower than the current actual GDP, meaning that when the economy is booming the "bust date" goes out, while when the economy is bad the "bust date" moves in.

Moving to the so-called private schemes ties the number to the economy so if the economy does well, the amount of the benefits goes up, while if the economy does poorly the amount of benefits goes down.

That should make the system healthier no matter what, but my question is what happens to the markets when all the money goes into them with specific risk-averse conditions about how the money operates.

Both, I'm sure.

One other item that isn't often mentioned is that the pressure the Baby Boomers will put on the system will eventually be relieved. :yeldead:

Unless the immortality pill is invented, in which case we could probably go ahead and raise the retirement age a bit.

Frankly, trying to project economic data for 3-4 decades into the future doesn't seem far off divination to me.

i have yet to see a legitimate model that shows benefits going down from the current system. think of it like this. if your current benefit is X and the proposed plan has expectations that the new benefit will be X + 100 but in a down time it only turns out to be X + 50 , have you really lost anything? it would seem to me that you are still up from where you would be with the current system.

It's hard to argue projected benefit comparisons until Bush actually describes a plan to base projections on.

i agree, and that is frustrating. but probably no more frustrating than people who are mounting all of their arguments on the "republicans plans to dismantle social security" when they don't even know what they are arguing against, other than the republicans.

if bush proposes a plan that is crap, then i'll stand with you and call it crap. i get tired of hearing arguments and jabs at something that you admittedly don't know anything about, simply because it will be a proposal made by bush.