BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 19 Nov 04 - 01:43 AM

Social Security is not, and never has been, an "investment". It's a system in which working people put money into a fund and retired people take it out.

Since its inception back in the thirties, the demographics have changed dramatically and more is going out than is coming in. Bush, once again, presents the false dichotomy of fix it his way or let it go broke. Remember "you're either with us or against us"? There are numerous other possibilities.

One is to slowly force working people to continue conributing to the plan but to also provide for their own retirement in private accounts, a system which would screw people not yet collecting and would, ultimately, end Social Security.

Another is to make small adjustments to the rate of contribution, the maximum income taxed, the age of retirement, the amount of benefits and other parameters so that the system would sustain itself for at least a hundred years. There are many existing plans of this nature.

But Bush has once again received "bad intelligence" and would have us believe that his way is the only way. What's worse is that he'll probably get his way.

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: jaze
Date: 18 Nov 04 - 10:04 PM

The Baby-boomer generation has paid more into SS than any previous generation. Are they not entitled, yes, ENTITLED to benefit from it? where will the monery come from to pay our generation's SS if the younger generations' money is put into private accounts? DourR??

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Nov 04 - 09:25 PM

And further more, Dougie, since you asked. One fine way to fix Social Security is to keep yer president's hands off the money collected for it... He's robbing it blind...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Nov 04 - 08:49 PM

the only way to justify this war is to be proficient in lying to yourself about the motives, costs, procedures and expectations. Fortunately, we have an administration which has had practice in the relevant skills.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: dianavan
Date: 18 Nov 04 - 08:32 PM

RichM - Those are very powerful numbers. I do not understand how anyone can justify this war.

d

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: RichM
Date: 18 Nov 04 - 01:24 PM

Maybe this discussion is moot, anyway.

I wonder how much more taxes are likely given this scenario

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 18 Nov 04 - 12:35 PM

I'm sorry but with the recent Enron and other scandals, how can anyone think that allowing people to take social security funds and put them on the market benefits anyone but the brokers and the company officers? The brokers will make money, no matter what, and the company officers still seem to be trying to find loopholes so they can juggle the books and bilk more people out of more money!
Even if that doesn't happen there is absolutely no guarantee that you'll have any of that money after retirement. At least with the way things are now your pretty much assured a small but steady pay check (until it goes bankrupt).

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 09:56 PM

that's "totally ending any tax cut...."

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 09:53 PM

Doug--

1) If you read carefully, but have a question about something I write, ask. Don't assume.

2) You were going to tell us precisely why the Wall St. Journal columnist is wrong when he predicts "disaster" for those foolish enough to try Mr. Bush's wonderful program. Of course you will provide your sources, as I provide mine.

3) In my view we can start shoring up Social Security by totalling ending any tax cut for anybody who makes over $200,000 per year---(sorry if that cramps your style)---and dedicating that money to Social Security. If this sounds familiar. it's because it was part of Kerry's program, as I recall. Since I know you're concerned about the financial health of the Social Security program, I'm sure you will contact your Senator and Congressman, as I suggest, to rescind all tax cuts for earners over $200,000.

I can count on you for this, right? I knew I could.







Guest--

Get a name.    I don't waste my time on Guests (Ghosts)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 11:08 PM

Ron, here's a tidbit to chew on. They take a lot of money out of your check every year. If you die at 59 and your kids are over 21 and your wife isn't the right age, your family never sees one dime. It's confiscated. It wasn't savings and it wasn't a benefit, it's just gone. A cynical social engineer might think it was an excellent way to keep black families from ever building intergenerational wealth, cause black guys tend to die younger and get this quiet final twist of the knife.

If you had custody of 1/10 of that money then at least that would belong to your family not the insane people in D.C.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 10:37 PM

Well, Doug, bleedin' it ain't gonna fix it.... And you can take that to the bank...

The first thing that needs to be done is to close the loopholes that allow corporations to shuffle yer over-50-butt off to the abyiss...

Abyiss ain't like no fun at all. Especially when ya gotta a couple kids in college. But, hey, them wacky corporations? Right?....

No, wrong. A guy goes to work for the company, makes the company a lot of money, plays by the company rules, outta benifit from the profits that he has brought to the company. Right?

No, you say?

Like why not, Dougie?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 10:22 PM

Pdf is not allowing me to copy the address in order to make a link but read this first: www.ourfuture.org/docUploads/FinancialOutlookforSSNotCrisis.pdf

THEN we can talk about what the problem is with Social Security.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: DougR
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 09:56 PM

But my point, Ron, was, MOST people enrolled in Social Security will not have a CHOICE! I do read very well thank you.

