President Roosevelt, the author of Social Security, was the first to suggest that, in order to provide for the country's retirement needs, Social Security would need to be supplemented by personal savings accounts.
By requiring that any surplus in Social Security taxes be returned to the American people in personal savings accounts, the plan ensures that Social Security taxes will be used for Social Security.
In order to fix Social Security, we must restructure it so that we continue to provide for our Nation's seniors that are approaching retirement age, but allow for younger taxpayers to invest a portion of their Social Security taxes in private accounts.
It's time to stop the raid on the Social Security trust fund and start allowing Americans to invest their Social Security taxes in personal savings accounts.
We promote domestic savings by also things like the personal accounts associated with the president's Social Security initiative, which over time would generate more savings.
The promise of Social Security was reflected in President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's inter-generational compact that rewards hard work and provides retirement security.
Social Security is an insurance policy. It's a terrible investment vehicle. Social Security has some great benefits. But it was never meant to be a savings plan. So we need to have a national debate. Should this 12.5 percent that we're contributing all go into a Social Security pool, or should half go into a mandatory savings plan?
Social Security is the foundation stone of that kind of retirement security. It not only needs to be strengthened in order to make sure it's there for younger baby boomers and Generations X and Y, but it probably needs to be strengthened and expanded because the retirement benefits now being offered by most employers are not sufficient to support middle-income Americans in their long years of retirement.
The debate over Social Security should not be about how much we can cut from the program in order to balance the federal budget. The debate over Social Security should not be about raising the retirement age or limiting benefits. The debate over Social Security should be about retirement security.
I support voluntary personal retirement accounts for Social Security. It should be people's free choice.
Retirement security is often compared to a three-legged stool supported by Social Security, employer-provided pension funds, and private savings.
No matter how you cut it, this real debate on personal accounts is about the legitimacy of Social Security; it's not about the solvency of Social Security.
Millions of Americans have paid into social security and deserve their full benefits. Pure and simple, Republicans are manufacturing a social security crisis that does not exist in order to dismantle social security.
Social Security is not a retirement savings plan; it is a social insurance program. It's a contract that says, as a society, we will look out for you and your family when you can no longer work.
As part of Social Security reform, I believe that private savings accounts are a part of it - along the lines that President Bush proposed.
My financial adviser Ric Edelman...thinks the time to start educating people about money is when they are children. He's set up a retirement plan called the RIC-E-Trust that can provide retirement security. A $5,000 one-time tax-deferred investment at birth, with an average interest rate of ten percent compounded, means that a child would have $2.4 million when he or she is 65 years old. Who needs Social Security with that kind of nest egg?
Though Congress continues to explore possible solutions to ensure social security solvency, everyone must take personal responsibility to prepare their own retirement savings accordingly.