Social Security

[Auburn85 432]

Here's the so-called plan that Bush has for Social Security.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146219,00.html

[Auburn85 432]

ANY WORKER BORN IN 1950 OR AFTER CAN SIGN UP FOR THE PLAN.

THE ACCOUNTS WOULD BE VOLUNTARY

[Auburn85 432]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/05/...o.ap/index.html

[rexbo 104]

The old farts are going to fight this like hell; they know the younger people will make the correct decision to control their own money, and will reduce the amount of our money going directly in taxes from our pockets to theirs. Just because they overpaid their parents in much higher rates of returns on their Social Security taxes, they expect us to do the same.

[TexasTiger 13,021]

The old farts are going to fight this like hell; they know the younger people will make the correct decision to control their own money, and will reduce the amount of our money going directly in taxes from our pockets to theirs.  Just because they overpaid their parents in much higher rates of returns on their Social Security taxes, they expect us to do the same.

144584[/snapback]

Damned old farts, fighting for what they were promised their entire working life.

[Auburn85 432]

Would that be the old farts 54 and under?

[Auburn85 432]

The old farts are going to fight this like hell; they know the younger people will make the correct decision to control their own money, and will reduce the amount of our money going directly in taxes from our pockets to theirs.  Just because they overpaid their parents in much higher rates of returns on their Social Security taxes, they expect us to do the same.

144584[/snapback]

Damned old farts, fighting for what they were promised their entire working life.

144591[/snapback]

So apparently you're convinced that this plan would be the death of SS?

Something is wrong with the system if it takes 3.3 people to pay for 1 person's SS benefits.

First of all, this administration and previous ones, should have kept their hands off of SS funds. No they had to raid it.

It's amazing in 98, DEMOCRATS said that a crisis loomed.

Now in 2005, REPUBLICANS say there's a crisis, and the dems say that there isn't one.

And people that are on the verge of retirement will not see anything happen to their SS.

It's the people 50 and under that have to worry about it, regardless of whether a new plan is put in place or the same system will run its course.

In 2042 SS benefits will have to be cut by 27%.

Tell me, how can anyone feel SECURE with 27% less than previous people had?

That means all those years you seen on your pay stub where these ss taxes were taken out, you would only get a crumb of it back. Tell me would SS be called SS in or around 2050 or would it just be used as a deduction or a write off for your tax return?

And look it all the people that have died before reaching the eligible age to recieve SS. Yet they paid years into the system, but t's taking 3.3 people to pay for 1 person's benefits?

[rexbo 104]

Damned old farts, fighting for what they were promised their entire working life.

144591[/snapback]

Exactly, thanks for making my point. Social Security is only a promise, not a right. When you have a personal account, it is your property, and by right, no one can take it from you.

[Auburn85 432]

Does your SS have a better chance of prospering in the government or stock market? And remember, your entire SS isn't going to be put into an account.

GOVERNMENT OR STOCK MARKET

GOVERNMENT OR STOCK MARKET

[TexasTiger 13,021]

Does your SS have a better chance of prospering in the government or stock market? And remember, your entire SS isn't going to be put into an account.

GOVERNMENT OR STOCK MARKET

GOVERNMENT OR STOCK MARKET

144661[/snapback]

People who can afford to take the risks of the stock market probably aren't having to rely soley on SS. If my SS check was determined by the market, there would have been alot of months over the last few years when it didn't come at all. My mutual funds have been artificially high and they have dropped like a stone. Still, I have some investments that I hope will supplement SS if I ever do retire. I don't need the Government to arrange my IRAs for me. I can do that on my own. SS is supposed to be a set, fixed annuity that you know will be there. What I can make on top of that is far less certain. The people who don't have to rely soley on SS frankly won't be too stung by their payroll tax being paid into the fund.

The big lie is that this "plan" doesn't address the shortfalls in the trust fund-- it increases them. It fixes nothing. It is a change based solely on ideological grounds, not a change to solve the "crisis." It is impossible to accurately project how this change will impact what someone receives at retirement. The people who need SS the least will likely benefit the most. The ones who need it the most, this President doesn't really give a damn about. He's never spent much time with those folks, even if they think he talks like them.

