REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

My Theory On Why Bush wants to Ruin Social Security

POSTED BY: PIRATEJENNY
UPDATED: Wednesday, February 8, 2006 07:07
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 8796
PAGE 2 of 3

Friday, March 11, 2005 9:59 AM

MACBAKER


Quote:

Originally posted by InevitableBetrayal:
Quote:

Originally posted by piratejenny:
I guess its a hard concept for some of you to grasp that people can think for themselves, that based on whats happening that people can draw their own conclusions, its seems to be a foreign concept to some of you..you guys might want to try it sometime who knows you might can come up with a few theorys of your own based on whats happening if you actually gave it some thought !!



Ah, Jenny, still fiddling as the ship goes down...

Yet again, you've proved my point. I asked you to show me facts; I asked you to give me data; I asked you to make a cogent argument. And once again, you accused me of 1) not thinking for myself, and 2) not having my own theories about what's going on.

What doesn't seem to be be registering to that brain of yours is that it is entirely possible for someone to examine the same facts, to be fully aware of a situation to apply a good amount of thought to an issue--and then come up with something different than you. What you seem to be doing is saying that everyone who disagrees with you is just stupid or uniformed. Every single time you've responded to me, to Byte, to Hero, you've accused us of not thinking, not coming up with our own ideas, and not being aware of current events.

I think you're just plain wrong. We're not insulting you--we're disagreeing with you. Why can't you seem to wrap your head around that concept?

Honestly, your angry rants and smug assurance that you--and you alone--know the reality of Social Security and the Bush administration are seriously hurting your credibility. At this point, it's hard to take anything you say seriously because you just seem to want to throw a fit if we don't fall right in line with your beliefs. What is this, third grade? Grow up, Jenny.

_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.



I have to agree with Bytethebullet. Couldn't have said it better! Well done! I also am going to avoid this thread form here on. Jenny keeps saying the same things, never offers facts to back up her claims, and gets annoyed when she can't convert anyone to her narrow view. She'll be responding with more of the same, and who needs more of that?

I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 11, 2005 11:15 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Inevitable, Byte and McBaker ...

Quote:

McBaker: Jenny keeps saying the same things, never offers facts to back up her claims.
... a criticism that was offered by others such as Inevitable and Byte. Strangely, I could not find ONE SINGLE fact or link about SS from Inevitable and Byte. Not one. And McBaker, who did post articles, only supported that there is no CRISIS is SS.

SS is not strictly a 'pay as you go' system. What I have learned (over too many scattered links to post) is that actuaries foresaw the baby boom demographic, and created a surplus to carry the cost. (Amazing - PLANNING for the distant future!) It is THAT fund which will be drawn down when baby boomers enter retirement, as planned. When that fund is gone (which may happen around 2040 according managers), SS will revert to a pay as you go system.

What I don't get is why Bush is so fixated on a potential problem so far into the future, and not completely twisted over the economic ruin the government is in today.

At best, isn't that rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 11, 2005 4:01 PM

PIRATEJENNY


Quote:

Ah, Jenny, still fiddling as the ship goes down...

Yet again, you've proved my point. I asked you to show me facts; I asked you to give me data; I asked you to make a cogent argument. And once again, you accused me of 1) not thinking for myself, and 2) not having my own theories about what's going on.




This will probably be my last post in this thread!!

I know what you want..you want me to do a cut and paste!!! and I'm not going to it, really I've repeated myself at least 3 times in this thread already , the fact that I came up with this threory on my own based on whats happening isn't good enough for you, my own ideas aren't good enough for you and if its not ..then its not, I'll repeat myself again I was never trying to argue a point

you want facts I'll give you facts..

fact #1 our Econmy is failing our dollar is loosing its value in the world and with the Euro soon to become the dominate Currency

fact#2 Bush's foreign Policy is having a negative impact on our country and our economy

fact #3 Bush Admistration is trying to privitize social security

fact#4 Bush admistration catering to speacial intrest and Corporations are passing laws that benifit them while hurting the average person

fact# Since the terror threat and homeland security the arm of the federal government has reached even farther into our freedoms and rights

Fact#6 we are in serious Debt and its getting larger everyday due to Bush admistrations War Mongering

and the list goes on and on and on

these are not facts because I say they are..this is whats happening and NO I will not do a cut and paste of each of these issues, I'm sure a cut an paste of these issue has been presented on this board at one time or another and I'm not going to do it...there is no need for it because this is whats actually happening

when you add all of this stuff up and more a picture starts to form

I asked myself a question based on all I know about the Bush Admistration, I asked why would he want to privatize social security ...and the theory that I presented and repeated 3 times or more is the one I came up with

I think the problem is you guys never gave my theory any real consideration, you didn't even entertain the possiblity. instead some of you just came out on the attack with insults, thats why I must be on crack right gawd forbid a person has their own ideas about something..it was my theory and because it was such and it didn't come from a cut and paste or some talking head then it couldn't have any validty right!!!


Quote:

What I don't get is why Bush is so fixated on a potential problem so far into the future, and not completely twisted over the economic ruin the government is in today.



I asked myself that question too, which is how I came to my theory..Social security isn't in any real or immediate danger it does need some fine tuning so to speak

so one has to ask why is Bush so hot to privatize SS

I'm sure as we all are the Bush Administration is well aware of the state of the economy and how with his policys its only going to get worst, and I'll have to look into this but I heard today that if Privatization is a go for Bush that people won't really have a choice of what they can invest in they'll only be allowed to invest in certain stocks and bonds..I thought with the blow thats coming to our economy that Bush might be trying to soften that blow to certain companies and Corporations




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 12, 2005 5:03 PM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
First of all, Social Security isin't all that great. It's nothing more than a Gov't mandated, over glorified ponzi scheme. ...



