|
15 Nov 04 - 10:49 PM (#1328104) Subject: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: Ron Davies 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". |
|
15 Nov 04 - 11:07 PM (#1328111) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: Rapparee 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. |
|
16 Nov 04 - 12:22 AM (#1328144) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: mack/misophist 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. |
|
16 Nov 04 - 12:23 AM (#1328145) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: Ebbie 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. |
|
16 Nov 04 - 10:07 AM (#1328554) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: dianavan Good point, Ebbie - Who pays the living expenses for those who may 'lose' in the stock market? d |
|
16 Nov 04 - 10:59 AM (#1328627) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: Bill D 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. |
|
16 Nov 04 - 11:58 AM (#1328719) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: GUEST,Chief Chaos I have an aunt who is a broker. Her advice about the stock market: play it with someone elses money. |
|
16 Nov 04 - 12:12 PM (#1328738) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: Rapparee Wall Street types have wanted for years to get their hands on the Social Security funds. "Forbid it, Almighty God!" |
|
16 Nov 04 - 01:04 PM (#1328796) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: DougR 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 |
|
16 Nov 04 - 02:15 PM (#1328863) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: Ebbie 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. |
|
16 Nov 04 - 03:08 PM (#1328939) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: DougR 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 |
|
16 Nov 04 - 03:46 PM (#1329000) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: Ebbie "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. |
|
16 Nov 04 - 04:29 PM (#1329052) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: DougR 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 |
|
16 Nov 04 - 04:31 PM (#1329056) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: DougR 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 |
|
16 Nov 04 - 06:38 PM (#1329168) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: Ron Davies 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. |
|
16 Nov 04 - 06:52 PM (#1329185) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: Greg F. 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. |
|
16 Nov 04 - 07:15 PM (#1329215) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: Bobert 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 |
|
16 Nov 04 - 07:28 PM (#1329223) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: The Fooles Troupe Johnny Howard has stated his new Govt's intent to 'Reform Welfare' - wonder who's been writing his scripts?... sigh! |
|
16 Nov 04 - 09:56 PM (#1329373) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: DougR 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 |
|
16 Nov 04 - 10:22 PM (#1329421) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: Ebbie 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. |
|
16 Nov 04 - 10:37 PM (#1329434) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: Bobert 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 |
|
16 Nov 04 - 11:08 PM (#1329462) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: GUEST 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. |
|
17 Nov 04 - 09:53 PM (#1330638) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: Ron Davies 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) |
|
17 Nov 04 - 09:56 PM (#1330640) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: Ron Davies that's "totally ending any tax cut...." |
|
18 Nov 04 - 12:35 PM (#1331197) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: GUEST,Chief Chaos 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). |
|
18 Nov 04 - 01:24 PM (#1331264) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: RichM Maybe this discussion is moot, anyway. I wonder how much more taxes are likely given this scenario |
|
18 Nov 04 - 08:32 PM (#1331709) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: dianavan RichM - Those are very powerful numbers. I do not understand how anyone can justify this war. d |
|
18 Nov 04 - 08:49 PM (#1331721) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: Bill D 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. |
|
18 Nov 04 - 09:25 PM (#1331756) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: Bobert 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 |
|
18 Nov 04 - 10:04 PM (#1331792) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: jaze 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?? |
|
19 Nov 04 - 01:43 AM (#1331977) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: Bev and Jerry 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 |
|
19 Nov 04 - 09:47 PM (#1333063) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: Ron Davies 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. |
|
19 Nov 04 - 09:54 PM (#1333074) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: Chief Chaos 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? |
|
19 Nov 04 - 11:00 PM (#1333123) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: Ron Davies 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. |
|
19 Nov 04 - 11:08 PM (#1333128) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: Bobert 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... |
|
20 Nov 04 - 01:00 AM (#1333254) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: Bev and Jerry 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 |
|
20 Nov 04 - 11:24 AM (#1333599) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: Ron Davies 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". |
|
20 Nov 04 - 02:57 PM (#1333820) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: Ebbie 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 |
|
20 Nov 04 - 03:12 PM (#1333831) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: Bobert 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 |
|
06 Jan 05 - 10:48 PM (#1373559) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: Ron Davies 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. |