One thing I have not read, however, are posts thay may have answered the question I asked Ebbie. You "progressives", do you have a solution to the problem facing social security in the U. S.? Progressive to me, means receptive to change. Am I wrong? Ron, please tell me what YOUR solution is to the problem. I'd love to read it.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 07:28 PM

Johnny Howard has stated his new Govt's intent to 'Reform Welfare' - wonder who's been writing his scripts?... sigh!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 07:15 PM

Hmmmmm, I thought that "bleeding", as a treatment for illnesses, went out of favor a couple centuries ago... Guess it's on it's way back??? Go figure...

No, Doug, I think that your partisanship is trumping your good judgement. Taking money out of Social Security as a means of fixing it isn't too smart. This is a no-brainer! No rreason to get the Wes Ginny Slide Rule out for this one.

Lets face it, folks. Bush is out to bankrupt the Amercian governemnt. Why? So he can throw up his arms as he dismantes the New Deal and the Great Society... Boss Hog hasn't had it this good since the 1850's....

"I hear the gentle voices callin' 'ol black Joe..."

...'cept this time around a lot6 of the dumb rednecks will find themselves enslaved but, heck, they will be too dumbed down by then to know it...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 06:52 PM

This is just part & parcel of the Grover Norquist et.al. campaign to shrink Social Security- one of the most hated by NeoCons of the arch-Communist fiend Franklin Roosevelt's programs- small enough to drown it, like all government and government programs- in the bathtub. Easiest way to destroy the program is to bankrupt it.

These clowns make no bones about what they are up to; they don't give a rats ass about Social Security since they're never going to need to avail themselves of it.

Its particularly depressing to see ignorant people defend this bullshit as a "reform" or an "improvement" or an attempt to "save the system".
Its none of these things, as the Neo-Con idealogues themselves readily admit.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 06:38 PM

Doug R--

As usual, you don't read very carefully --(perhaps this helps to explain the amazingly distorted view of the world Bushites seem to have).

Please point out to me where I said "most" Social Security recipients would be affected.

What I said was it would be a mistake for most Social Security recipients to participate in the "PSA's". I am fully aware it would be voluntary.

It is Bush's (and advisors') lousy idea--interesting that he himself, as a multimillionaire, would never have to be concerned. It might be appealing to some people--especially with the US worship of "rugged individualism"--but a mistake for most to start in the market at this point.

If you were starting out and opted for this program, I submit you would be foolish.

Past performance is no guarantee of future success, as many funds warn. This should be a sign on the S & P itself.   For very good reasons, which I enumerated, most gleaned from the Wall St. Journal's investment columnist, jumping into the market at this point and opting out of a steady income, approaches suicide. Since you're evidently sitting there at the table all fat and happy, you can give bad advice forever and it won't hurt you.   Others should beware.

As I said, you don't read very carefully. I have stated several times, on threads on which you have posted that, far from a disgruntled Democrat, I am a registered Republican.   I am however one who:

1) can and will think-- (as Kerry does and Bush does not).

2) realizes that Bush has been a disaster for the country, and possibly the world. The Social Security gambit pales beside his incredibly stupidly short-sighted and/or venal stance of discontinuing the 2 programs to secure Russian nuclear material. But it's still a
mistake (except for brokers).

3) is concerned about something other than my bank account; that is, the fortunes of workers in general, not just brokers.


If you have evidence that the market is about to take off---- (other than through the Ponzi scheme Bush is building with this proposed program)---please share it.

Also, precisely why do you disagree with the Wall St Journal columnist, who says, as I quoted above: "I fear that the privatization of Social Security will be a disaster unless it is accompanied by a slew of safeguards."?


We do not in fact have to wait til we see what comes out of committtee in Congress. We can and should influence it now.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: DougR
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 04:31 PM

OH, and another thing. All you progressives complain because conservatives "don't want to change things." Everyone seems to agree that something has to be done to preserve the SS system. What are the progressives' ideas for doing that?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: DougR
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 04:29 PM

We will have to wait until it all plays out in hearings Ebbie. I don't know all the particulars about how it would work, but it sounds like a good idea to me.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 03:46 PM

"investing funds that they are due under the program " What does that mean, DougR? Even Bush says partial privatization will create a shortfall for the Social Security program.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: DougR
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 03:08 PM

Ebbie:those who participate would be investing funds that they are due under the program anyway.

I assume you do agree that something must be done to preserve the SS program don't you? Perhaps you would like to see it operate as it is, and run out of funds on down the road. Where would folks be then?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 02:15 PM

DougR, just how would taking away part of the money that would normally have gone to Social Security help stabilize Social Security?

Or is that the idea? Phasing out Social Security? Keep in mind that just like a united nations, if we lost Social Security, we would still have to provide social security, if only by another name.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: DougR
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 01:04 PM

Pardon, Ron, but "most" social security recepients would not be affected at all. This program, which would strictly be on a volunteer basis, would likely appeal only to the younger workers just starting out on their careers. It would not be available to current recepients. Were I just starting out, I certainly would opt to become enrolled in it.

