BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 10 Jan 05 - 12:25 AM

Freightdawg:

We are not denying that there is a problem with social security. There is. We are objecting to your wild and irresponsible exaggerations of the magnitude and urgency of the problem.

Bush has made similar allegations and suggests that his plan is the only possible solution to this "crisis". It isn't.

The Social Security Trustees have called for immediate legislation to bring the program into balance. They have not asked to have the system dismantled.

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: GUEST,vic
Date: 09 Jan 05 - 10:56 PM

i would like to know what the effect of say doubling the max level income from the current $80,000.00 income to say $160,000.00 would have to the future health of s.s.. how many more years would that give to the system. and also as stated before why not have every one pay into one system instead of allowing fed. workers to have a seperate system.
   i also think that raising the level of income on which s.s.payments are made and on the other side allowing for a minimum income on which no s.s. payments need to be made would help folks living at the low income side.
    i feel people with very large amounts of wealth have an unfair advantage when it comes to increasing their wealth still futher.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 09 Jan 05 - 08:53 PM

There is nothing wrong with Social Security. To say that it's in trouble is a blatant lie. All you have to do is check the Congressional Budget Office and they will tell you that it's going to be fine as it is until 2042. Then it may have to be modified slightly. Bush and Rove have put out a propaganda spin on the nature of Social Security so that they can get their hands on the money (part of Bush's capital) and increase the pockets of their cronies on Wall Street.

This is what happens. Rove and company put out a missive that is a boldfaced lie and the lockstep media picks it up as gospel. (The "liberal media" is another lie.) The same can be said for Social Security as can be said for the so-called "tort reform" which assaults victim's rights by protecting not only unscrupulous doctors but corporations which abuse citizens by limiting damages such as the prescription drug companies and environmental polluters. In fact less than one percent of medical malpractice suits reach the courts. It's a red herring. The same can be said for "partial birth abortions" which are not at all prevalent.

Don't believe them when they say Social Security is in trouble. They want to steal it away from the public and rob older people of their rights.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: freightdawg
Date: 09 Jan 05 - 08:29 PM

To Carol, Bev and Jerry, and especially Don,

Thank you. I have been waiting for someone to call me on this. Boy, sometimes it takes a while.

I wish I could produce book, chapter and verse for the claims that I have made. Actually, the thoughts I have are the result of many articles I have read, in various papers and journals, from a variety of "specialists" and pundits. I read the ones about the rosy outlook and the ones for the dismal outlook, and then I look around me and ask, based on common sense, which *seems* to be most believable.

As someone above has stated, virtually every source is going to have its own agenda. I do not believe anything produced by our elected officials, because if a disaster was looming they would be the last to admit it. The AARP is also suspect because they have their own agenda, and you do not make money by telling your base constituency that they have been hoodwinked.

To be perfectly honest, I do not believe anyone really knows what shape Social Security is in, positive or negative.

But, the trust fund is a mirage. Stop and think - the Federal government borrows money from the Federal government, with the Federal government being the guarantor of the loan. Lovely. That means when the outgo exceeds the income there is only one source to make up the difference: taxes. The "surplus" is spent. The bonds are just paper. It's just for the accounting folks. If the Social Security Administration calls for the bonds to be repaid, where in the billion dollar deficit that the government now runs is the money going to come from?? This is why I say there is no trust fund. It may exist on paper, but unless the notes are secured with some liquid source, there is no legitimacy to their value. No other financial institution could get away with this chicanery, but because there is so much at stake the congress turns a blind eye to the real problem. Besides, this way they get money to build roads and dams and public monuments.

Which leads me to my generally pessimistic view. I know from my micro-economy in which I live and work that people are, or will be, retiring faster than at any other time in recent history. There are fewer and fewer replacement workers. Retirees are living longer, and are incurring greater and greater expenses. So, when I say do the math this is what I am saying:

More retirees + more expenses + no useable surplus = ever increasing expenditures

Fewer workers = lower income

Just because people are denying there is a problem does not make me feel any better. We did not think Pearl Harbor could happen, but it did. We did not think the events of 9/11 could happen, but they did. We did not think a tsunami could kill 150 thousand people, but it did. We did not think the Titanic could sink, but it did.

But Americans put human beings on the moon. We have also virtually eliminated many diseases that used to cripple generations. We constantly apply our resources and our ingenuity to create solutions to seemingly insurmountable problems.

But we have to first face them as problems, and admit our failures, and look to other possibilities. Sticking our head in the sand and saying, "Oh, it won't happen for 30 years" is simple insanity if you ask me. If a politician says it might happen in 30 years, I have a pretty good idea it will happen in 10. He/she is just saying "it probably won't happen on my watch, so I want to get that highway built in my district first."

So please, do not take my comments as personal attacks. I am simply trying to be a voice for a younger set of folks that says, with all honesty and with all sincerity, Social Security is broken, it will not be in existance *as it exists today* at the end of this decade to decade and a half.