[Auburn85 432]

So when Bush said that he was willing to work with the Democrats to listen to ideas to change, it was a bunch of hot air?

[TexasTiger 13,021]

So when Bush said that he was willing to work with the Democrats to listen to ideas to change, it was a bunch of hot air?

144689[/snapback]

Probably.

[rexbo 104]

Kind of funny, accusing Bush of being full of hot air in discussing working with the Democrats, as the Democrats select Howard Dean to lead their party.

BTW TexasTiger, you would have a little more credibility if you were not quoting Göring, he was no expert on what a democracy will do. If you took his statement literally, I guess you could make the case that Roosevelt led the Amercian people unwittingly into WWII, just like Hitler did. In fact, Roosevelt was doing all he could to get the US in the war, but he could not do it until the US was attacked by the Japanese. Similarly, Bush would never, ever have been successful in getting the US involved in Afghanistan and Iraq if we had not been attacked by Islamic fascists. Your Göring quote has nothing to do with the US today and other Western democracies in this modern world. And the US Government has no similarites to Göring and Hitler's 1930's Germany.

[TexasTiger 13,021]

Kind of funny, accusing Bush of being full of hot air in discussing working with the Democrats, as the Democrats select Howard Dean to lead their party.

BTW TexasTiger, you would have a little more credibility if you were not quoting Göring, he was no expert on what a democracy will do.  If you took his statement literally, I guess you could make the case that Roosevelt led the Amercian people unwittingly into WWII, just like Hitler did.  In fact, Roosevelt was doing all he could to get the US in the war, but he could not do it until the US was attacked by the Japanese.  Similarly, Bush would never, ever have been successful in getting the US involved in Afghanistan and Iraq if we had not been attacked by Islamic fascists.  Your Göring quote has nothing to do with the US today and other Western democracies in this modern world.  And the US Government has no similarites to Göring and Hitler's 1930's Germany.

144824[/snapback]

BTW, Rexbo, you mispelled Goering. You would have a little more credibility if you would address the merits of my argument instead of attacking me for a quote in my sig line. Just like to change things up a bit from time to time. It's a pretty eclectic mix of quotations, actually. Even got O'Reilly in there, TR and some Brazilain dude. Guess this quote really got to you:

All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

So you see similiarities between Hitler and FDR, and then compare Bush to FDR, but not Hitler? Okay. Seems inconsistent, and it's one heck of tangent to get off on for a thread on Social Security.

[DKW 86 7,440]

Tex, You Lose!

Every premise you just offered is hogwash!

The benefits of the nyounger folks are going to go down dramatically! NO ONE disputes that. The crap that we will abandon SS is just that, CRAP! and Dem fear mongering.

We average something like 2% return on every dollar that goes into SS. Problem is that inflation is something like 4%. The younger you are the more you lose.

SS was supposed to be an account. It is a Ponzi scheme. We want to fix that. The Dems, as usual, want to scare everybody into doing nothing. Of course their answer is to just raise taxes into the ionosphere and then mis-spend it all.

SS was never supposed to be a retirement account. It was supposed to be a safety net and nothing else. It is now an entitlement that has been extremely poorly run for decades. The crisis is looming and the Dems want to do nothing.

The party of no ideas continues its fine tradition.

THE ANSWER is this. You are forced to donate 12.5% of your income to SS. If we donted that much to an IRA/401K we would all be much better off. The Federal Govt employees are allowed to opt out of SS and almost 100% do because it is ridiculous to allow yourself to be ttrapped into a 2% return when much better returns are out there. Give the American tax payer the same rights as the FGEU and we would almost all opt out too.

You donate 12.5% they give you bumpkiss back. You scrimp and save real dollars for your retirement and the Fed Govt cuts your benefits back by needs testing. You get screwed twice, a Dem's Dream!

[TexasTiger 13,021]

Tex, You Lose!

Every premise you just offered is hogwash!

The benefits of the nyounger folks are going to go down dramatically! NO ONE disputes that. The crap that we will abandon SS is just that, CRAP! and Dem fear mongering.

