BS: *Strengthening* Social Security...

Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security...
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Feb 05 - 09:24 AM

No prob! I'll be happy to say it for him, as anyone willing to actually analyze the garbage that our "President As Radio Shock-Jock" is pushing will see:

THERE

IS

NO

CHRISIS

PS: I find it amusing in a sardonic sort of way when Bushites talk of "blind hatred" of a president and in the same breath attempt to use what Bill Clinton did or said to justify the current Junta in Washington.

Its also pretty sickening.

Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security...
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 19 Feb 05 - 10:59 PM

Bobert,

I congratulate you on starting and maintaining your successful business. I have yet to do that....but maybe one day...? My ideas and philosophy have evolved over many, many years of trying different business ideas on several different levels. Each venture has had a little more success than the last. And each time I've closed a business, it's been on my terms and no one else's.

As they say.....it's better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all.

I'm not asking you to believe in "my" ideas. These are notions that just make simple common sense. I can even bring myself to say that some of Clinton's ideas were pretty good ideas. NAFTA was a good idea, economically speaking. But the passing of NAFTA was one of the reasons I had to close the doors of my last business venture. (Trucking)
Even Clinton talked about the pending "crisis" (yes, he used that word) in social security. He had the sense to realize that by the second decade of the 21st century that the ratio of workers to retirees is going to decrease from 11:1 to 1:1 then only to be followed by a negative ratio only a few years after. So please don't continue to insult our intelligence by saying that there's no crisis.
Can you at least look past your blind hatred of our president and say that at least some of his ideas are good? Are you at least man enough to do that?


Hubby

Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security...
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Feb 05 - 08:38 PM

Well, I think we're making progress with the hub-ster in that he has backed away from PERSONSAL RESPONSIBILITY to personal responsibility...

BTW, hub, when I said I'd pich you up at the airport and give you a tout of the *unlevel* playing field, I didn't say I'd pick you up at Memphis International and drive south outta Wes Memphis down *Hightway 61*... No, I was thinking National in DC and then take you around the area 'round where I live in Wes Ginny and then a little rour of some neighborhoods in NE and SE Wsahington, D.C.

As fir you dream of more folks starting samll businesses, good luck. They are closing in record numbers since Bush and Co. came into office...

My ideas that I put forth earlier about dropping the rate, while raising the cap, would held ot only small businesses but the self employed as well...

Now lastly, and don't take this too personal, but, hey, you admit to working hard and failing in one venture after another (similar to Bush except he doesn't like work and still fails...) so why do I want to put a lot of trust in your ideas anyway??? I mean, not to be braggin' 'er nuthing, but I held down "save-the-world" jobs until just 20 years ago when I went into business and was successfull enough to be able to retire 2 years ago... Yeah, I still work (and work hard) but not because I have to... Not too sure what thhis means but if we are talking about folks plans, I think it is fair to at least give a glimpse of their batting averages... Like I said, no offense intended...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security...
From: GUEST,Amos
Date: 19 Feb 05 - 12:47 PM

There ya go, S-Hub, now you're communicating.

I will bet you that no-one on this forum believes that government should take total responsibility for the poor.

Every individual alive is responsible for their own condition; it's not just a good policy, it is a fact of nature.

Given that, what is the right balance of compassion to take for those who are sick, old, beaten-down or otherwise somehow crushed. Viet vets still hallucinating from the horrors of war and agent Orange? Those who lose all their assets in tornados? How about those whose lives are ruined by unexpected illness? Elders ripped off in legal ways by their own grandchildren? Disabled postal employees? The variations of possible catastrophes that can interfere with the exercise of resposnibnilityu is endless.

The organization of help is not a crime, and the government is a natural candidate, since it by necessity can draw on the whole citizenry.

Help does not refute responsibility, it simply declares the value of human compassion.

The problem with leaving it entirely up to enterprise is that since it is not profitable, it won't attract much organizing talent. Leaving it up to individuals makes for haphazard cracks int he system, just at a time when such omissions might prove lethal.

I would recommend that you go down to a soup kitchen in your nearest large city sometime this month while the weather is still cold, and talk to some of the people who go there to get enough food to keep their bones and soul joined.

Sure you'll find some who have given up and are just taking the ride, but you will find plenty who fought every inch of the way down hill as best they knew, and weren't smart enough, lucky enough, well-informed enough or protected enough to stop the slide.

A

Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security...
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Feb 05 - 12:10 PM

Perhaps some of the reason for the bad feeling that has cropped up here is the fact that the Wall St Journal example cited somebody who made $62,000 per year.

The point is that the vast majority of wage-earners, who of course earn less than this, would still have to contend with Bush's gutting of the Social Security system---and it would be far more serious for them than for the WSJ's hyothetical man.

There are in fact a host of other problems with Bush's wonderful idea, many of which were dealt with in the previous Social Security thread--which was only about a month ago.
Don't understand why the 2 threads weren't combined.

At any rate

1) Both Bush and Mr. Greenspan admit that private accounts will not themselves shore up Social Security's long-term solvency.

2) Mr. Greenspan admits he has no idea how financial markets will take the up to $2 trillion in new borrowing necessary for this great new idea. Could be a sizable spike in interest rates. (Did you enjoy the late 70's?) Especially since that's the direction they're headed in already.

3) Very interesting that no Bushite has suggested the step which would be guaranteed to work. All sides agree that totally removing the wage cap on Social Security deductions would in fact cover the Social Security shortfall.