There are options. Most involve thinking "outside the box". That is all I am asking for. If you were born before 1950 this discussion is probably just academic for you, as I do not see the government backing out of current pledges (barring a total bankruptcy). If you were born after 1950 things do not look as rosy. Therein may be the difference in opinions that we share.

respectfully,

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Jan 05 - 05:50 PM

Well, just another thought.

As I read more and more stories about the *supposed* Social Security "crisis", it doesn't seem that it is a crisis. Even sources within the Bush administration admit that the sysytem is solvent for many, many years to come. Like decades?!?...

Where's the "crisis"?

Bush saying it is a crisis doesn't make it so. (Think Iraq here...) Yes, it's time for some honest discussions, unlike were conducted proir to the invasion of Irag, because there's a good chance that the sky may not be falling after all...

And once this discussion has occured then we might continue our discusssions on just why, all of a sudden, Bush and his folks see nothing but crisises in programs and policies for which their party has wanted to change going back decades.

Just a thought.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 09 Jan 05 - 04:50 PM

Thanks, Don.

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Jan 05 - 04:37 PM

The highest paid Americans don't pay Social Security taxes on wages over $87,900. Why not fix Social Security's long-term solvency problem by making taxes apply on all of their wages?

Up there a ways, freightdawg says, "Do the math." Okay, here it is.

Currently Social Security takes in more than enough money to pay benefits. The Social Security Surplus is estimated to reach $3.0 trillion by the year 2018. Unfortunately, the entire trust fund surplus is borrowed every year by the government to pay for the operations of the U.S. government. The trust fund is made up of special interest bearing federal bonds (currently whose average yield is 9.5 percent) which are non-callable and have no maturity date. They are backed by the faith that future generations of U.S. citizens will continue to pay into the fund at a sufficient rate to meet the benefits due the Social Security beneficiaries. If the money going out to pay benefits ever starts to exceed the money coming into the trust fund then eventually the trust fund will have to make up the difference. If, and only if, the economy limps along at about one half the annual rate of growth (1.7 percent) of the previous 30 years will the money collected be less than the money needed to pay the benefits.

Without Social Security as it exists today, about one-half of all senior citizens would have incomes below the poverty line. Contrary to the current propaganda, the retirement of the "baby boom" generation will not bankrupt Social Security. In fact, that generation will be retired long before there is any projected shortfall from a low growth rate economy. What if the dismal 1.7 percent growth rate used by spreaders of the "crisis" propaganda come true? Would the wage and salary earners of those years suffer an undue burden supporting retirees? Not a chance! If the annual earnings were not capped at today's levels, and all wages and salaries were subject to Social Security taxes, an additional $67 billion would go into the Social Security Trust Fund. Less than 10 percent of the wage and salary earners—those in the highest brackets—would be affected by such a change.

The fact is, the Bush administration does not wish to reform Social Security, they wish to eliminate it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Jan 05 - 03:49 PM

It is indeed true that AARP has an agenda. They don't want to see their membership screwed. That doesn't mean they are an unreliable source of facts, provided one has the incentive to check what they assert as facts. The same applies to any source of alleged "facts." Including George W. Bush.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Jan 05 - 01:52 PM

No, DougR. I don't think they are necessarily a reliable source. But I can use what they have in their articles as a springboard for any searches I might want to do to verify what they are asserting.

freightdawg, on the other hand, seems to expect us to accept his word for things just because he says so.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: DougR
Date: 09 Jan 05 - 01:35 PM

Is it safe to assume, Carol C., that you consider the AARP a reliable source? I certainly don't. AARP has an agenda and I don't believe a damn thing they print.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Jan 05 - 12:47 PM

freightdawg, you state things and expect us to accept them as fact, but you provide no documentation. Please provide some documentation for your assertion that there is no Social Security trust fund. Then we can evauate your assertion and decide whether or not we think it is credible.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 09 Jan 05 - 02:23 AM

Freightdawg then stated: "What started out as a noble idea and grand ideal has degenerated into an immoral quagmire out of which there is no escape. That is, unless we massively raise taxes, raise the retirement age by about 10 years, or reduce the benefits of all recipients. Do the math."

Apparently, the Social Security trustees have done the math and they got a different answer than Freightdawg did.

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 09 Jan 05 - 02:19 AM

Freightdawg stated above: "If nothing is done this system will crash and burn within a decade or just a little longer. In the next 10 years the number of retirees will exceed the number of workers. The only way to operate with the current system is to increase the tax rate exponentially, significantly raise the minimum retirement age, or drastically reduce the benefit package. Pick your poison."

We quote from the Volume 46, Number 1 of the AARP Bulletin:
"The most recent Social Security trustee's report shows that the system can pay all scheduled benefits until 2042...While 2042 may seem a long way off, experts agree that it's better to make modeate changes earlier than later...The simplest adjustment would be a slight increase in the payroll, or FICA tax. According to the Social Security trustees, if the tax on wages today were raised by less than 1 percent each for employee and employer (from the current rate of 6.2 percent each), Social Security would be solvent through 2077."