If you're really interested in the subject there was a lot of discussion of this on the Mudcat four or five years ago when it surfaced in the first Bush campaign. You might check the archives. If you are a disappointed Democrat and just trying to pull somebody's chain, ho hum.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: Rapparee
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 12:12 PM

Wall Street types have wanted for years to get their hands on the Social Security funds.

"Forbid it, Almighty God!"

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 11:58 AM

I have an aunt who is a broker.
Her advice about the stock market: play it with someone elses money.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 10:59 AM

what I see is...every transaction in the stock market and money market etc...systems means a bite for the managers and brokers. They will keep making money, no matter what mistakes the local auto mechanic or garbage collector make as they muddle about, trying to cope with Bush's 'gift' of independence.

It takes a special attitude to deal with savings and stocks and %ages and rollovers and such...and *I*, as a relatively educated fellow, don't have that feel or interest. I can just see 75% of the public having to hire someone to help them just break even.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: dianavan
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 10:07 AM

Good point, Ebbie - Who pays the living expenses for those who may 'lose' in the stock market?

d

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 12:23 AM

Americans do not have a good history of saving. As they say, a great many are living one or two months away from being homeless. What do you want to bet that a lot of those who opt for private accounts won't even sock it away. I can imagine some feeling rich for the first time, having all that extra 'disposable' income.

(Kind of like the Reagan years. Government lived high because it wasn't paying its bills.)

Then when it comes to retirement, will the government be required to support those who didn't put enough in to survive on?

My main objection, however, is the knowledge that directing funds elsewhere doesn't shore up a fund.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: mack/misophist
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 12:22 AM

Those with the right education and experience may do better managing the money themselves. Of course, they don't need the money, most of them. Many of the rest will suffer.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: Rapparee
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 11:07 PM

I have, in addition to Social Security, retirement accounts in three other states (four, counting this one). In two of those I'm vested. In both I've left the money in the standard account. In both I've earned something in past few years -- 3.28% in one of them according to the latest report. But in both the money market funds, the index funds, and every single one of the "alternate" funds has shown either considerably less growth or been in negative numbers.

My wife's TIAA/CREF, four years ago valued at over USD 1,000,000, is now worth a third of that. I cashed in my 20th Century Fund mutual fund because it was quickly reaching the point where its worth was exactly what I had put into it in 1991. My Fidelity Magellan hasn't done well either in the last four years, but if I get out of it I won't be able to get back in.

Based on my admittedly limited experience, I'd leave my money in the regular Social Security accounts.

Screw privatization. Some things weren't meant to be privatized.

Subject: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 10:49 PM

Warning: this is not politically neutral.

Among the drivel Bush was spouting in the campaign-- ( and either ignored or swallowed by the gullible 51%)--- was his wonderful idea of Personal Savings Accounts. You could take some of your Social Security taxes and invest it. Of course this would cost the Social Security system up to 1 trillion for transition costs ( including money taken out of the system).

The idea behind the program is that ordinary people could make more money in the market than Social Security would pay them, and having partly opted out, their Social Security benefits would be scaled back.

However, like most of Bush's crackpot ideas, it turns out that this system will benefit primarily his well-heeled supporters--- (but not Middle America)----in this case the Wall Street brokers who would market it. (I've heard Bush's "Ownership Society" described as the "You're On Your Own" Society.

It may well have appeal--Americans love to think of themselves as "rugged individualists".

The plan is that ordinary investors, happy to have charge of some of their own money, rather than having it doled out by the nanny state, would put money in the market, secure in the knowledge that "historically" stocks have returned 10.4% annually since 1925 (S & P).

However, the Wall St. Journal (27 Oct 2004, page D-1) points out:

1) Part of this came from generous dividend yields.
2) Another element was rising price-earnings (P/E) ratios.

Now, says the Journal, dividend yields are low, and P/E ratios are already high, and unlikely to expand substantially. Even with a booming economy (not exactly guaranteed), investors will be lucky to even approach these returns.

Furthermore, with baby boomers starting to retire in large numbers, starting in about 6
years, they will be cashing in stocks, not buying---markets will reflect this (this last is my own observation, not in the column).

The Journal columnist says: "I fear that the privatization of Social Security will be a disaster unless it is accompanied by a slew of safeguards".

Pardon my skepticism that safeguards figure prominently in Bush's plan.

For Doug R,, Larry K, and other Bushites of either the "I'm All Right, Jack" or the clueless brigade, it may not make a difference---but for most Social Security recipients it's a serious mistake.

Says the Journal columnist: "Brokerage firms could refuse to sell bad investment products and ruthlessly weed out rotten brokers. Instead they appear content to let their brokers loose on the unsuspecting public. What about the legal problems that inevitably follow? That, it seems, is viewed as simply the price of doing business"


Welcome to Mr. Bush's "Ownership Society".