4) "Risks are what made this country great" (or words to that effect)--actually, risks may not pan out--and guess what happens then. Taxes go up for everybody for a fund to bail out people who made bad decisions. Don't ever imagine Bush's proposal will get through without such a provision. This has also been cited by the Journal as a reason for cold feet.
(The editorial page bangs the drum for Bush's idea so hard it seems the drum will break--but the actual reporting soberly points out the other side.)

5) Anybody who really likes this idea should actually read a financial newspaper, rather than Ayn Rand, Horatio Alger, or the latest bestseller from the Tinkerbell school of financial management. They would find out, for one thing, that Bush's timing is not the best (not that it will bother him personally)--in about 2011 the huge baby boom generation will start to retire in a big way. They will be cashing in stocks, not buying them. This will happen for about 20 years. Logic suggests there may be close to a 20-year bear market.

Certainly is good that all the Bushites are so nimble and have such fine instincts as to switch around between funds to avoid losing big on one (which could wipe out any profit you have), while avoiding all commissions. It's a neat trick.

Or perhaps you are of the buy-and-hold persuasion------in which case your clairvoyance will be particularly useful.

What's actually likely if this scheme ever sees the light of day is that you won't in fact have the freedom to place your funds "in many investment vehicles" , as PDQ put it. Instead, your account will be restricted to a very few index funds (overseeing of which, by the way will be done by another government bureaucracy---how about that, Bushites?) If the index goes south, sorry. But, as I said, taxes will just be raised to bolster the bailout fund.



PDQ---

If liberals think diversity is having a Mexican gardener, where does the pressure for affirmative action, bilingual education and cultural exchanges come from? (not all of which are necessarily wonderful ideas).---- (In fact I happen to think that bi-lingual education does the non-English speakers no favor--better they should learn English right off the bat. Also, affirmative action gives Bushites and other Neanderthals the excuse to allege that a black person only got a position due to those programs, not on merit.) But this is egregious thread creep

The point is that in a glib put-down, a kernel of fact helps. Sadly lacking in yours.

Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security...
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 19 Feb 05 - 10:48 AM

Don,


First, I'd just like to make a few clarifications. I, in my zeal, sometimes come across and an "elitist" when I'm really not. I'm sorta kinda jealous of people that have way more than Susu and I do. But that doesn't make me just sit around and whine about them having more and me having less. I think that it sparks my imagination to try and come up with ideas to pull myself up to their level. I see it as a growing opportunity. I have started several businesses and have failed at each one of them. But do I complain that I haven't made it yet? No. I just get up every day and try again. I try to take advantage of the same opportunities that are offered to each and every person in these United States. I'm constantly keeping my eyes open for that one thing or the combination of things that will move me and mine up to the next level. If I never make it then, so be it. I'll be happy and content in knowing that my kids have witnessed me working hard to try and make it better for them and have instilled a sense of work ethic in them that would have, otherwise, not been learned anywhere else. I know that they, too, will grow up to try to make it for them and theirs and take the personal responsibility to make sure that they will make it on their own and not have to depend on the offerings of your kids and grandkids.
Forgive me if I seemed to loop you and Bobert together in the same group that believes that the wealthy should take full responsibility for the poor. By your last post, I see that you believe something way different than Bobert. I, too, believe that if you pay into something then it should be credited to you and not to Joe Blow that lives in the next city.
I'm really glad that something is there, whether it be the ideal plan or not. It's always nice to have that security blanket. But I also think that some people tend to hide behind that security blanket and act as if that's all there is, when it's clear that it's not. I believe that we have to move out of our comfort zone and try new things and take on a little more risk. Get out a live like you were dying, as Tim McGraw sings. This way, the imaginations of ordinary people might be fired up and then a few other things may be solved as well. Such as if more people tried to start a new business, then more and more jobs would be opened up and possibly new and higher paying opportunities for people such as Bobert's friends down in Mississippi to take advantage of.
Now it's true that all people will not try to open their own businesses. It's just not their nature. And there's nothing wrong with that. But they need their opportunities too. Therefore, let's take the government out of a lot of things that they're currently involved in and let the people have control of more of their money. I really do believe that if people had more of their own money in their hands then they would know what to do with it a much better fashion than the politicians in Washington, DC. I have faith in people to do what's in their best interest. Why do so many people want to put their trust in the government to make those decisions for them? I think that it's just been that way for so long that it's now engrained in them.

Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security...
From: Amos
Date: 19 Feb 05 - 10:33 AM

THey don't want Bus to get credit for "saving Social Security", DougR??

Seems to me the whole problem is headstrong irresponsible spending, mixing of funds, and deficit spending.

And even so the bankruptcy in factual numbers is much less than it is in kinee-jerk soundbites being pushed by the perpetrators.

George W. Bush has been a fiscal catastrophe all his life. He is a "spend and spend" Republican, spending what he doesn't have, forcing the nation into the position of spending what it doesn't have. Seems to me if he was an examplar of Hubby's notion of personal responsibility he would have made at least ONE thing that he touched profitable.
An oil company, maybe, or a sports team, or a real estate company, or an AA chapter. Even a drug pushing operation. But no.

THis is totally aside from the issue of understanding the difference between a safety net and saving for retirement. The whole concept of SS was never to fund retirement fully but to provide a safety net, a baseline of minimal support to save the national embarassment of putting our elders on the street if they had no other support. This whole argument is being distorted by this little misunderstanding. Investing those funds wisely is what the administration was supposed to b be doing. I would love to see what they were actuaslly doing with those dollars. Who, how much and when.

A

Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security...
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 19 Feb 05 - 09:34 AM

Come on Bobert.......