I don't grok this statement. A Ponzi Scheme is a scam that promises to give you a great return on your money? Social Security never promised a great return, it's not even an investment, it's insurance. The hype I've heard reagrding "personal accounts" seems more like a Ponzi scheme.

Besides personal accounts are already availabe they're called 401Ks and IRAs.

Worst part about the whole Social Security debate is that the biggest detractors don't even have a real plan. At least that's what the speaker of the house said when he critized the AARP for it's stand agains Social Security reform, "... the AARP...is "against a solution that hasn't been written yet."



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 13, 2005 7:56 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Carlos Ponzi took money from investors who actually did get returns on their money, even though the money itself wasn’t increasing. The way he was able to do this was that he paid earlier investors with the funds from later investors. But this only works if the number of investors is always increasing. If the number of investors is not increasing, then the later investors get screwed, because eventually the pot runs dry. One can draw a corollary to social security. It seems to work in a similar way, with the same problems.




Social security will never be solvent the way it exists. It will always be in a state of running out eventually. I don’t know for sure what the solution ultimately is. Private accounts would seem to help solve the long term problem, but offer short term problems of their own. On the other hand, we are going to have to come up with over a trillion dollars from taxes or borrowing, and at best that may be just a short term solution. It just pushes the problem further down the road.

The irony of social security is that it may offer no security whatsoever. All my life, I’ve been told that Social Security was going down the tubes. And whatever anyone’s particularly spin is, it is a real possibility that it won’t be there when I’m 65-70 years old. Yet, I’m forking out 6.2% of my income to pay for other people’s income on the premise that when I’m old Social Security will be there for me, but in the current system there is no reason to believe that that is true. Furthermore, if we just raise taxes then all we are doing is promising future generations that they will have to deal with the same problems, only at a higher tax rate. The only thing ultimately secure about that course of action is that we guarantee that the government will always have a nice little stash to pay for their pork. Someone please tell me how this is not a scam.

I have a 401K and an IRA, and hopefully I’ll have a mortgage paid off by then. That is what I’m counting on. Yeah, there’s risk, if we have another Great Depression. But the risk of counting on Social security would seem at least as great.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 13, 2005 9:50 AM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.


Finn,

Thanks for your response. It's nice to debate all civilized like.

You are correct about how a Ponzi scheme actually pays off investors. I was referring to the aspect of Ponzi that attracts investors, which is the offer of an extremely high rate of returns. (What was Ponzi's original promise, something like 50% return in 45 days?). While Social Security uses contributions from current contributors to pay beneficiaries, there is no promise of a high rate of return. Beneficiaries (retirees, children who have lost a parent, and some of the disabled) only receive a stipend based on contributions with a small amount of interest.

I think a big part of the current problem with the Social Security system is that the fund money was used to cover short falls in the general fund (all though technically the Social Security Administration is loaning the Government money by purchasing T-Bills). If the government can't raise enough revenue and pay back Social Security the whole discussion about fixing Social Security will be moot.


Personally the National Debate regarding Social Security has opened my eyes. I've got a lot of work to do revamping my 401K and learning how to invest so I won't need help from a fund that might not be there for me.


(edited for spelling)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 13, 2005 2:24 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Quote:

Social security will never be solvent the way it exists. It will always be in a state of running out eventually.

There is an alternative, and more realistic, analysis that economists make. It goes: it's not the ratio of elderly to working that determines if the society can afford its elderly, it's the ratio of ALL non-productive to working. In the past, there were fewer elderly, but there were many more children to support. Children were accommodated socially by putting resources into schools, infrastructure, the medical care system etc, as well as, of course, the family cost at home.
Now there are more elderly to support, but fewer children 'draining' society.
'Society' is able to afford Social Security for the 'elderly', IF it elects to.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 14, 2005 9:41 AM

ZEEK


Quote:

Originally posted by piratejenny:
Quote:

What I don't get is why Bush is so fixated on a potential problem so far into the future, and not completely twisted over the economic ruin the government is in today.



I asked myself that question too, which is how I came to my theory..Social security isn't in any real or immediate danger it does need some fine tuning so to speak

so one has to ask why is Bush so hot to privatize SS


One could just as easily say that your theory of Bush turning the USA into a facist state is not an immediate threat. That's years down the road. Why bother with it now? Of course the same logic for you wanting to stop things before they become a major problem applies to SS as well.

So the problem I've always heard about SS was that there was a surplus when the baby boomers were paying into SS. The people in power at the time decided to spend that money on the elderly giving them all sorts of extra benefits to win their vote. So now the surplus has been spent frivolously and SS is in a terrible spot. They need much more money to support the baby boomers as they retire and will either go bankrupt or there needs to be major changes now. That's where Bush is stepping in. I don't know the solution but I'm awake enough to see the problem.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 14, 2005 10:34 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


"So now the surplus has been spent frivolously and SS is in a terrible spot. They need much more money to support the baby boomers as they retire and will either go bankrupt or there needs to be major changes now."

Your characterization of the problem, while plausible, is inaccurate. The money has NOT been spent... or have you not read the previous posts of the Social Security web page? They DON'T need "much more" money and they DON'T need "major changes".

Social Security, like all responsible retirement systems, makes three projections: High income, low income, and one in the middle. Only the LOWEST INCOME projection shows there is a problem, and it only requires modest adjustments to fix. It's not a "left-wing" take on the situation- even outside annuity companies like TIAA say the same thing. Just to show how biased the Administration is being, this is the ONLY case in which they use the most conservative projection. When it comes to the budget deficit, for example, they use the rosiest scenarios.