We average something like 2% return on every dollar that goes into SS. Problem is that inflation is something like 4%. The younger you are the more you lose.

SS was supposed to be an account. It is a Ponzi scheme. We want to fix that. The Dems, as usual, want to scare everybody into doing nothing. Of course their answer is to just raise taxes into the ionosphere and then mis-spend it all.

SS was never supposed to be a retirement account. It was supposed to be a safety net and nothing else. It is now an entitlement that has been extremely poorly run for decades. The crisis is looming and the Dems want to do nothing.

The party of no ideas continues its fine tradition.

THE ANSWER is this. You are forced to donate 12.5% of your income to SS. If we donted that much to an IRA/401K we would all be much better off. The Federal Govt employees are allowed to opt out of SS and almost 100% do because it is ridiculous to allow yourself to be ttrapped into a 2% return when much better returns are out there. Give the American tax payer the same rights as the FGEU and we would almost all opt out too.

You donate 12.5% they give you bumpkiss back. You scrimp and save real dollars for your retirement and the Fed Govt cuts your benefits back by needs testing. You get screwed twice, a Dem's Dream!

144862[/snapback]

You didn't address what I said.

The big lie is that this "plan" doesn't address the shortfalls in the trust fund-- it increases them. It fixes nothing. It is a change based solely on ideological grounds, not a change to solve the "crisis." It is impossible to accurately project how this change will impact what someone receives at retirement. The people who need SS the least will likely benefit the most.

I agree with you about SS being a "safety net". Yet your arguments are for it being a retirement plan, a la IRAs, 401ks, etc. You say it is a safety net, and then comlplain about means testing (which doesn't even currently exist.)

"We're going to borrow $758 illion over the next 10 years to set up the personal retirement accounts. We think that's a manageable amount ... Trillions more after that," Cheney said, acknowledging that the personal accounts will help younger workers but will not solve all the problems of solvency.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146533,00.html

Finally, when pressed, one of the members of this administration admits the "plan" doesn't address the "crisis."

It is a Ponzi scheme.

Yes, there are similarities. Then again, in early 2000 I shocked my financial advisior when I moved my retirement savings out of the stock market and into fixed investments. I told him the market appeared to be a Ponzi scheme. The only reason most of those stocks were "worth" what they cost was because some dumb sap was willing to pay it "to get in on it." More money was going into the stock market than it had value to absorb. Think how it would be if millions of peoples SS contribution went into it. Brokers gotta buy stock whether it is valuable or not. The "value" goes up, and at a point, the smart money sells and gets out. The "smart money" won't typically be the little guy with his SS contribution going into it.

[rexbo 104]

Kind of funny, accusing Bush of being full of hot air in discussing working with the Democrats, as the Democrats select Howard Dean to lead their party.

BTW TexasTiger, you would have a little more credibility if you were not quoting Göring, he was no expert on what a democracy will do.  If you took his statement literally, I guess you could make the case that Roosevelt led the Amercian people unwittingly into WWII, just like Hitler did.  In fact, Roosevelt was doing all he could to get the US in the war, but he could not do it until the US was attacked by the Japanese.  Similarly, Bush would never, ever have been successful in getting the US involved in Afghanistan and Iraq if we had not been attacked by Islamic fascists.  Your Göring quote has nothing to do with the US today and other Western democracies in this modern world.  And the US Government has no similarites to Göring and Hitler's 1930's Germany.

144824[/snapback]

BTW, Rexbo, you mispelled Goering. You would have a little more credibility if you would address the merits of my argument instead of attacking me for a quote in my sig line. Just like to change things up a bit from time to time. It's a pretty eclectic mix of quotations, actually. Even got O'Reilly in there, TR and some Brazilain dude. Guess this quote really got to you:

All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

So you see similiarities between Hitler and FDR, and then compare Bush to FDR, but not Hitler? Okay. Seems inconsistent, and it's one heck of tangent to get off on for a thread on Social Security.