A 1 percent increase in the tax could hardly be called exponential and this would gurantee Freightdawg's benefits until he dies unless he's a whole lot younger than we think he is.

In addition, there are several other ways to extend the life of Social Security such as slightly increasing the retirement age and raising the point at which wages are no longer subject to FICA tax from the current $90,000 to $140,000. In 1883, the $90,000 limit included 90 percent of all wages. Today, it includes only 84 percent of all wages.

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: freightdawg
Date: 08 Jan 05 - 09:35 PM

CarolC,

You make two big errors, one of semantics and one of believing a lie. Insurance is something I have a choice to purchase, how much I choose to purchase, what company to purchase it from, and how much I want to counter-balance it with a deductable, my own savings, etc.

I am enrolled into "social security" without my consent, my taxes increase every year, and I have no choice over where the money is invested or divested. Moreover, I have over 20 years to go before I am eligable to claim any of my so-called "benefits". In that time I will either see my taxes increase exponentially or the program will be bankrupt. I can see how my other taxes are used - police officers, or fire trucks or new schools. Here locally I can even vote for what tax increases I want or do not want. Not so with social security. I will never see a dime of the money that has been extorted from me under the guise of "social security".

There is no social security trust fund. Never has been, never will be. Even if there at one time was (which I obviously do not believe) it is gone now.

And by the way, my parents took care of me when I was little. They did not depend on the federal government to "spread the cost" of raising my sister and myself so that their comfort zone would not be infringed. They sacrificed and planned and worked hard. My mom even stayed at home, believe it or not. It is my responsibility, shared with that of my sister, to make sure my mom is taken care of. It is NOT the responsibility of some fat cat in Washington to "spread the cost" of her care. My father passed away before he could claim any social security benefits.

What started out as a noble idea and grand ideal has degenerated into an immoral quagmire out of which there is no escape. That is, unless we massively raise taxes, raise the retirement age by about 10 years, or reduce the benefits of all recipients. Do the math.

Don, I can see how fewer farmers can produce more food. Better techniques, better fertilizers, better pesticides, high yield varieties of foods. How does one go about generating high yield money? How can a person feed his family and be taxed at the rate it would take to feed two or three retirees. Do the math. It will not be two workers for every retiree. It will be two or three retirees for every worker. The writer you quoted spoke of an overwhelming pessimism. This pessimism is not partisan. I know of very few of my friends, and almost no one younger than myself, who believes the current system has any hope for them at all.

Realizing the Titanic was going to sink once it hit the iceberg was not being pessimistic. It was realistic. The ship that could not be sunk, sank like the steel it was made of. Saying the current form of social security is going bankrupt is not being pessimistic. It is being realistic. We've hit the iceberg. Now what are we going to do about it?

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Jan 05 - 05:12 PM

Also, I think this part is a huge red herring:

I would welcome the opportunity to opt out of this financial and moral mess and manage my own future. I have no constitutional right to bankrupt a younger generation to pay for my responsibility to support my parents and grandparents and to plan for my own future.

Social Security spreads the "risk" out over a large number of people. If, due to something unforseen happening in the stock market, my father was no longer able to support himself with the returns on his investments, he would still be able to survive on his Social Security income (although it would not be as comfortable as what he experiences right now). But if that happened and he didn't have Social Security to fall back on, the burden would be on me and my siblings. By spreading the risk, many people are spared the cost of having to support their parents when they are too old to work. A cost that in many cases would be much higher if the risk wasn't spread out over a large number of people. Just like any other kind of insurance.

This is what the AARP site linked to by Don Firth has to say about the Social Security "Trust Funds":

Social Security is in no immediate danger of going "broke." With the retirement of the boomers on the horizon, Social Security began to build a cushion to see us through their retirement years. Because of that planning, the Social Security Trust Funds hold over $1.5 trillion in U.S. Treasury bonds and earn interest every year.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Jan 05 - 04:26 PM

These folks know a lot about Social Security, and some of the folks who determine their policies are economists. They goofed on Medicare reform (the prescription drug debacle), recognize that they had been had, and they aren't about to make that kind of mistake again. HERE. And HERE. And more HERE. Furthermore, HERE.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Jan 05 - 03:21 PM

Argumentem ad hominem, pdq. That's a dodge. Why don't you try refuting what the man says?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: pdq
Date: 08 Jan 05 - 02:47 PM

"Fred Block teaches sociology at the University of California, Davis"

Thanks, Don Firth, but if you must do 'copy 'n' paste' job, please quote an economist. When you do your estate planning, do you consult with a professor of Humanities? I don't.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Jan 05 - 02:37 PM

Social Security:—

The comprehensive federal program of benefits providing workers and their dependents with retirement income, disability income, and other payments. The Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax is used to pay for the program. Note that word:   INSURANCE.