Calm down big guy....

We don't want you to pop a vein just yet....

You're still paying for my mother's social security.





Hubby

Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security...
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Feb 05 - 09:07 AM

Divorce attorney? Better call Orkin or Terminix.

Pretty damning indictment of U.S. schools & education overall.

Wonder if there was something to the eugenics movement after all?

Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security...
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Feb 05 - 07:51 AM

Sniff....

Why, you certainly make a good point there...

My deepest condolences, Susu, for you do indeed deserve them...

Bobert

p.s. No decent divorce attorneys where you live?

Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security...
From: GUEST,Amos
Date: 19 Feb 05 - 01:33 AM

Bobert:

The way of wisdom is to understand compassion for the weak, and also for the blind, and also for the weak of brain.

A cartoon answer always loses in a race against reality.

A

Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security...
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Feb 05 - 10:42 PM

In other words, "If ya didn't wanta be poor than you shoulda picked rich parents!!!"

Get it yet, MR. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY?...

God, I'm getting sick of your crap...

Bobert

p.s. Make that *danged* sick of yer crap...

Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security...
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Feb 05 - 10:34 PM

Well, Hubby, let me put it another way. I paid into the Social Security system during my whole working life, including when I was self-employed (Schedule C, paid the whole FICA tax myself, that sort of thing). I knew what it was for, and I didn't begrudge it. For periods of time, my income was so low that, had this not been legally required of me, I doubt very seriously that I would have done it voluntarily. I know I'm far from unique in that. I sure could have used the money. But even with my occasionally minuscule income, paying it didn't kill me. Besides, when I was employed by others, it was withheld from my paycheck and I never saw it, didn't miss it. No sweat.

It was like paying a nominal insurance premium. It insured me against penury in my old age. Now, since I paid for it, you're damned right I expect my monthly check from Social Security. (Far from bitching at the casino manager, I'm getting back what I paid for, and if someone is getting a larger benefit because they paid in more, that's strikes me as equitable, and it's not my concern.) The propaganda was always that what I paid in month by month was being put in a special account for me. Now it turns out that the government doesn't do it that way. My money was not being set aside for me, it was being used for whatever the administration du jour wanted to piss it away for, and now they have to pay me what they own me with money that is coming in currently. That's not my fault. If they had invested it in treasury bonds as most people thought they were, things would be smoothly solvent. That's lousy management and general hanky-panky on the government's part.

This is not an "entitlement." It is something I paid for, and now I am quite contentedly reaping the benefits.

Your position seems to be a mixture of Ayn Rand and Social Darwinism, with a liberal (excuse the expression!) sprinkling of Calvinism:   if someone is poor, no matter how they fell into that condition, they are lazy and stupid (Ayn Rand), it is because God has determined that they deserve to be poor (Calvin), and it's better for society and the species as a whole not to help them, but to let them die off and thereby remove their flawed genes from the gene pool (Social Darwinism).

It has been said that a society is judged by how it treats its weakest members.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security...
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Feb 05 - 07:43 PM

Screw "PERSONAL RESPOSIBILITY", hubby. I'm so sick and friggin' tired of rich folks and a few of their shills, you included, puffin' out you chests like you and yer buddies actaully deserve ehat ever you have been able to manipulate the sytem to give you and give us that terribly worn out PERSONAL RRESPOSIBILITY bull. You want PERSONSAL RESPONSIBILITY then level the playing field. Boss Hog has his hands in the every working man and woman pockets in America. He has stacked the deck in HIS FRIGGIN' FAVOR... Yeah, you want PERSONAL RESPOSIBILITY then make everyone go to public schools that are fully intergarted, provide a nutrition program for every child and provise college eduscation free to any kid that pushes hard enough to make it. Then, you will be moving toward a goal of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

Thre way it is now, PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY translates to "I'M RICH. YOU AIN"T. GET OVER IT!" Yeah come off yer friggin high PERSONAL RESPOSIBILTY hobby horse and I'll pick yer PERSONAL RESPOSIBILTY butt up at the airport and take you on a tour of places where kids are hungry, and in homes sometimes without any real parents and where schools are faling in. Yeah, hubby. You come on a tour with this ol' hillbilly and you will be eternaqlly ashamed that Boss Hog ever stuck that PERSONAL RESPOSIBILITY PR crap in your head. To folks who have beden around, when parrot that carp, you look more ignorant than anyone I know who lives back in the Wes Ginny holler in which I live.

You should be ashamed...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security...
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 18 Feb 05 - 06:29 PM

Don,


   Thank you for the delightful story, but at the same time, thank you for making my point!
   In your gambling venture, you took the time to do your research and look for ways to increase your investment. You took some PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. You learned how to do it and you made money. Congratulations.
Just one question though.....did you file a protest with the casino management even though you may not have won as much money as the high roller across the room from you? Why not? Did the casino not pay it's fair share? Certainly, the high roller had more money to play with so wouldn't it be fair to have him just hand you some of his money?

I was just wondering. Just trying to find a little consistency.


Hubby

Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security...
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Feb 05 - 03:04 PM

My wife and I went to Las Vegas about fifteen years ago. We didn't go to gamble, we went to spend some time with relatives who lived there at the time (the husband of one of them was a guitarist, playing in a small combo in one of the lounges, backing an unknown but really good female pop singer—spent a lot of time listening to them). We visited several of the big, well-known casinos (good food and drink was surprisingly inexpensive), watched amused and bemused as other people played the slots, roulette, poker, and such, but had no intention of gambling. But one evening, one of my wife's relatives took us to one of the smaller casinos and persuaded us to take a shot at the tables.