144859[/snapback]

Actually, you are wrong again on all accounts. Göring is German, and his name is spelled with the German alphabet, including the umlaut ö. For those with English keyboards, the letters 'oe' are sometimes substited for the umlaut ö. And you were not reading very clearly at all, I was NOT showing the similarites between Hitler and FDR, but the differences. Hitler wanted to go to war, and faked an attack fromt he Poles to do it. FDR wanted to go to war to defeat the brutal dictator Hitler, but could not bring the American democracy in to it. He had to sit back and wait until the US was really attacked by the Japanese, and then Hitler declared war on the US because of their Axis alliance with Japan. If you think Bush has 1 ounce of simliarity to Hitler, then this conversation is over. Bush is the most anti-Hitler, pro-freedom and democracy leader this modern world has ever seen.

(And I do confess, this thread has been hijacked. I will never believe that the Government controlling my retirement funds is better than ME controlling it.)

[TexasTiger 13,021]

Kind of funny, accusing Bush of being full of hot air in discussing working with the Democrats, as the Democrats select Howard Dean to lead their party.

BTW TexasTiger, you would have a little more credibility if you were not quoting Göring, he was no expert on what a democracy will do.  If you took his statement literally, I guess you could make the case that Roosevelt led the Amercian people unwittingly into WWII, just like Hitler did.  In fact, Roosevelt was doing all he could to get the US in the war, but he could not do it until the US was attacked by the Japanese.  Similarly, Bush would never, ever have been successful in getting the US involved in Afghanistan and Iraq if we had not been attacked by Islamic fascists.  Your Göring quote has nothing to do with the US today and other Western democracies in this modern world.  And the US Government has no similarites to Göring and Hitler's 1930's Germany.

144824[/snapback]

BTW, Rexbo, you mispelled Goering. You would have a little more credibility if you would address the merits of my argument instead of attacking me for a quote in my sig line. Just like to change things up a bit from time to time. It's a pretty eclectic mix of quotations, actually. Even got O'Reilly in there, TR and some Brazilain dude. Guess this quote really got to you:

All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

So you see similiarities between Hitler and FDR, and then compare Bush to FDR, but not Hitler? Okay. Seems inconsistent, and it's one heck of tangent to get off on for a thread on Social Security.

144859[/snapback]

Actually, you are wrong again on all accounts. Göring is German, and his name is spelled with the German alphabet, including the umlaut ö. For those with English keyboards, the letters 'oe' are sometimes substited for the umlaut ö. And you were not reading very clearly at all, I was NOT showing the similarites between Hitler and FDR, but the differences. Hitler wanted to go to war, and faked an attack fromt he Poles to do it. FDR wanted to go to war to defeat the brutal dictator Hitler, but could not bring the American democracy in to it. He had to sit back and wait until the US was really attacked by the Japanese, and then Hitler declared war on the US because of their Axis alliance with Japan. If you think Bush has 1 ounce of simliarity to Hitler, then this conversation is over. Bush is the most anti-Hitler, pro-freedom and democracy leader this modern world has ever seen.

(And I do confess, this thread has been hijacked. I will never believe that the Government controlling my retirement funds is better than ME controlling it.)

144877[/snapback]

I guess you could make the case that Roosevelt led the Amercian people unwittingly into WWII, just like Hitler did. 

So you see similiarities between Hitler and FDR

then compare Bush to FDR,

In fact, Roosevelt was doing all he could to get the US in the war, but he could not do it until the US was attacked by the Japanese.  Similarly, Bush would never, ever have been successful in getting the US involved in Afghanistan and Iraq if we had not been attacked by Islamic fascists.

And you were not reading very clearly at all, I was NOT showing the similarites between Hitler and FDR, but the differences.

Blame my reading if you want, but given that you said you were pointing out differences instead of similarities, you might conisider the possibility that your writing was less than clear.

I haven't compared Bush to Hitler. Stunts like calling Hillary "Hitlery" and feminists "feminazis" diminishes the evil of Hitler.

If you think Bush has 1 ounce of simliarity to Hitler, then this conversation is over. Bush is the most anti-Hitler, pro-freedom and democracy leader this modern world has ever seen.