The information coming out of the WHite House is clearly biased by all reasonable and responsible accounts. By all responsible calculations, the WHite House "fix" will make the Social Security problems worse, not better- even the White House admits that. So why do we keep hacking around with what Bush says? The guy's a liar, plain and simple. This is another WMD- style phony crisis.

GET OUT YOUR UMBRELLAS- IT'S RAINING BULLSHIT FROM THE WHITE HOUSE.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 14, 2005 11:25 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Veteran:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
First of all, Social Security isin't all that great. It's nothing more than a Gov't mandated, over glorified ponzi scheme. ...



I don't grok this statement. A Ponzi Scheme is a scam that promises to give you a great return on your money? Social Security never promised a great return, it's not even an investment, it's insurance. The hype I've heard reagrding "personal accounts" seems more like a Ponzi scheme.

Besides personal accounts are already availabe they're called 401Ks and IRAs.

Worst part about the whole Social Security debate is that the biggest detractors don't even have a real plan. At least that's what the speaker of the house said when he critized the AARP for it's stand agains Social Security reform, "... the AARP...is "against a solution that hasn't been written yet."





By ponzi scheme, I'm talking about SS from its inception. Those who first drew checks were the lucky ones. Basically getting free $ despite not having put into the system it for decades. Today the SS 'insurance' is a scam. Where as in the past, many employees would 'contribute' for each retiree. As the years pass, the number of those who contribute has steadily declined. There is no 'trust fund'.

As for personal accounts, how about letting us opt out of SS,if we are so inclined ? That was done in Galvison, Texas. The city employees who opted out of SS draw much more for their retirement than SS doles out. SS was never meant to be a nest egg for retirement, but only as a safety net.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 14, 2005 11:43 AM

ZEEK


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
"So now the surplus has been spent frivolously and SS is in a terrible spot. They need much more money to support the baby boomers as they retire and will either go bankrupt or there needs to be major changes now."

Your characterization of the problem, while plausible, is inaccurate. The money has NOT been spent... or have you not read the previous posts of the Social Security web page? They DON'T need "much more" money and they DON'T need "major changes".

Social Security, like all responsible retirement systems, makes three projections: High income, low income, and one in the middle. Only the LOWEST INCOME projection shows there is a problem, and it only requires modest adjustments to fix. It's not a "left-wing" take on the situation- even outside annuity companies like TIAA say the same thing. Just to show how biased the Administration is being, this is the ONLY case in which they use the most conservative projection. When it comes to the budget deficit, for example, they use the rosiest scenarios.

The information coming out of the WHite House is clearly biased by all reasonable and responsible accounts. By all responsible calculations, the WHite House "fix" will make the Social Security problems worse, not better- even the White House admits that. So why do we keep hacking around with what Bush says? The guy's a liar, plain and simple. This is another WMD- style phony crisis.

GET OUT YOUR UMBRELLAS- IT'S RAINING BULLSHIT FROM THE WHITE HOUSE.


My comments had nothing to do with the Bush administration. Those were things that I learned in my Economics courses in college. It's possible that my professors had some hidden political agenda, but I doubt it.

If it were my personal view, I would say get rid of social security altogether. I don't even mind losing everything I've invested in the system so far. From this point forward I would rather invest that money myself for my own retirement. I'm all for people dealing with the consequences of their actions. If you invest wisely, money for you. If you don't invest, enjoy the street corner you'll be living on when you retire.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 14, 2005 4:15 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


So your REAL agenda is to get rid of Social Security? Funny, but I already knew that.


PS- I'm sure you grossly misquoted your economics professor(s). In fact, if you would give me his/her/their name(s) I will be happy to contact them for their real opinion, and I will post it here on the board.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 15, 2005 10:14 AM

ZEEK


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
So your REAL agenda is to get rid of Social Security? Funny, but I already knew that.


PS- I'm sure you grossly misquoted your economics professor(s). In fact, if you would give me his/her/their name(s) I will be happy to contact them for their real opinion, and I will post it here on the board.


Knock yourself out. The only one I can remember off the top of my head though is Kelly Blanchard and don't hold me on the spelling. The others were much funkier names that I can't remember at all. Enjoy.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 15, 2005 10:34 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


What college or university?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 15, 2005 12:20 PM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.


AuraRaptor:

Your right, the first beneficiaries of Social Security didn't contribute. But, really, how lucky were they? Most of them had been financially crippled by the Great Depression.

The reason support Social Security is because I believe that the safety net it provides serves the greater good. One might argue that insurance is not the Government’s responsibility but I would point out that one of the reasons for our government listed in the preamble of the constitution for is to "promote the general welfare."

A big complaint about Social Security is that contributors get a lousy return on their investment. Galveston, Texas is presented as an example of a better investment strategy. Maybe there's room for compromise here. What if the Social Security remained a single fund but invested in annuities similar to Galveston. Of course the government might not go for it because it would lose a ready lender.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 15, 2005 12:47 PM

ZEEK


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
What college or university?


Purdue

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 15, 2005 3:37 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


And is your real agenda to get rid of Social Security, not to "save" it???

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 15, 2005 5:12 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


My take on this -

Bush has always wanted to get rid of SS as an idée-fixe. It has nothing to do with whether or not it's 'working' economically. Just look at the Federal deficit - the budget is not 'working' economically in a major way and he's in no hurry to fix it. And the speed and coordination of his efforts make it obvious this was the plan all along. (Which he conveniently forgot to detail during his campaign.)

But I think it wouldn't have gotten anywhere if Rove and Cheney weren't also on board.

And I think what they see is an opportunity to 'starve the beast'. SS investments are in effect loaning the Federal government money. Without that income, the beast dies faster.

It's not economic at all, it's ideological.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 15, 2005 5:36 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Veteran:
AuraRaptor:

I would point out that one of the reasons for our government listed in the preamble of the constitution for is to "promote the general welfare."