I did pretty well. I set aside a small amount that I could afford to lose without any major pain. If I lost it, I could just chalk it off as "entertainment." I stuck to a game I knew well, and that, at one time, I had played a lot, strictly penny-ante, with friends. Blackjack. I had also read a book written by Mike Goodman, a Vegas pit-boss, on how to have fun in Vegas and pick up a little money if you play wisely. In one chapter, he outlined the principles of playing blackjack;   how to read the cards, when to take a hit, when to pass, and especially how to pace your bets so that most of the time you were playing with house money, not your own. It isn't a "system;" it's just knowing how to play the game well, and then playing cautiously and intelligently. In playing with friends, I made use of Goodman's principles, practiced them well, and found myself consistently coming out well ahead at the end of a game.

At the casino, I played for a little over two hours. In that time, I quintupled the amount I started with. I won a bit, lost a bit, won some more, lost some, then won again. The general trend was upward. I used nowhere near the amount I had set aside to play with. Within the first ten minutes or so, I had won back my original bets and was playing with house money. Just the way Goodman said to do it. I left the casino with a pleasantly fat wallet

Oh, yes. Free drinks when you played, and a complimentary midnight breakfast.

Goodman said that blackjack was especially good because the house advantage in blackjack is minimal compared to other games. Most people really don't know how to play the game well (the casinos generally regard it as "an old ladies' game"), and since they want their patrons to win every now and then to keep their hopes up, they make that one fairly easy. A good player, especially one who knows how to bet, can win consistently. He said he knows a few "professional gamblers" who make a decent living dropping into one casino or another a few times a week and playing blackjack for a couple hours. They're quiet and unobtrusive, and they don't try to "break the bank." The casinos don't mind them because other patrons see someone doing well, and it keeps them playing in hopes that they will too.

These days I wouldn't have to go to Vegas. Since laws were changed recently, there are several casinos around my area run by native Americans. I would feel a lot more secure playing blackjack a couple evenings a week than I would investing in the stock market.

But then, you see, I'm not a gambler.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security...
From: pdq
Date: 18 Feb 05 - 01:40 PM

To a biologist, 'diversity' means having many plant or animal species in a given area.

To a 'free market' advocate, 'diversity' means placing your funds in many investment vehicles to prevent a painful loss should one of you investments go sour.

To a 'liberal', 'diversity' means having a Mexican gardner.

Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security...
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Feb 05 - 01:32 PM

Especially these days. As everybody would be.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security...
From: DougR
Date: 18 Feb 05 - 01:22 PM

Don: I suspect that you are wise to stay away from the market.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security...
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Feb 05 - 12:57 PM

I suspect that Susu's Hubby has been reading a lot of Ayn Rand.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security...
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 18 Feb 05 - 12:04 PM

Whatever happened to personal responsibility in this country? To hear our grandparents and great grandparents talk, the true sense of pride comes whenever you can make it by yourself. When you can beat out a living in what you do, save a little along the way and be comfortable until you die without having to depend on someone else to do it for you. Now, we have come to expect our younger work force to beat out a living, try to save a little along the way and ALSO join with only two of their friends and support a retiree who now will live to 85-90 years old and still insists on retiring at age 65. Where did the sense of personal responsibility go? When did we shift from doing for us and ours to being responsible for yours as well? I really do not think that this is what FDR had in mind when SS was put into place. Let's get back to the roots of the plan and instead of raising the payroll taxes to continue to pay the way of others, let's give it back to the people to let them plan for their OWN retirement.

Of course there's going to be a benefit cut. But only to people who are younger than 55. Their retirement accounts will be for them to decide what to do with and then you know what? Their retirement may be much greater than if they had just continued to go with the old same old tired plan.

This country was built by people who dared to take a risk. Risks sometimes work out and sometimes they don't. That's why they're called risks. You hear story after story of somebody's ancestor who came from Ireland, China, Taiwan, India,(you take your pick of what country) with nothing and made a life for them and theirs and compare them with somebody whose family has been here a lot longer and see who truly lives the American dream.

Stop whining about what the other guy has and start doing something to make sure that you and yours are taken care of but not at the expense of others. Then you can truly live a life of comfort knowing that you did it YOURSELF!

That's all I have to say about that.

Hubby

Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security...
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 11:30 PM

Let nobody be under the illusion that Social Security "reform" would be a win-win situation.

In fact, according to today's Wall St Journal-- which might possibly be a good source--younger people would be taking a huge risk by taking Mr. Bush's riverboat gamble (which of course to him as a millionaire is just an academic exercise.)

They cite a young man born in 1990 and earning $58,400 in today's dollars from 2011 til he retires in 2055. He could opt to put 4% of his wages into the wonderful Personal Savings Accounts; he and his employer would put another 8.4% of wages into traditional Social Security.

The Journal points out how Bush plans to gut Social Security for this man.
1) He would lose part of his traditional Social Security because he diverted some of his
payroll taxes into a personal account.
2) Bush plans to reduce promised benefits ACROSS THE BOARD.

As a result, 85% or more of this man's Social Security benefits will have to come from his private account.

2 observations

1) This man had better damn well hope the market co-operates between now and 2055.
2) Reducing promised benefits across the board--Bush plans to slash benefits for anybody who doesn't want to play with his loaded dice--that's the stick to go with the poison carrot.

Of course, Bush also plans to minimize electoral fallout--so nobody born in 1949 or before will have to make this Hobson's choice.