But my, my-- sounds like you're in love.

[rexbo 104]

But my, my-- sounds like you're in love.

144884[/snapback]

With freedom, and the idea of spreading it around the world, not holding it captive only for the Western World, YES!!!

[TexasTiger 13,021]

Bush clarifies everything. Now I feel better.

THE PRESIDENT: Because the -- all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those -- changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be -- or closer delivered to what has been promised.

Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the -- like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate -- the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those -- if that growth is affected, it will help on the red.

Okay, better? I'll keep working on it.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...0050204-13.html

[TexasTiger 13,021]

Jim Kolbe, Republican co-sponsor of the SS private account legislation:

Personal accounts don't solve the problem. I've never argued they solve the problem.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/o...210kolbe10.html

[eibua12 81]

Read this newsweek article..

Go buy it if you have to but read it

Newsweek SS Article

[drg 0]

Here's the so-called plan that Bush has for Social Security.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146219,00.html

143977[/snapback]

Anything that starts off with faux news as a source has to be a waste of time. I just don't understand why people choose to be misinformed. Research shows that faux news viewers are more likely to believe falsehoods than people who get news from any other source. These folks even believe Bush's plan would fix the Social Security problem when even the Wall Street Journal says it will make things worse. You don't make Social Security more solvent by taking money out of it.

Off to do better things.

[rexbo 104]

You don't make Social Security more solvent by taking money out of it.

      Off to do better things.

146127[/snapback]

No, you make it more solvent by taking more money out of the working people's pockets and giving it to the older people that are not working. I would much rather put my money in an account for me, not trust the Government to pay me back with other people's money when I am not working. You think Fox News is untrustworthy, try depending on Ted Kennedy to hold your money for you...

[DKW 86 7,440]

1) Fox is unreliable? News to me. I have watched the Clinton News Network get stuff wrong for years. They totally fabricated the story on the US trying to kill some deserters during Vietnam. Not a shred of truth to the story. CNN ended up firing a bunch of folks and paying out damages to everyone too.

CBS News? Two words-"Dan Rather"

Etc, etc, etc.

2) The Dems are once again trying to show how not to solve a problem. We have a problem with SS.

Reps say reform the SS system into what it should be...The Dems say "Do nothing, Just Raise Taxes."

Education Problems: Reps say Vouchers, Dems say "Do nothing, Just Raise Taxes."

Welfare not working: Reps say Reform Welfare, Dems say "Do nothing, Just Raise Taxes."

It would seem to any reasonable, thinking, adult that maybe some day the Dems would realize they were just in the way and at least let someone try to do some good. I guess they still must lose more elections before they will come to that point.

Look, SS Reform and Education reform face basically the same problems. 1) The Dems see no need to reform anything because they havent had any ideas in the last 30-40 years. Even nationally recognized comedians are now making fun of them on this. They are right, in the short term, reforms arent going to show any real difference. 2) In the long term they will show tremendous difference. The Dems dont care about anything but geting elected, but only if they can define the terms. Helping out people? Puh-lease! They could not care less.

Read this article too.

Right now, Democrats figure they can deal Bush a blow like the one the GOP dealt Hillary Clinton's health-care plan in 1994. The difference is that the Clintons refused to compromise. Bush is willing to bargain, which means that eventually the Democrats will have to pony up their own proposal.They have no ideas and therefore can offer nothing substantive...

And that's where my optimism comes in. When Bush was governor of Texas, he introduced a radical education-funding plan that was shot down by the Legislature. No matter. Bush won a few minor reforms, claimed victory and ran for president as the Education Governor. His critics are so blinded by their loathing of him that they don't realize this president only looks stubborn. Of course he'd love to use private accounts to create a huge new investor class that would back business on other issues and lock in GOP gains for a generation. That's his big idea—to be the Republican Roosevelt by delivering the coup de grace to FDR's welfare state. But if the Democrats beat back private accounts, as I think they will, Bush will be satisfied leaving office thinking of himself as a Harry Truman type—a scrappy president who made some tough decisions on benefits cuts to save what he admits is the most popular and successful domestic program of the last 100 years.