I know for a fact that the founding fathers didn't intend for the line to mean what you presume it means. Not even remotely.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 15, 2005 5:46 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


AURaptor,
Quote:

I know for a fact that the founding fathers didn't intend for the line to mean what you presume it means.
I presume you discussed this very point with them at length.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 15, 2005 6:19 PM

WARTHAWG


Quote:

The irony of social security is that it may offer no security whatsoever. All my life, I’ve been told that Social Security was going down the tubes. And whatever anyone’s particularly spin is, it is a real possibility that it won’t be there when I’m 65-70 years old. Yet, I’m forking out 6.2% of my income to pay for other people’s income on the premise that when I’m old Social Security will be there for me, but in the current system there is no reason to believe that that is true. Furthermore, if we just raise taxes then all we are doing is promising future generations that they will have to deal with the same problems, only at a higher tax rate. The only thing ultimately secure about that course of action is that we guarantee that the government will always have a nice little stash to pay for their pork. Someone please tell me how this is not a scam.

Actually your employer pays an additional 6.2% to match your contribution. So SS is actually getting 12.4% of your gross pay.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 16, 2005 8:36 AM

ZEEK


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
And is your real agenda to get rid of Social Security, not to "save" it???


I don't have an agenda. I'm not going to go out of my way to do anything with SS. However, if it were up to me, I would do away with SS entirely.

Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Just look at the Federal deficit - the budget is not 'working' economically in a major way and he's in no hurry to fix it.


Deficit is not a four letter word in economics. There's actually plenty of theories that a deficit is good for the economy. The only time the deficit really starts becoming a problem is when investors start to fear that the government is going to default on it's loans. I doubt any investors are worried about the US government falling anytime soon.

However, Mr. Greenspan seems to be worried about the state of Social Security if things don't change by 2008. IMO Alan Greenspan is a bit of an expert when it comes to Economics. That's just my opinion though.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 16, 2005 9:17 AM

DANFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
What college or university?



I imagine you've already found this. But just in case you haven't, here is contact information for Kelly Blanchard on the faculty at Purdue:

https://directory.purdue.edu/directory-bin/PhDetail.pl?UniqueId=khb

Everybody has ante'd up. I'm interested in the results of the hand.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 16, 2005 10:06 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I've contacted Dr Blanchard and I'm waiting for a reply. She may not be interested in becoming embroiled in an anonymous internet debate, tho, so I'm not holding my breath for a reply and I advise you not to either.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 16, 2005 10:48 AM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.


Quote:

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Veteran:
AuraRaptor:

I would point out that one of the reasons for our government listed in the preamble of the constitution for is to "promote the general welfare."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I know for a fact that the founding fathers didn't intend for the line to mean what you presume it means. Not even remotely.



Maybe some didn't but others, I think, not so much. Here's an excerpt from James Madison in the the Federalist Papers #45.

"It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object. Were the plan of the convention adverse to the public happiness, my voice would be, Reject the plan."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 16, 2005 1:13 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Social security will never be solvent the way it exists. It will always be in a state of running out eventually.


Isn't it a little late to be questioning the solvency of something that's been in existance and paying out for decades? And sure, the sun will run out eventually, but how do you figure Social Security will run out "eventually"?

Quote:

The irony of social security is that it may offer no security whatsoever. All my life, I’ve been told that Social Security was going down the tubes. And whatever anyone’s particularly spin is, it is a real possibility that it won’t be there when I’m 65-70 years old. Yet, I’m forking out 6.2% of my income to pay for other people’s income on the premise that when I’m old Social Security will be there for me, but in the current system there is no reason to believe that that is true. Furthermore, if we just raise taxes then all we are doing is promising future generations that they will have to deal with the same problems, only at a higher tax rate. The only thing ultimately secure about that course of action is that we guarantee that the government will always have a nice little stash to pay for their pork. Someone please tell me how this is not a scam.


"All your life you've been told" ... and they haven't got it right YET, have they? Their decades of predictions haven't come true so far, but apparently you still believe them.

What is going on is a temporary (NOTE: TEMPORARY) bump in the equilibrium because of the baby boomers. In order to stay solvent in the LONG RUN "money in" has to equal "money out" right? "Money in" is the lifetime contributions of contributors plus accummulated investments plus current contributions. Under what circumstances do you forsee this "running out"? Do you anticipate zero employment in the forseeable future? Or no babies being born, perhaps? A massive government default on the debt? You're right- in the future, the system will still be dealing with the "same problems": money in has to equal money out. But 10-20 years from now, when first wave of retiring baby-boomers starts dying off the current problem will ease and Social Security will be at a new equilibrium that will once again start to build up reserves and be sustainable for the forseeable future.

I know you like the idea of investing so it will be "there for you", but if you want to talk about scams, look at Enron and all those people who LOST THEIR RETIREMENTS.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 16, 2005 1:13 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Here is an article from the Financial Times (of London)

Privatization Bombed in Britain
Now they’re looking for a way out


By Norma Cohen

February 2005

The president’s bold new plan to partly privatize Social Security, which has many on Wall Street salivating, is not new at all. In fact, it looks remarkably similar to Britain’s 25-year experiment with pension reform, which included substituting private investment accounts for a portion of government pension benefits. It is an experiment now regarded as a dismal failure.

In short, the British public—and government—lost money. They learned the hard way that the costs of administering private accounts can affect returns and reduce the size of a retirement pot by up to 30 percent. (This experience has been repated in other countries- SM)

Unusual for Britain, there is now an emerging consensus among labor and business, liberals and conservatives, that the government pension system—the United Kingdom’s counterpart to Social Security—needs serious reform. Recommendations for an overhaul are expected after the elections in May.