So the few Mudcat Bushites will likely be able to sit back fat and happy--"I'm all right, Jack"

Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security...
From: DougR
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 10:32 PM

I thought that it was interesting that the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board supported private accounts for younger Americans. He noted that the program would take some phasing in, but that he totally supported private accounts. This came as quiet a disappointment to the Democrats of course. Their concern is not the welfare of the young people or the program itself, they just don't want Bush to get credit for saving SS.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security...
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 12:24 PM

No problem, Jim. I did "leave it there" in the sense that I didn't draw from it or add to it, but I did keep track. I didn't get concerned until it unexpectedly disappeared off the radar (after promising many great things in the offing and strongly urging further investment), and then I started checking. When even the broker I occasionally worked with couldn't get a straight answer out of them, I started suspecting that there was dirty work afoot.

Damned irksome to me. But I wonder how many people got really skunked. . . ?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security...
From: GUEST,jim tailor
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 06:41 AM

By the way, Don,

I wasn't trying to imply neglegence on your part re:your investment. I was merely interpreting this:

I continued to leave it alone, checking on it from time to time to see what it was worth. It fluctuated a bit, but noodled along for years at around $3,000.00. I figured I'd just leave it there, and it would be a nice little bonus nest-egg if I needed something extra when I retired (which I have since done).

...as saying that, well, you "left it alone", "checked on it from time to time", and "figured I'd just leave it there".

Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security...
From: GUEST,jim tailor
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 06:35 AM

no bait and switch, Greg. I'm telling you that it doesn't matter how much less than $1,000 per month I pay in SS or for my mortgage -- the exact figures don't change the fact that I have made all along -- that I pay more in SS. On the slim chance that you would believe me if I gave the exact numbers, I'll have to take a pass.

And I'm not sensitive about the use of "bullshit". I just don't care for the rudeness.

Don,

It sounds very much to me as though the attempt, wise or un, is to set up SS as most people currently think it is set up -- in accounts that (as many thought SS was) were out of bounds to the federal government (for general fund usage).

If there is something that sounds not-worth-it to me about the idea it is that, again, in typical Bush compromise thinking, he is actually layering even more federal beaurocracy on us -- yet another gov't agency. That's not "conservative".

But dismissing everything because "there is no crisis" is short-sighted (and a bit dishonest by those who now are ignoring that even Clinton et al were saying the same thing less than 10 years ago)

That's why I have offered, as first solution, that we need to rectify the inequity in contribution -- we need to accept SS for what it is -- an entitlement that all benefit from -- and as such, all should be paying for.

...and quit this talk about "running out of money" from one side, and "Social Security Trust Fund" from the other. It cannont EVER be a separate fund anymore -- not with books that balance. There too few people paying in the way the system is currently set up.   And it's not ever going to run out of money unless the government needs to default on all its debt.

So many are under the illusion that SS already is private accounts -- and that's why they are easily swayed by the promise of better (not able to be stolen by the fed gov't) accounts.

Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security...
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 10:59 PM

Hear, hear, John.

Welcome to the *discussion*...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security...
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 10:40 PM

This thread is getting long enough that I'll admit not reading all the details. I don't like to post without seeing it all, but my scan didn't indicate that anyone caught a couple of things.

According to the Social Security web pages, members of Congress do pay into Social Security. I believe it's since about 1994. Most Federal employees have also been switched to "subparagraph of FICA" plans, although to some extent their "contributions to Social Security" may be sequestered separately. That does, perhaps, affect a couple of arguments previously posted; although not by a lot. You can check it out with the FICA website.

If Social Security is to provide a "minimum secure income" then the Fed should assure that income. Letting people go out and shoot craps with the basic needs level of support does nothing to help provide a "safety net."

There are already multiple methods by which people who want more than the minimum can invest some of their own money, under extremely favorable terms. Independant Retirement Accounts (IRA), Roth Accounts, and 401k and 403x plans are only the surface. (I forget what the x is, but I think 403b is a common one.)

The ONLY reason I can see for Mr Bush's plan (using "plan" loosely) is that the heavy hitters (and heavy campaign donors) see a lot of money going into FICA withholding that they can't get their hands on.

Under current law, it is illegal for the government to invest in capital ventures. While the Fed, as in everything else, is into deficit financing for Social Security, (call it cash flow basis) so there really isn't any money that the Fed could let them play with, the "private investment" scheme takes some of the Federal "inflow" and lets them get their hands on it. If it's to be a "social security" program, losses that would put an individuals "security" income below some level would have to be made up (guaranteed) or it isn't a security program.

Perhaps we need a regulation requiring people to pay their FICA taxes to a minimum sustainable benefit level, with an additional requirement that they must have a private retirement plan and put a specific amount into it each year?

As to the "cap" on the amount of income on which FICA taxes are paid, the logic is that there is also a "cap" on the maximum benefit. Currently, no single individual can get more than a couple of thousand dollars per month, regardless of how much was paid in. The retirement benefit is based entirely on how much "covered income" you had in the most recent few years, and the current maximum benefit level isn't going to break the system if it's paid to the few "who could pay more." It does seem fair that those who won't get any more - regardless of how much they pay - might be excused from "contributing" an excessive amount to this one program. We should stick it to them on their income tax so that all programs can benefit.