|
07 Jan 05 - 01:35 AM (#1373651) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: Bev and Jerry 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 |
|
07 Jan 05 - 02:22 AM (#1373660) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: GUEST,guest from NW 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? |
|
07 Jan 05 - 12:55 PM (#1373754) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: GUEST,Larry K 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" |
|
07 Jan 05 - 01:17 PM (#1373781) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: DougR 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 |
|
07 Jan 05 - 01:50 PM (#1373826) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: Don Firth 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 |
|
07 Jan 05 - 03:11 PM (#1373907) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: Bill D " 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~! |
|
07 Jan 05 - 04:13 PM (#1373957) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: DougR 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 |
|
07 Jan 05 - 04:55 PM (#1373990) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: Don Firth "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 |
|
07 Jan 05 - 05:24 PM (#1374025) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: CarolC 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. |
|
07 Jan 05 - 05:30 PM (#1374028) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: CarolC ...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. |
|
07 Jan 05 - 05:44 PM (#1374044) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: DougR 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 |
|
07 Jan 05 - 05:44 PM (#1374045) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: pdq 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. |
|
07 Jan 05 - 06:18 PM (#1374085) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: Bobert 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 |
|
07 Jan 05 - 07:14 PM (#1374139) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: Bill D "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...... |
|
07 Jan 05 - 10:59 PM (#1374305) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: CarolC 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. |
|
07 Jan 05 - 11:13 PM (#1374314) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: Bobert 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 |
|
07 Jan 05 - 11:36 PM (#1374327) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: GUEST,Barry Finn 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 |
|
07 Jan 05 - 11:43 PM (#1374333) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: CarolC Ok, Bobert. I understand what you were saying now. |
|
08 Jan 05 - 02:17 AM (#1374412) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: GUEST,guest from NW 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! |
|
08 Jan 05 - 12:51 PM (#1374491) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: Bill D 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..... |
|
08 Jan 05 - 01:36 PM (#1374544) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: freightdawg 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 |
|
08 Jan 05 - 02:01 PM (#1374568) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: CarolC 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. |
|
08 Jan 05 - 02:37 PM (#1374600) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: Don Firth 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 |
|
08 Jan 05 - 02:47 PM (#1374611) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: pdq "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. |
|
08 Jan 05 - 03:21 PM (#1374633) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: Don Firth Argumentem ad hominem, pdq. That's a dodge. Why don't you try refuting what the man says? Don Firth |
|
08 Jan 05 - 04:26 PM (#1374697) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: Don Firth 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 |
|
08 Jan 05 - 05:12 PM (#1374731) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: CarolC 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. |
|
08 Jan 05 - 09:35 PM (#1374924) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: freightdawg 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 |
|
09 Jan 05 - 02:19 AM (#1375003) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: Bev and Jerry 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 |
|
09 Jan 05 - 02:23 AM (#1375004) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: Bev and Jerry 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 |
|
09 Jan 05 - 12:47 PM (#1375106) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: CarolC 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. |
|
09 Jan 05 - 01:35 PM (#1375147) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: DougR 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 |
|
09 Jan 05 - 01:52 PM (#1375163) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: CarolC 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. |
|
09 Jan 05 - 03:49 PM (#1375265) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: Don Firth 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 |
|
09 Jan 05 - 04:37 PM (#1375306) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: Don Firth 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 |
|
09 Jan 05 - 04:50 PM (#1375318) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: Bev and Jerry Thanks, Don. Bev and Jerry |
|
09 Jan 05 - 05:50 PM (#1375368) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: Bobert 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 |
|
09 Jan 05 - 08:29 PM (#1375496) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: freightdawg 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 |
|
09 Jan 05 - 08:53 PM (#1375519) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: GUEST,Frank 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 |
|
09 Jan 05 - 10:56 PM (#1375635) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: GUEST,vic 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. |
|
10 Jan 05 - 12:25 AM (#1375677) Subject: RE: BS: 'Reforming' Social Security? From: Bev and Jerry 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 |