One reason for the intense attention is that the U.K.’s traditionally generous system of employer-sponsored pensions is collapsing, exposing the weakness of the government pension system just as more retirees are being forced to rely on it.

So while the United States is looking at privatization, British experts are eyeing the more generous and simpler U.S. Social Security system.

David Willetts, a Conservative member of Parliament whose intellectual acumen has earned him the nickname "Two Brains," is one admirer of the American system. "I like the way they distinguish between Social Security and means-tested welfare," he says. "They have higher Social Security benefits to keep elderly people off welfare."

The Confederation of British Industry (CBI), the functional equivalent of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, last year made a surprising call for a higher state retirement benefit to be paid for by raising taxes and the retirement age, from 65 to 70. The maximum payout for a single person at age 65 is around 4,200 pounds per year, or about $8,000, although British retirees do not pay for health care or prescription drugs. (In the United States the average annual Social Security benefit is $11,000.)

CBI’s U-turn on pension policy stems partly from self-interest. Government spending on state pensions has been low, and workplace pensions have traditionally been generous. Now employers are straining under the burden and want the government to play a greater role.

The National Association of Pension Funds, an employers’ group, agrees. It’s "actually cheaper for the state to carry the risk," says Chief Executive Christine Farnish, adding that in looking for a system that offers the best combination of modest guaranteed retirement benefits and low cost, the U.S. Social Security program seems the best model. "It doesn’t have to make a profit, and it delivers efficiencies of scale that most companies would die for," she says.

The story of how Britain’s retirement system reached its current crisis began 25 years ago, when Margaret Thatcher’s Conservatives swept to power on a tide of national disgust at high unemployment, high taxes and poor services. Though her pension reforms were ideological, they were also pragmatic: tax cuts could not be delivered without some cuts in benefits. So the first reform, passed in 1979, was to link increases in state pension benefits to prices instead of wages, something the Bush administration is considering.

Ros Altmann, a Harvard-trained specialist in pension economics who is on the board of the London School of Economics, says that at the time neither the voting public nor most politicians understood the true implications of altering that link. But advocates for the change knew what they were doing: they were slowing the rate of growth in pension increases, because wages have historically risen by 1.5 to 2 percentage points ahead of inflation each year.

"Two percent doesn’t sound like much," Altmann says. "But with the effects of compound interest, that amounts to nearly a 50 percent reduction in the value of benefits over 30 to 40 years."

Thatcher’s second reform was based on ideology. The Thatcherites wanted a home-owning, share-owning nation, something similarly expressed by the Bush administration. The idea was to replace the so-called "nanny state," in which government looked out for people, with a state in which everyone would have to look out for themselves.

In 1986 the Thatcher government offered to let people divert part of their social security taxes into a personal investment account similar to a 401(k). For help in designing the plan, the government turned to the insurance industry, the main source of long-term investment products in Britain. By assigning this role to the industry that would benefit most, the government had in effect asked the fox to design the chicken coop.

The competition to sell pension investment products to the public was intense. Products were numerous and complicated, and few people could understand them. Fees and costs often were not fully disclosed by agents, who could pocket a portion of the first few years’ sales. Rules were poorly designed and rarely enforced.

At the start, the public response was wildly positive, and the program was hailed as one of the triumphs of the Tory government. By 1991 more than 4 million Britons had signed up, attracted by the promise of generous tax incentives.

It soon became apparent that all was not well. More money was being lost by taxes being diverted to private accounts than the government would have paid out in entitlements. Gone was a 1.58 billion-pound surplus in the National Insurance Fund.

Worst of all, many workers who switched from good company pension plans to private investments ended up with a poorer retirement. Since the private investments required upfront charges and commissions, plus annual administration fees, there was often little on which investment returns could accumulate. People began to realize that they could no longer be certain that investment returns would equal what they had given up by switching to private accounts. Later, after the stock market crash in 2001, even the insurance industry began advising customers to return to the government system.

In 2004 alone, 500,000 people abandoned private pensions and moved back into the traditional government plan. Another 250,000 are expected to move back this year.

In dealing with its problems, the U.K. Pensions Commission has concluded that there are only four possible solutions: cut state retirement benefits, increase taxes, increase personal savings or delay retirement. Noting that there is no political support for the first choice, the commission determined that each of the three other choices, on its own, would be too painful and that only some combination could work.

According to U.K. Pension Commission Chairman Adair Turner, a vice president of Merrill Lynch in London and the former director general of the U.K.’s biggest business lobbying group: "There are no other choices."

Norma Cohen covers pension issues for the Financial Times in London.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 17, 2005 3:07 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Zeek, Finn, Auraptor, Mac, Hero, Inevitable, Byte, Conscience... no comments??

Just wanted to make sure you got a dose of reality for the day.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 17, 2005 3:14 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


ZEEK

Dr Blanchard replied that she does not discuss Social Security in her undergrad classes, only in graduate classes, and then only to calculate optimal retirement age (how much od you gain or lose by early retirement). She said that other professors prolly discuss Social Security policy but not her. (I would cut and paste her email here, but I've been told by a major webmaster that's ILLEGAL.) So, I've done my part bird-dogging down your curriculum for you. Feel free to fully document your claims on your own time.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 17, 2005 6:26 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Here is an article from the Financial Times (of London)

Privatization Bombed in Britain
Now they’re looking for a way out

The president’s bold new plan to partly privatize Social Security, which has many on Wall Street salivating, is not new at all. In fact, it looks remarkably similar to Britain’s 25-year experiment with pension reform,



Actually the comparsion is less then 20 years. Yes, they've been reforming since the '70s, but the privatization idea has only been around since 1986.
Quote:


In 1986 the Thatcher government offered to let people divert part of their social security taxes into a personal investment account similar to a 401(k). For help in designing the plan, the government turned to the insurance industry...