John

Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security...
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 09:38 PM

In other words, Jim, it's my negligence that caused me to lose the investment? I don't think so. AT&T split into several companies, including Lucent Technologies and a couple of others. They all promised great returns. For years, I received dividends from them every quarter (a small amount, but welcome nonetheless), and both annual and quarterly reports (which I read--they kept promising great things in the future!). Then both the reports and the dividends stopped coming. When I tried to find out what was going on, I found that the 800 numbers were disconnected. I put the broker who got me into the mutual fund (which, incidentally, is still okay, but a bit iffy at times) to try to check on what was going on with AT&T, and he wasn't able to find out either, other than "a big shake-up and reorganization" was taking place. Later, I heard that Lucent Technologies and the other stuff AT&T had gotten into had gone the way of a number of high-tech companies a few years back. Belly up.

Not my neglect. Corporate f**king around.

By the way, if what GWB is proposing ("personal accounts," he likes to call them) is going to be managed by someone other than me, how, then, is that a "personal" account? Who is going to do the managing? And how much is that going to cost? And how do I know that I can trust him or her? And how is that going to give me a bigger return than what I'm getting now? Or more secure?

It's all pretty damned vague. Social Security has worked well for seventy years, and it ain't broke, in spite of what George says. Any buttressing it needs within the next few decades would be taken care of with only a very small percentage of what George is 1) giving in massive tax cuts to the already wealthy, or 2) a tiny percentage of what he is spending on his illegal war.

George W. Bush is following in the footsteps of Ronald Reagan, whose goal was to reverse all of the regulatory and social safety net programs that FDR got passed in the Thirties. Not "strengthening," but dismantling the Social Security program is what's on Bush's agendy right now. That's what this is all about.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security...
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 08:54 PM

No Jim- of course you don't owe me anything. If you want to do a bait and switch, fine by me- but you're the one that brought your income up in the first place!

Further details would make a great deal of difference- but as they might undermine your arguement I understand your reluctance to provide them.

Abusive? C'mon Jim- I didn't say you were bullshit- just your argument.
Since you wound so easily I'll try to be more careful.

Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security...
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 06:43 PM

Well, Jim, yeah, I am combative but I am also resonable depending on the issue. If it's the invasion of Iraq, I will combat a supporter of the invasion tooth and nail and not give one inch because my core values can't compromise on the senseless killing of over 100,000 innocent people...

But Social Security is different. While I might make the observation that the country has much more pressing problems, I am realistic enough to recognize that the Bushites have the microphone and, irregardless of their motives, they have successfully puched Social Security, a program that is not in serious trouble, into the middle opf the political arena. The Dems have done their part in throwing up their hands in utter disgust, just as the Repub would have done had Bill Clinton really pushed it but that's the predictable way that those two fraternities behave.

But here we have a fairly solvent and successfull program on the operating table and I guess we are all like doctors, first trying to decide what to operate on and second, what we're going to do after then initial incision...

Actually, Social Security reform may be good for the country in that as we look closer at it more and more folks are seeing just how the rich folks haven't been all that involved in paying into it. A year ago, I'd say that most middle class Americans weren't aware of the cap, or if they were didn't know the dollar amount. This diversionary issue may very well work to the detriment of the rich, who support Bush. But it is keeping other issues off the table, which, truth be known, might be evn more detrimental to the rich???

Like I said, yes, I can be very combative but on this thread, hey, why not just see what we can collectively come up with. Who knows, we might very well find enough areas of compromise, strengthen the program and then send our proposals to our Congressmen and we'll be heros and flown to New York where we will recieve ticker tape confetti parade down 5th Avenue....

(Bobert. Bobert!!! WAKE UP!!!...)

Sorry, I think I fell asleep...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security...
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 06:32 PM

Don,

You do know that, even with what has been proposed as "private" accounts, the account holder will still not be the account manager?

I'm sorry you lost your investment -- and you're right -- a completely private account (such as yours) would require more personal attention than you gave yours.

Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security...
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 06:28 PM

By the way...

I did not vote for George W. Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security...
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 06:25 PM

Cautionary tale. True story.

I worked for eight years for the telephone company. Pacific Northwest Bell (now "Qwest" . . . I think. . . .) was a subsidiary of AT&T. As an employee, a small part of my salary was given to me as AT&T stock. No choice in the matter. Okay, fine. AT&T is (was!) a blue-chip stock. I let the little bits of stock accumulate until I quit Ma Bell to work somewhere else.

I continued to leave it alone, checking on it from time to time to see what it was worth. It fluctuated a bit, but noodled along for years at around $3,000.00. I figured I'd just leave it there, and it would be a nice little bonus nest-egg if I needed something extra when I retired (which I have since done).

Thank God I wasn't relying on it--or any investment like it. Last year I received notice from whatever the hell company has taken over AT&T, informing me that they were going to close my account because it was too small to bother with, and I could either buy a wad more stock, or I could cash out. Not having that much in discretionary funds, I chose to cash out.

Several weeks later, I receive a check for the total value of the stock:    $224.00.

Various mergers and divestitures and re-mergers and buy-outs and general farting around had managed to reduce my $3,000.00 in solid, reliable, blue-chip stock to less that 10% of its value.

Having opted to be a musician, I was never in a position to save and/or invest a whole lot of money. I do have a few investments, such as a mutual fund (sold to me as highly reliable by a reputable investment firm), which fluctuates and pulses like a dying dwarf star. As a result, my major source of income right now is my monthly Social Security check.

So much for "personal retirement accounts." As I said, thank God I wasn't relying on it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security...
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 06:24 PM

(check the lack of the words "put together" or any other sign that I intended then to be collective.)

I don't owe you the details of my income. I have included enough information about my income to have made my point -- further details don't make any difference. I wouldn't expect you to share how much you make per year.