This is a good fairly concise article that everyone should read, but pdq, it is especially for you:—

The Administration's push for radical reform of Social Security rests on the idea that it is impossible to solve the system's long term financing problems. In reality, this pessimism is simply a consequence of their deep hostility to public spending.

Right-wingers endlessly repeat the mantra that when Social Security began, there were 42 people paying into the system for every person receiving benefits and that by 2040 that ratio will fall to 2 working people for every retiree. The logical conclusion is obvious:   we can no longer guarantee retirees the level of benefits that they currently receive. The elderly will have to tighten their belts and rely more on their own private savings.

Think, however, of the deep pessimism that lies behind this argument. It is like saying that in 1900, there was one farmer or farm worker for every seven Americans, but because that ratio has fallen to one farmer for every 83 people, we should all tighten our belts and eat less food. Rising agricultural productivity has made it possible for fewer people to provide all the food that we need. In the same way, if we can grow our economy and increase productivity over the next forty years, each working person should have no difficulty producing enough extra wealth to provide support for half of a retired person.

Providing economic security to the aged is just a question of how we divide the pie. Today, social security outlays represent 4.5% of our total economic output. If the economy grows strongly over the next forty years, we can support the elderly as generously as we do now with only 5% of the total pie even with further gains in life expectancy. In short, strong economic growth is the key to solving the long-term financing problems of Social Security.

And there is a proven way to grow the economy over the next half century. It is to invest in education and basic research. If we invest in our young people–from early childhood through higher education–we can create a more skilled and productive labor force. And if we also invest more in long term research, we can create the new industries that will employ those highly skilled workers. This is precisely what other nations are doing in their efforts to surpass us as the world's strongest economic power.

Here's the problem: the strand of conservatism that currently dominates the Republican Party doesn't believe in increasing any kind of civilian government spending. They don't want money going to the elderly and they don't want spending for young people; all they want to do is reduce taxes and shrink government. As Grover Norquist, one of the most influential conservatives in Washington has said, "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."

With this bizarre philosophy, conservatives have been systematically underinvesting in our future. While a growing body of research now shows that investing in quality early childhood education helps all children do better in school, conservatives have steadfastly resisted increasing spending for quality childcare. Fewer and fewer families are able to afford the $7000-9,000 per year per child cost of center-based care. Despite all of the President's rhetoric about leaving no child behind, our public schools remain desperately underfunded. Especially in working class and poor neighborhoods, overcrowding, lack of decent equipment, and a continuing shortage of skilled teachers are the rule, not the exception.

Most critically, the financial barriers to pursuit of higher education are rising relentlessly. Tuition costs at public universities have increased at more than 10% per year and the Republican Congress has already made it harder for students to qualify for Pell grants that could alleviate these costs. They have no plans to help more of our young people to afford a college education.

But the problem is even deeper; their "look ma, no hands" approach to the economy is keeping us from developing the industries of the future. In Japan and South Korea, government spending is helping to wire the entire nation for high-speed Internet connections, while our Internet capacity lags far behind. Other nations are spending billions on alternatives to fossil fuels, while we continue to rely on coal and oil. All this is assuring that the industries of the future will flourish overseas.

No wonder they are so pessimistic about our ability to support retirees forty years from now. Their anti-government and anti-tax policies are steering our economy towards long-term weakness. They are creating a future in which most people in the United States will be poorer because we are failing to develop 21st century skills and 21st century industries. Are these the people we should trust to fix Social Security?
                                                                                                                                                                   —Fred Block

Fred Block teaches sociology at the University of California, Davis, and is a senior fellow with the Rockridge Institute, a Bay Area think tank.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Jan 05 - 02:01 PM

freightdawg, Social Security is not the same as other kinds of taxes. With other taxes, the money goes to pay for things the government needs to do (or believes it needs to do), such as maintaining infrastructure, running the government, waging wars, etc. With Social Security it's more like large scale group insurance in the way it works. The difference, of course, being that you get money back rather than getting your medical bills paid, and you become eligible when you get old rather than when you become sick or injured.

And it's not a handout from the government either. You have to pay into the system in order to get any money out of it. And what you get out of it is relative to the amount you put into it.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: freightdawg
Date: 08 Jan 05 - 01:36 PM

Just some thoughts for those who prefer to stick their heads in the sand instead of facing reality.

1. When originally enacted, "Social Security" was meant to *supplement* a workers retirement, not provide for it entirely. This idea has been completely replaced with "the government owes me my retirement benefits".

2. When originally enacted, there were 12 workers for every retiree. Now there are 3-4 workers for every retiree. To compensate the government simply has raised taxes. Benefits have increased and been added. Never has any benefit been reduced or removed. Also, when originally enacted the average retiree drew benefits for about 10 years. Now that number can reach 15, 20 or even more. With longer lifespans comes increased medical costs. It is common now to have two generations of the same family drawing benefits. How long will it be before there are three generations of the same family drawing benefits?