The competition to sell pension investment products to the public was intense. Products were numerous and complicated, and few people could understand them. Fees and costs often were not fully disclosed by agents, who could pocket a portion of the first few years’ sales. Rules were poorly designed and rarely enforced.



Well the lesson learned is not that privatization does not work, its that the rules need to be well designed and strictly enforeced.

I'm sure "products" in 1986 were "numerous and complicated". Any investment in the '80s and early '90s required a middleman with extensive knowledge and experiance.

Today people have much greater access to information for investment, including several cable networks and internet resources specifically devoted to explanation and advise on all forms of investment. The mechanism is streamlined as well. Anyone can trade, anyone can manage their assets. As a result competition by fund managers is fierce and prices are low. Hang on...just sold 1000 shares of RAD, the stock is up big in last week or so...took me 30 seconds, cost me $8, and I made $5,000. God, I love America!

Quote:


Later, after the stock market crash in 2001, even the insurance industry began advising customers to return to the government system.



Ah, another casualty of the 9/11 attacks. I think we all need a moment...
































Quote:


In 2004 alone, 500,000 people abandoned private pensions and moved back into the traditional government plan. Another 250,000 are expected to move back this year.



Lot of people in Britain. Guess these are the only ones "smart" enough to leave their fortunes in the hands of government intellectuals. The rest, like so many of us red staters here in the US, can't be trusted to think for ourselves.


Quote:


"There are no other choices."



There is however a lack of immagination.

SignyM, the floor is yours.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 17, 2005 8:11 AM

ZEEK


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
ZEEK

Dr Blanchard replied that she does not discuss Social Security in her undergrad classes, only in graduate classes, and then only to calculate optimal retirement age (how much od you gain or lose by early retirement). She said that other professors prolly discuss Social Security policy but not her. (I would cut and paste her email here, but I've been told by a major webmaster that's ILLEGAL.) So, I've done my part bird-dogging down your curriculum for you. Feel free to fully document your claims on your own time.


Well it is possible it was another professor who went over it. I got a minor in Econ so I had like 5 different professors. I just remember her cause she was my first and last Econ professor. Also figured since I had her twice there was a good shot that she went over it.

I only remember the first name of another one of my professors and she's not showing up in any directory so she may have moved on. Pia something or other.

Anyway, it's still what I remember from whoever discussed it.

Besides Mr. Greenspan tends to support the claims that the surplus that was created by the baby boom and such was spent already.

"As the system is now, the surplus that has been paid into Social Security over the past 20 years has been treated as part of the general budget and has already been spent by the U.S. Treasury."

http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/15/retirement/greenspan_aginghearing/inde
x.htm


He also supports privatization to remove that flaw in the system.

As for the British plan that didn't work...I don't know anything about there system. So, I really can't comment either way. Maybe they made mistakes that we can learn from. Maybe their privitization system was totally different from the proposed plans Bush is pushing for, and AARP just uses it as propaganda. I don't know. I'd have to study it more.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 17, 2005 10:37 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


The number of people actively leaving private pension plan is fairly large considering the number of employed people eligible to participate (somewhat less than 20 million). The number of people simply refusing to enter is huge, according to this Nov 2004 article:

Quote:

Apparently concerned about the lack of pension saving by the rest of the private-sector working population, the Government introduced stakeholder pensions in early 2001. Research by ABI suggests that 82% of all schemes are “empty boxes with no members and sales of stakeholders are falling”, reports Bruce Love in the IFAs’ trade paper Money Marketing. Turner revealed that although 65% of companies with five to 12 employees have nominated a stakeholder provider, only 4% of those firms actually have employees who are bothering to make any contributions.


There is no bar whatsoever on you - or anyone- investing for retirement. Many people who contribute to Social Security do both. But you apparently have not fully considered the meanings of the words SOCIAL and SECURITY. Social is what we all do together as a society. Security is assurance that you will not fall below a minimum. Now, you can argue that it's not RIGHT to get together as a society and provide for those who are less wealthy or less knowledgeable or less provident than we are (I also invest for retirement). You need to make the case that we really should be in total social darwinian mode- every man for himself. (Of course, that begs the question as to whether it is a society at that point, but I digress.) but if you agree with the goal implied in the title of the program (Social Security) then privatization is not the way to go.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 17, 2005 10:56 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


If you look carefully at the article that you cite, the quote is not from Greenspan, it's from the author of the article. And the use of the word "spent" is something of a misnomer. In fact, the government sold Treasuries to the Social Security fund to support its' debt. The Social Security fund bought the Treasuries as an investment. But don't forget that the government also sold Treasuries to foreign banks, annuities, and individuals who purchased them for the same reason. It's very similar to buying a munibond or corporate bond, except that Treasury paper is backed by the full faith and credit of the US government.

Now, one may argue about the wisdom of that particular investment, but it has more to do with the Federal deficits and the value of the US dollar than with any fundametnal problem of the money having "been spent".

Greenspan himself has, and says he has (read the article again) OTHER motives for promoting privatization which is related to the Federal deficit and to our balance of trade. You have to know something about what is called the CURRENT ACCOUNT BALANCE to realize that he is anticipating that foreign countries are simply going to stop "investing" in our country (through maintaining a negative ... on our side...balance of trade and purchasing our paper) and that the US population must SOMEHOW be induced to take up the slack (increase private savings).

It would be far easier and more rewarding to simply tackle the problem at the level of the Federal deficit, because investors are nervously looking at the solidity of US Federal government financing, and finding it something of a house of cards. By reducing the deficit, a whole host of problems go away.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 17, 2005 11:48 AM

ZEEK


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
If you look carefully at the article that you cite, the quote is not from Greenspan, it's from the author of the article. And the use of the word "spent" is something of a misnomer. In fact, the government sold Treasuries to the Social Security fund to support its' debt. The Social Security fund bought the Treasuries as an investment. But don't forget that the government also sold Treasuries to foreign banks, annuities, and individuals who purchased them for the same reason. It's very similar to buying a munibond or corporate bond, except that Treasury paper is backed by the full faith and credit of the US government.