Bobert,

I didn't mean to mischarcterize your post. Perhaps I can take another run at it when I have more time. ...and just perhaps you are misunderstanding me as well, eh?

One thing is clear -- you seem to see me as the combative type. Perhaps that comes from my willingness to engage someone like Greg. I think though, if you will retrace this thread, you will probably see that I am answering Greg in a very even manner, despite his abusiveness.

I'm not the combative type, but if you'd rather I not respond to your posts, I'm fine with that.

Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security...
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 05:48 PM

OK, Jim, if you want to be jesuitical about it then tell me this: HOW MUCH less than $1k per month is your SS payment? A dollar less? Nine hundred and fifty dollars less?

You sure tend use a lot of words to convey no solid information whatsoever. Another endearing BuShite attribute.

(do check into the use of the word "or" vs. a list separated by commas)

Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security...
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 05:40 PM

That's not what I said at all, Jim, but what you wished I had said. You have used that clever take something out of context trick to divert the conversation.

Maybe we need to back up a little.

You talk about revenue and expesnes. As you know, I have allready put on the table "reduced" benefits for some folk, myself perhaps included. That, isn't a Democrat idea. It's mine and I think it warrents serious discussion. That's one thought on the expense side of the issue.

On the revenue side we will most certainly have a major dragon to slay if we take a good portion out of it and place it in the hands of Wall Street. Especially if it is done individually. You maybe a savey investor but most Americans aren't. The average guy, unless he has a company stock option, isn't into stock investments. He's way too busy trying to make ends meet. Turn Wall Street loose on Joe Sixpack and they will fleece him in a New York minute. That concerns me because Joe Sixpack may end up dieing in poverty because he was too buzy working and listened to this wrong guy or that wrong guy.

Now, back to what I was hoping would be a discussion, rather than a debate, I could possibly consider where the US governemnt might "bundle" a portion of SS revenues and collectively "lend" it to Wall Street as a "secured" loan. This way, if what Bush and Co. are arguing about "return" on investment, all SS recipients might be better off since the return would lessen the burden in the revenue side. The risks are still there but much less than the "Wild West" ideas that Bush had proposed tghus far.

Also on the revenue side, I think we are in agreement that the cap neeeds a second looksy... There are lots of thing that could be done with the cap, fir instance merely raising it, doing away with it entirely or reducing the percentage paid in in incriments above it.

Another idea that I've thown out that would help both the business side and the human side is to roll into the SS program, since after all it is called "Social Security" a catestropic illness insurance ptogram. The number one reason why middle class families go bankrupt is because of illness. You get sick, you loose yer job, you loose you health insurance or are just plain dropped by the health insurance company because you are sick, you can't pay your bills, etc. Bankruptcy! We're talking middle class people here. When a middle class family goes bankrupt, who pays? All of us. Creditors don't get paid and therefore have to charge more money for their goods and services. But on a humanistic level we pay even greater in that bankrupctys lead famalies to fall apart, kids to drop out of college, etc.

So, my thinking is that if we are to really be intersted in strenthing Social Security we need to look beyond out elderly and try to make create a culture and develope programs that make our society more secure, thus the catastropic illness coverage.

Hey, I'm throwing out ideas here, folks. Not bombs. If all we are going to do is try to score debate points were not going to strengthen anything.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security...
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 04:57 PM

Bobert, we've never stopped discussing "strengthening the system". There is a difference between not discussing the premise and disagreeing about conclusions.

You insist on judging the merits of the system on its noble intentions, but it is not the intentions that are casting it upon the rocks -- it is the finacial heart of the matter.

You say, "even though I will most likeley collect more than I put into the system, lots of folks will collect considerable less or none of what they paid into the system but I'm still fine with that...

...but it is that cavalier attitude -- that, somehow or the other, there need not be any sound fiscal policy -- no logical connection between revenue and expense -- that is at least part of why it is in the mess it's in. It doesn't really matter if you're "fine with that" if the system does not balance in a society that has an increasingly smaller number of people to pay for the increasing larger number of recipients.

What you are "fine with" isn't the issue. Is it?

So, what I hear you saying is that you want to discuss *strengthening the system* as long as what we conclude is "fine with you"?

Hope your day's a ducky one!!

Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security...
From: Rapparee
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 03:54 PM

Bush said today at a whistle-stop in New Hampshire that he doesn't rule out increasing the cap on social security payments from the current $90K.

Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security...
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 03:44 PM

Well, Jim, even though I will most likeley collect more than I put into the system, lots of folks will collect considerable less or none of what they paid into the system but I'm still fine with that, even if fir some reason the Good Lord takes me away before I reach age 65.

Why? Let me repeat myself. The program, though not created to be considered one's only retirement income has accomplished one very nobel and humanistic goal of drastically reducing the percentage of our eldery who die in poverty. That in itself makes the program worthwhile.

Now maybe we need to have a discussion on the virtues of a society than honors its elederly citizens, I don't know. But I would hope that everyone here would at least be on the same page on this *value*.

So that brings us back to the question of "strengthening SS"... I am not convinced that by allowing folks to take a large percentage of the money that now goes into this nobel program to "gamble" it is in the best interest of either the system or the individual gambler. The US governemnt has never defaulted on a bond or note, yet suring my life time I can think of dozens of major companies that have gone bust, Enron being the most recent and American Motors being the one that goes back the furtherst in my memory. Throw in commissions, agents fees and I'm seeing Bush's proposals as a tax cut that is directed to Wall Street and in some cases, outright corporate crooks.