3. No one makes "contributions" to Social Security. It is a tax, levied on every worker, whether they intend to use the benefits, or even need to, or not. The insanity of calling this a "contribution" is mind boggling.

4. There never has been, is not, and never will be, a "trust fund" set aside for Social Security. This was a phrase created in the middle of some stupid election cycle to inflame ignorant people's passion and make it sound like they had a bank account with "x" number of dollars in it. The truth is virtually every retiree gets far more out of the system than she/he ever "contributed". As someone pointed out above, you die too soon and the government says tough luck. This is one of the incredible inequities of the system. However, the vast majority of retirees outlives their "contributions", and I don't see anyone complaining about getting far more than what they put in.

5. If nothing is done this system will crash and burn within a decade or just a little longer. In the next 10 years the number of retirees will exceed the number of workers. The only way to operate with the current system is to increase the tax rate exponentially, significantly raise the minimum retirement age, or drastically reduce the benefit package. Pick your poison.

I know most of the posters here would vote to just stick the younger generation with a 50-60% tax rate to fund the baby boomer retirement party. The same people who decry the military budget won't give a flip about screwing their kids and grandkids to make up their precious "Social Security". But I happen to be one of the folks that honestly believes I will not see a friggin' penny of the money that I have been gouged for the past 20 years. It is gone, and I will not get one single benefit. None, nada, zip, bupkus. The system is broke, and I cannot envision screwing the next generation just to make a grossly unfair system even more unfair.

I would welcome the opportunity to opt out of this financial and moral mess and manage my own future. I have no constitutional right to bankrupt a younger generation to pay for my responsibility to support my parents and grandparents and to plan for my own future.

Responsibility for one's own family and future. What a concept. Why can't we give that option a try??

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Jan 05 - 12:51 PM

well, NW guest, because your suggestion starts with:

" don't allow the federal gov't "
and "make EVERYBODY pay."
and goes on to suggest that the Republicans could easily pass it, I suggest that it is doomed before it starts. It is rather like stopping war & murder by telling everyone to 'just be fair and get along!'

The Republicans ARE the federal gummint right now, and they seem inclined to NOT make everybody pay.....

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 08 Jan 05 - 02:17 AM

i'm still waiting for any of you righties (or lefties for that matter) to quote any downside to my plan posted
@07 Jan 05 - 02:22 AM to fix social security forever! remember, it's: no funds taken out of SS except for SS-related expenses and EVERYBODY pays, removing the 80, 000 dollar limit. i think it just might work! and it won't cost 2 trillion dollars to implement!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Jan 05 - 11:43 PM

Ok, Bobert. I understand what you were saying now.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: GUEST,Barry Finn
Date: 07 Jan 05 - 11:36 PM

The rich contribute their fair share & shoulder the burden for supporting the poor? Is that part of what I'm hearing? I guess a new day must be dawning?


Why should a multi national, multi billion dollar company pay any taxes at all? Why shouldn't I pay have to more of the burden than the wealthiest? Hey, if I'm gonna benifit from this system why not foot most of the bill for it then too?


Well I do foot more of the bill & I do shoulder more of the burden & I did work hard all my life & when it comes my time I'll be damned if these compainies, that would've been shit if it weren't for the likes of us working class folk contributing our sweat & blood
so that they could make a windfall off of our backs, not pay a dime back into the system & then in the end fuck all their workers out of their investments & retirements without so much as a thank you. Not a voice raised in behalf of those that lost out on a life time of labor, not so much as a penny will they get back & no help from a government that some how benifits greatly from these finincial downfalls. 5 or 10 years in jail for some greedy ceo doesn't do squat for those that took the hit nor does it help those that do take these hits when these companies don't have to cover the cost of the losses that their own people lost (how much does Enron still owe the state of Calif & how has it paid back towards the investments retirement plans?). You'd think that some sort of protection under the law would protect against this kind of criminal action (oh shit, I think there are laws, what happened?). Maybe if the government had them paying at least part of the burden the government would then be able to insure the rest of us against this sort of theft & greed. But why gamble with your own money when you can gamble with others (others being the working class), even better why gamble at all when you can just swindle the others out of all their money, at no real risk & at great profit to the house (the house ALWAYS wins)? There seems to be something wrong about this picture?


At this point why not just fix up the SS program now so more of the working class can contribute even more of their fair share of the burden & shoulder more of the load than before & give more away to the rich just so some mythical Robin Hood can steal it back only to redistruibe it to the poor from wence it originated in the first place (Robin's been dead awhile & with todays technology Pretty Boy Floyd isn't able to help with the morguage? In God we trust, espically when God speaks through the mouth of Bush. Trust his call in my future & my kids future? I can't even trust the idiot to do or say one thing that would benifit the many as he can surly can be trusted to do right by the few at a huge cost to the many. PLEASE, would you trust this man with your mother & your money? Would you trust this man with putting his hand in your pocket while pulling your chain or not giving you so much as a kiss while he's fucking you? Come on, be real, anyone who thinks they'll get a good deal from this man just look at the track record, I'd rather have a crook put a gun to my head & take my money at least he's not taking my future & playing me for a fool, he's not lying to me & telling me this is gonna feel good & you'll get over it. Sorry, if anyone's asking & no one has yet, (wonder why, DUH) if I have any trust in this man the answer is no, not even with my dog. I'd trust and put more faith in an outlaw than in the man whose running/ruining our country