Now, one may argue about the wisdom of that particular investment, but it has more to do with the Federal deficits and the value of the US dollar than with any fundametnal problem of the money having "been spent".

Greenspan himself has, and says he has (read the article again) OTHER motives for promoting privatization which is related to the Federal deficit and to our balance of trade. You have to know something about what is called the CURRENT ACCOUNT BALANCE to realize that he is anticipating that foreign countries are simply going to stop "investing" in our country (through maintaining a negative ... on our side...balance of trade and purchasing our paper) and that the US population must SOMEHOW be induced to take up the slack (increase private savings).

It would be far easier and more rewarding to simply tackle the problem at the level of the Federal deficit, because investors are nervously looking at the solidity of US Federal government financing, and finding it something of a house of cards. By reducing the deficit, a whole host of problems go away.


You're right the quote I cited was from the author , not Greenspan. My mistake. Read it too quickly.

It's possible that you're right about Greenspan's reasoning for supporting private accounts. I just don't see that as a good solution to lack of foreign investment. Foreign investment is such a huge part of the economy that it's just never going to be replaced by domestic investment. There would be all sorts of other problems with imports and exports. The whole thing would just break down.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 17, 2005 12:51 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


BTW altho I have a degree in Chemistry, I have a few econ course under my belt- micro, macro, environmental, and economic geography. It's been a fascination of mine, ever since I read "The Wordly Philosophers". It's been fun conversing with you.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 17, 2005 3:48 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Isn't it a little late to be questioning the solvency of something that's been in existance and paying out for decades? And sure, the sun will run out eventually, but how do you figure Social Security will run out "eventually"?

Last time I checked we don't have to keep reforming the sun every 22 years with higher and higher taxes to keep it shining.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 17, 2005 4:56 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


You "forgot" to quote or respond to THIS part, which addresses that question:

Quote:

What is going on is a temporary (NOTE: TEMPORARY) bump in the equilibrium because of the baby boomers. In order to stay solvent in the LONG RUN "money in" has to equal "money out" right? "Money in" is the lifetime contributions of contributors plus accummulated investments plus current contributions. Under what circumstances do you forsee this "running out"? Do you anticipate zero employment in the forseeable future? Or no babies being born, perhaps? A massive government default on the debt? You're right- in the future, the system will still be dealing with the "same problems": money in has to equal money out. But 10-20 years from now, when first wave of retiring baby-boomers starts dying off the current problem will ease and Social Security will be at a new equilibrium that will once again start to build up reserves and be sustainable for the forseeable future.


Since you're just recycling arguments I'll just recycle mine.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 17, 2005 10:01 PM

SOUPCATCHER


Quote:

Originally posted by Veteran:
AuraRaptor:

Your right, the first beneficiaries of Social Security didn't contribute. But, really, how lucky were they? Most of them had been financially crippled by the Great Depression.
...


As usual, Veteran, you make a great point (I also agreed with the rest of your post but didn't want to make an overlong entry by quoting the entirety - I'll just make it overlong by being verbose ).

Just a quick digression. I was visiting one of the numerous tiny museums they have in California Gold Country a couple weeks ago and spent some time talking with the docent. She was a charming older woman who grew up in the area during the Depression and was telling me stories about hobo camps around Stockton, waiting in Yosemite valley for the monthly food wagon or truck to come in, poaching out of season to supplement meager rations, and she concluded by shaking her head and saying, "Young folks these days just don't remember the Depression." (She also recommended a book, "Bacon and Beans from a Gold Pan," about a couple that left San Francisco during the Depression and squatted in the hills panning for gold to keep from starving. It's on my list of books to buy.) I think she makes an important point.

I grew up hearing stories about how bad things were during that period of time (half of my grandparents - and many of their brothers and sisters - left farms in Arkansas and Missouri and came to California to find work). These were always related as cautionary tales - reminding us that things could get that bad again. Social Security is one of the guardians against that happening. The promise of the program is that, no matter how bad things get, you will always have a guaranteed income.

Do I expect to rely on Social Security? No. I certainly hope not. But I can't guarantee that I'll never need it. I fully expect to live off the proceeds of my own retirement plan.

Will all of those benefits be there for me if I need them? Yes. Unless one of three things happens. First, if the government defaults on the trust fund (which would lead to the biggest sell-off of T-bills that you can imagine). Second, if the trust fund is depleted through carve-out private/personal accounts and the associated implementation costs. Third, if the intermediate projections of the actuaries are correct and a fix is not implemented in the next 37 years.

Maybe I'm naive but I tend to see the money I pay into the Social Security program as a thank you to the generations that came before me. They survived the Great Depression. They fought and helped win the largest war in the history of humanity. They kept this country together during the tremendous social upheaval involved in changing this country to align more with the spirit behind the Founders deeds. The least I can do is support their Social Security accounts with the money I earn.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 17, 2005 10:41 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


SoupCatcher,

Thanks again for a great post.

Just a bit of new information regarding:
Quote:

Third, if the intermediate projections of the actuaries are correct and a fix is not implemented in the next 37 years.
I recently read actuaries are predicting life expectancy will go down in the US due to what some are calling the obesity epidemic.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 18, 2005 11:06 PM

SOUPCATCHER


Thanks, Rue.
Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
I recently read actuaries are predicting life expectancy will go down in the US due to what some are calling the obesity epidemic.


That would be a helluva way for the problem to go away.