That, IMO, is not strengthing any more than punching a hole in the bottom of a boat or removing bottom cards out of a house of cards.

Can we get back to the strengthing discussion???....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security...
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 01:57 PM

I never said anything about a $12,000 SS payment. What I said is that it amounts to less than $1,000 per month. I put it in monthly terms in order to compare it to other monthly payments. I did so to point out that it is those of us who make considerably less than $100,000 per annum who are the very most boxed in by the SS system.

I have one vehicle -- not a Lexus -- a five year old Ford van with 118,000 miles on it.

And, no, my post, in English, does not imply "more than all".

Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security...
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 01:35 PM

Jim-

The way your post reads in English is that the SS costs those folks more than ALL of the items you named. Of course, this sort of ridiculous exaggeration is is standard operating procedure for those of the BuShite persuasion, so no surprise.

OK, so if your SS is ca. $12K per annum at 12% of your income, you're making over $100K a year. Plus your wife's income. What's the matter- can't buy that second Lexus? Must be tough.

You might try living like regular folks sometime- support a family on one half or one third of what you make. Might change your perspective on this whole issue.

Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security...
From: GUEST,jim tailor
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 06:29 AM

Don,

Of course what you are saying has merit. That's why, if you read my longer post, you'd have noticed that I said "manditory" savings.

But give me a little credit for being able to do the math. If I had invested the amount of money privately that I have "invested" in SS I would have a considerably healthier retirement...

...and more flexibility with the money that was mine

...and my wife who survives me would have all the money that we have worked together for (rather than the death benefit that is a slap in her face -- based on husband-as-breadwinner. How patronizing is that?)

...and politician after politician (from both sides) would not be able to hold me hostage to my fears year after year after year after...

Bobert,

I'll gladly concede the likelihood that the government will gladly continue to pay SS recipients even though it merely increases the national debt. But let's not have it both ways. If that's not risky, then lets turn a deaf ear to politicians from either side of the aisle when they use that as a scare tactic to get us to vote for them.

And let's also come clean about the "savings account" aspect of the program. By your own admission: "they(sic) way it it (sic) is designed I'll most likely be able to not only recoup my money plus a lot more than that" ...is an admission that the program is not paying recipients what they paid in. It is, and always has been, taking money from a (increasingly smaller per capita) pool of taxpayers and redistributing it. That being the case, how can the program ever hope to break even? ....... unless it too is tied to the very productivity that the Democrats are telling us will harm those who might opt for private accounts.

Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security...
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Feb 05 - 09:14 PM

Jim, if the Social Security tax is such a burden on you, can you seriously say that you would take a roughly equivalent amount of money and put it into some kind of savings or investment account for your retirement?

I didn't think so. You'd feel (as you do now) that you need it to pay bills and such. But, of course, "I'll do it next month." Just like everyone else.

There goes any secure retire, right down the terlet.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security...
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Feb 05 - 08:50 PM

Well, I've been self employed since 1981 and know of what you speak, Jim, but when I think what I have paid into the system, they way it it is designed I'll most likely be able to not only recoup my money plus a lot more than that, unless of course, Bush is successfull in gutting the program...

And the way it is looking, 100% of what I get will go right back into the saving account I use for paying my taxes, so, at least in my case, I may never actually spend a dime of it but...

... I don't care. I want it to be there for some the folks who really do need it. I don't want to think of any of my generation dieing in poverty like folks used to do before Social Security, though even with it, I know that many will, dang it....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security...
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 15 Feb 05 - 08:32 PM

It's bullshit that I (and many others like me) live with every year.

My SS annual is always greater than my mortgage which is under $1,000 per month. The numbers are close, but SS is higher every year. Higher than mortgage, higher than yearly groceries, higher than any single insurance payment, higher than utilities, higher than...the list goes on.

I am supposing that perhaps you are not self-employed and as such assume that your withholding represents your SS payment?

Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security...
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Feb 05 - 07:45 PM

...SS -- which is sapping the greatest amount of money from them -- a greater amount than housing, food, transportation, education, clothing (emphasis mine)

Yet again, absolute bull$hit.

Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security...
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Feb 05 - 06:01 PM

Dougie,

Your assertion that "Bush has made a positive suggestion to strenghten SS" is nothing but your opinion. Leeches didn't work in medicine and they won't strenghten SS. Taking money out of it doesn't make it stronger. It weakens it. Prove me wrong...

This ain't about politics but common sense.

Again, how is fleecing it going to do a danged thing to help it?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security...
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 15 Feb 05 - 02:04 PM

Doug,

There's absolutely no doubt that, by virtue of having properly "played the game" of having paid what was required throughout your employed years, that you are due your SS check. That is the "contract" under which you entered the program, you played by the rules, and the US gov't owes you what they promised.

Having said that though, do you really think there was a direct correlation between your contributions and what you recieve on a monthly basis? Do you really think they are drawing your check from a What-DougR-Paid-In account?

Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security...
From: DougR
Date: 15 Feb 05 - 01:25 PM

Bobert: No, of course I am not willing to give up my SS. Why should I? I earned it. That has nothing what-so-ever to do with the subject anyway.

Bush has made a positive suggestion for strengthening SS. What plan has the Democrats proposed?

It's well and good for Mudcatters to propose programs of their own but posting them on the Mudcat does little good. Send your suggestions to your favorite senator, Senator Byrd! Let him champion them in the Senate. If your ideas have merit, I'm sure the Senate will adopt them.

Expecting that any party other than either the Republicans or Democrats are going to do anything to improve SS is pure nonsense.

DougR