"It was in Oklahoma City, it was on a Christmas day

Came a whole carload of groceries and a letter that did say


Well, you say that I'm an outlaw, and you say that I'm a thief

Here's a Christmas dinner for the families on relief


Well, as through the world I've rambled, I've seen lots of funny
men

Some'll rob you with a sixgun, some with a fountain pen


As through this world you'll ramble, as through this world you'll roam

You'll never see an outlaw drive a family from its home"



Barry

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Jan 05 - 11:13 PM

CarolC,

I might have not written it correctly but I fully undersatnd that wages above $80,000 are exempt from Social Security. Yes, those folks earning over $80,000 will have SS deducted up to $80,000 and then no more...

This makes SS tax regfressive in that folks who earn under $80,000 will pay SS on 100% of their wages.

Those making over $80,000, will not...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Jan 05 - 10:59 PM

Bobert, people who make over $80,000 a year are not exempted from paying into Social Security. They still have to pay, but the amount does not increase above what they would be paying if they made $79,999 a year.

Now y'all can argue over whether or not you think that's fair.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Jan 05 - 07:14 PM

"So you would reward the "have nots" with funds taken from the "haves" just because they "have" it?"

Doug...you try to make it sound like I'm advocating taking ALL wealth and distributing it equally. Of course I expect those who are clever enough (or even just plain lucky enough) to have a higher standard of living to be able to eat out 5 nights a week and vacation in Arruba and drive Mercedes!....
But what I am doing is reminding you that the very concept of a graduated tax system IS 'taking money from the haves' and using it to make society run smoothly and fairly. Sometimes that means road building, sometimes it means Social Security taxes, and sometimes it means funding charity. All we are debating is the precise %!

Right now, we have the rich getting richer and the poor barely able to cope....and jobs are being exported and 'replaced', if at all, with minimum wage jobs, creating MORE poor. We have sports stars making millions PER YEAR...we have business executives getting 'bonuses' and huge "golden parachutes" when lower level employees are being laid off. We have gas prices at all time highs, while the sale of gas-guzzling SUVs still climbs, because 'some' have such large buffers in their income that they just shrug! .....and that is what the problem is...not that they HAVE more, but that they just shrug when it is pointed out that the line between 'having to be careful' and 'poor' is getting more & more tenuous! There is less & less genuine 'middle class'....partly because the formula for sharing the burden has been controlled by those who LIKE having lots more than others.

This society has enormous amounts of 'stuff' to spend $$$$$ on, and some feel they are **entitled** to own and indulge in every new gadget and service being advertised...and to hell with those who are puzzled over how to pay rent this month....and do not doubt that those puzzled brows are increasing in number!

.....and now Bush wants to allow those who 'wish'...(translation: who can afford it, and UNDERSTAND finances) to put most of their "social security" donations into private accounts, and shrug when the system is no longer able to be a safety net for those who can't do that. Social Security was never intended to keep the poor able to live in gated communities or drive new cars every year...all it is INTENDED to be is a safety net to keep their noses above water!

yeah...I AM proposing to "take funds from the haves"...because that's where the necessary funds are! What they get for their money is a reasonably content laboring class to collect their garbage, be nannies to their kids and pluck the chickens they have for Sunday dinner....and NOT rise up in protest and re-create the need for modern equivilent of castles with moats to keep the riff-raff out. (Where I live, I can see small examples of that already!...Guards and gates and fences and cameras...etc...)

The Republicans who practice that Golden Rule "he who has the gold, makes the rules" are hoping that the gates and guards..etc...will do the job. They shouldn't bet on it......

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Jan 05 - 06:18 PM

First of all, in a country that represents 5% of the worlds population yer has coraled 35% of the world's wealth, it is insanity for anyone to argue that we just can't afford to fix a program that insures that our elerly citizens will not die in poverty. This is an important point that seem to get lost in all the arguements. When Greenspan suggested last year that Social Security might have to roll back benefits in the future lots of folks just shrugged their shoulders... Like whadda ya goina do? This defeatest attitude by the average worker is a sad commentary on just what a great job the right wing PR folks have done in beating down our citizens...

Not to be repeating myself and others but those incomes over $80,000 should not be exempted.

The estate tax could also be brought back and used to shore it up. It only effects estates valued over, I believe, $600,000... If you can't live on $600,000 tax free money then something is wrong...

These two things alone can keep Social Security around forever without cutting anyones benefits...

But bottom line, I'm loving this debate because atn some point in time Southern white guys are going to figure out that the Repubs and rich folks are in their pockets and when that happens, look out. I aihn't never met no one hold a grudge longer than Bubba...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: pdq
Date: 07 Jan 05 - 05:44 PM

Don Firth -

...from your link to your heroine Molly Ivins...

"Social Security is not a problem. We are, however, about to be swamped by an election-style campaign to convince us it is."

Bunk. When Social Security was first enacted, over 40 people paid in for each person who received benefits. That is how FDR sold the program.

Soon, we will have only 3 people paying in for each recipient. Not just a problem, a big problem.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: DougR
Date: 07 Jan 05 - 05:44 PM

I'm not sure it's a "solution" to the problem, Carol C., but I agree that the govenment should stop using SS funds for things other than paying SS benefits. I don't know how far back this practice goes, but I do know it has been the practice for many, many years.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Jan 05 - 05:30 PM

...oh, yeah... and find the billions of dollars that the Pentagon "lost" and can't account for. I'm sure we can find a good use for that money as well.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Jan 05 - 05:24 PM

Here's an alternative solution.

Stop taking money from the Social Security funds to pay for things that have nothing to do with Social Security. Eliminate corporate welfare and farm subsidies. Use the money saved by eliminating corporate welfare and farm subsidies for the things that are currently being paid for by the government stealing from the Social Security funds. Any shortfall should be corrected by reducing the funds currently being used to pay for black ops and any covert operations that involve meddling with the political processes of other countries. That ought to take care of it.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Jan 05 - 04:55 PM

"Taxes are what you pay to be an American, to live in a civilized society that is democratic and offers opportunity, and where there's an infrastructure that has been paid for by previous taxpayers. This is a huge infrastructure. The highway system, the Internet, the TV system, the public education system, the power grid, the system for training scientists — vast amounts of infrastructure that we all use, which has to be maintained and paid for. The wealthiest Americans use that infrastructure more than anyone else, and they use parts of it that other people don't. The federal justice system, for example, is nine-tenths devoted to corporate law. The Securities and Exchange Commission and all the apparatus of the Commerce Department are mainly used by the wealthy. And we're all paying for it."                                                                                                                                                             —George Lakoff

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: DougR
Date: 07 Jan 05 - 04:13 PM

So you would reward the "have nots" with funds taken from the "haves" just because they "have" it? Don't expect my support for that one Bill D.

I used the word, penalize, because that's exactly what it is! In your world, and Ron Davies world, the reward for one's hard work and earning a salary of $200,000 or more annually is having more taxes piled on top of what they already pay. That's not my world.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Jan 05 - 03:11 PM

" I don't believe in penalizing people because they are successful. The wealthy are bearing the majority of the tax burden as it is."

what's line about Robin Hood?
"Why do you steal from the rich and give to the poor?"
"Because the rich are the ones who have the money!"

substitute 'tax' for steal, and you have the principle. Even if taxed more heavily, the rich are STILL way ahead of the poor in resources, comfort and security. If those taxes are not levied, the gap grows wider and the social structure is strained until those who simply can't compete legally will compete illegally.

Don't think of it as 'penalize'...think of it as insurance of sorts~!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Jan 05 - 01:50 PM

Molly strikes again!

You can always write your congresspersons and senators, and send letters to various editors. In any case, don't just sit there, DO something!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: DougR
Date: 07 Jan 05 - 01:17 PM

Ron Davies: I wonder if it is possible for you to post a message without insulting someone. That would be a sight to see.

I agree with the Wall Street Journal reporter! There would HAVE to be a slew of safeguards. I still believe, WITH the safeguards, a young person today would be better if he could invest a portion of his SS contribution. While it is true that history might not be the best measuring stick for future events, in the case of the stock market, it has proven to be

As to your "idea" to tax those making $200,000 or more to cover the cost of shoring up the SS program, I think it is a lousy idea. And it's not because I make $200,000 or more annually. I don't believe in penalizing people because they are successful. The wealthy are bearing the majority of the tax burden as sit is. They pay enough in taxes.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 07 Jan 05 - 12:55 PM

Let me see if I understand this correctly:

Some people think we should continue to pay money into a system that has returned about 1% a year over the last 40 years which is projected to go bankrupt in the future unless changes (reductions) are made.

These people call themselves great thinkers and progressives.

Other people want to have control of their own money and want the OPTION of investing it on their own- perhaps in the stock market which has returned 10% over the last 40 years.

these people are called stupid evil rich conservatives.   By the same people who prefer the 1% return from the government.

I guess I prefer being a RICH conservative.    We get rich on the stupidity of others- people who play the lottery, people who go to race tracks, people who go to casinos, people who play the sports books, and people who prefer to leave their money in social security.

Rich people laugh at the rest of you.   70% of the country has credit card debt because people can't manage their own money.   That is why the government has to keep social security,   If left to their own devices most people who gamble it away and be destitute on retirement.

Unfortunately, I will not have the choice on my account.   I will be stuck with social security.   All of my finantial advisors have told me to not count on it beging around by the time I retire.   Social Security would have gone bankrupt in 1972 but it was saved by Ronald Reagan.   I know most of you won't believe that, but as Yogi said "you could look it up"

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 07 Jan 05 - 02:22 AM

fix social security? easy!

1) don't allow the federal gov't to take money out of the SS fund for ANY purpose other than SS related expense. the repubs have majorities in both houses and could pass this tomorrow. waddaya think?

2) make EVERYBODY pay. the payment into the system is limited to folks making less that 80,000 a year. why don't people over 80000 pay in? they're allowed to collect.
the repubs have majorities in both houses and could pass this tomorrow. waddaya think?

two extremely simple steps that don't cost two TRILLION dollars (bush admin's own estimate of what their "reform" will cost) to implement. the only people that won't like it are the gov't folks who like ripping off the SS funds (currently the repub majority). can you point any downside, dougR, to my plan which would allow social security to be funded forever with no problems?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 07 Jan 05 - 01:35 AM

Bush is coninuing to perpetuate the lie that having people put a portion of their social security tax into private accounts will "save" social security by reducing it's outflow when these folks retire. He claims that by allowing individuals to get "better returns" in the stock market, they can help provide for their own retirement.

If he wanted "better returns" he would have proposed that some of the money social security collects be invested in the market instead of U.S. Treasury bonds. Personal acounts are the first step towards eliminating social security entirely. This is his purpose even though he lies about it.

The only good news is that we have not heard one person agree with his plan.

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Jan 05 - 10:48 PM

Doug R (et al.)---

Interesting that somehow you never got around to answering the question put to you in my 17 Nov 2004 9:53 post--why does the Wall St. Journal investment columnist predict "disaster" (without "a slew of safeguards") for unwary investors foolish enough to jump into your wonderful Personal Savings Accounts.?

As you will note, I did in fact answer your question as to starting to deal with the Social Security crisis---first end all tax rebates for people who make over $200,000 per year. I can't tell you how surprised I was that you did not loudly applaud that idea.

At any rate, I did answer you; you did not answer my question--just waited for the thread to disappear, which of course it obligingly did.

Bushites seem to be experts at evading awkward questions by this little maneuver. Let me compliment you on your mastery of it.

Then, course, you go back to peddling your old snake oil ( on Bobert's 80% of colleges thread).


Very neat.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Nov 04 - 03:12 PM

Ebbie,

Well, I can think of yet another reason that Bush won't push too hard to privatize Social Security. It will mean less money for he and his cronies to steal coming into the federal government... Horrors!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Nov 04 - 02:57 PM

Privatizing Social Security Won't Save It

"For one thing, the economic trends that made Social Security privatization seem reasonable to some of them (Republicans) four years ago have reversed. The switch happened on the president's watch, the result of his fiscal policies.

"For another, the president appointed a commission to study privatization of Social Security. So now he can't find political protection behind the fuzzy math of a campaign promise. The commission's own findings are plain: There's no way to have younger workers put some of their payroll tax money into personal accounts without cutting future benefits drastically, racking up trillions in more government debt - or, as Bush's commission suggested, both."

Click

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Nov 04 - 11:24 AM

That's why I called it a Ponzi scheme in my post of 6:38 PM 16 Nov.--perhaps more accurately a house of cards.

Then we see the perfect example of the "greater fool theory".


But------we don't have to let it happen---even though Doug R. wants us to wait til we see what comes out of Congress, we don't have to do that---we can influence it now------if we do it in the numbers of people who would be affected by this crackpot scheme, which virtually everybody but Doug seems to agree will help nobody but the brokers.

As I pointed out, even the Wall St Journal investment columnist predicts "disaster unless accompanied by a slew of safeguards".

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 20 Nov 04 - 01:00 AM

There is another interesting point. With many folks contributing to their retirement account each and ever pay period, money will be flowing into the stock market no matter what. This will artificially inflate the price of stocks even more than they are inflated today. This sets the scene for a gigantic crash even bigger than the one of a few years ago when people stopped contributing to their 401k plans so much.

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Nov 04 - 11:08 PM

Speakin' of Wall Street. Tehy are lickin' their chops... A bunch of ignorant rednecks being able to opt out of Social Security and invest?!?!.... Hmmmmmm??????

Do I ever have a deal fir you, Bubba...

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Nov 04 - 11:00 PM

Hey, Chief Chaos, that's no joke---a lot of Bushites (the ones that try to think at all) actually believe that. It's a favorite theme of the Wall St. Journal editorial page.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 19 Nov 04 - 09:54 PM

I guess with the huge defecit Bush is going to have to lower taxes further to generate more revenue! Since when did 2-2=4?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Nov 04 - 09:47 PM

Bev and Jerry--

Bad intelligence is certainly synonymous with Bush, if you can in fact use the words "Bush" and "intelligence" in the same sentence.   It's not that he has none; it's just he always considers it superfluous.

But we don't have accept that he will get his own way on this.