It reminds me of a running joke I have with one of the post-docs at my research center (more along the lines of black humor). Every time I've fallen off the wagon and restarted smoking he thanks me - because that's one less person he has to worry about competing with for Social Security benefits - and we get a good laugh out of it. I've never pushed too hard but I hope he's attempting to use reverse psychology rather than being serious.

Back to the topic at hand. I found a link to a really informative transcript of an online chat. It's hosted by The Spokesman-Review and was a session between readers of the newspaper and a local professor of economics at Eastern Washington University, Doug Orr. Pretty long, but he does a good job of answering a lot of questions about the debate (the chat took place on February 11):
http://www.spokesmanreview.com/chat/transcript.asp?id=61

There were a couple of things that jumped out at me that I hadn't thought about or wasn't aware of: the argument based on the ratio of workers paying in versus those receiving benefits doesn't account for increases in productivity and any claims that private accounts have a guaranteed rate of return better than Social Security are illegal.
Quote:

section from transcript relating to productivity gains
Lynne: One of President Bush's arguments seems to be pretty convincing. In 1950 there were 16 workers paying in for every retiree, in 2000 there were 3 and by 2030 there will only be 2. Won't this create a breakdown in the system?

Doug Orr: On the surface this argument seems to be convincing, but it ignores one of the greatest strengths of a market economy. Productivity tends to rise over time. A worker in 2000 produces more than twice as much real physical output each hour as a worker did in 1960. That is why our standard of living is so much higher today than back then.

...


Quote:

section of transcript relating to the legal problems with guarantees
Doug Orr: ... In his stump speech, Bush keeps repeating that those who put their money in private accounts are "guaranteed" a better return than they will receive from the current Social Security system. If any broker who works for any investment firm made this claim to their clients, they would be arrested and charged with stock fraud. Michael Milken went to jail for several years as a result of making this type of claim about financial investments. Every prospectus on every stock sale includes the same disclaimer: "the return on this investment is not guaranteed and may be negative."

This disclaimer is there for a very good reason. During the 20th century there were several periods lasting more than 10 years in which the return on stocks was negative. From September 1929 to May 1933, the Dow Jones index of stocks went down by over 70 percent. The Dow did not return to its 1929 level until 1953!

In claiming that the rate of return on a stock investment is guaranteed to be greater than the return on any other asset, Bush is lying. On most of the discussion on the Social Security issue, things are open to interpretation.

...


There's lots of really good stuff in the chat session. I'd recommend it if you have fifteen to twenty minutes to spare during the day.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 20, 2005 10:52 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Hi SoupCatcher

I make time for more information. BTW I apologize for not providing a link to that bit about the actuarials re: life-span. It wasn't from a site addressing SS at all, it was from either a scientific or medical website. Unfortunately I just breezed through it several weeks back, and now I can't remember where I saw the darn thing.

This is not in response to your post, and I was wondering where to put it as several threads get into the SS topic, but:

Quote:

Senate Splits in Test Vote on Social Security
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
The Senate voted 50 to 50 on a nonbinding measure declaring that Congress should reject any plan that would require "deep benefit cuts or a massive increase in debt." Five Republicans joined the Senate's 44 Democrats and one independent in voting for the resolution.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/16/politics/16budget.html?th

I think this makes it plain where the parties stand overall.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 20, 2005 2:09 PM

WORKEROFEVIL


First off, I'm responding without reading the full thread because there're a lot of responses and I'm sure many will just annoy me. The idea that allowing people to invest a portion of their social security taxes (4% to 50% depending on who you listen to) will save the government money while earning tons of cash for everyone is silly. Yes, stocks or mutal funds have a better AVERAGE return over time, there's also fees to brokers that have to be paid. Social security doesn't have these fees. And the key word in the higher returns is average. Some stocks and mutual funds do really well. Some crash and burn and take people's money. Sometimes this is just normal business and other's it's corporate crime (i.e., Enron). Now, many people will invest money and do well. Many will lose all their money. Our government is not going to allow these people to starve so they'll pay them anyway. Also, I believe people are going to be able to invest a portion IF THEY CHOOSE, which implies they don't have to. I suspect many to most people will take the simplest route and not choose to try to manage their own market portfolios between work and taking care of families. I believe the majority of people will continue the same method of social security paying in and paying out as now, thus saving the government very little. Of those that do invest, a fair portion will lose everything but the government will still pay them anyway, thus INCREASING the cost to the government. I believe this is a flawed plan which will really only benefit people who make money off the stock market. People paying in extra money will artifically inflate the stock market and some few people will earn millions while the average pensioner will receive a few extra dollars. The best solution is to raise the retirement age since people live longer, increase the tax a little because we really pay a very low tax percent when compared to the rest of the world, and possibly to place a net worth limit on people who receive benefits because if you already have a few million dollars you don't need any money from the governmnent. I know these are crazy, liberal ideas, but frankly I'm basically a Socialist, so I like crazy, liberal ideas.

People that whine about the educated elite need to remember that Bush is a rich boy who went to Yale. He's one of them.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 22, 2005 8:26 PM

PIRATEJENNY


Quote:

They need much more money to support the baby boomers as they retire and will either go bankrupt or there needs to be major changes now. That's where Bush is stepping in. I don't know the solution but I'm awake enough to see the problem.


but one thing we do know is that privatization of ss isn't the cure or the fix, there are other fixes that would work and privatization isn't one of them

so why is Bush so hot to privatize??????

could it possibly be that he wants to funnel money into the stock market to stablize it or cushion it from the coming economic downfall that this country is heading in

There has to be a reason why he wants to privatize social security..when its obvious that privatization isn't the answer to the problem and this is the only answer that makes sense to me!!


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 26, 2005 3:21 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I heard something today that made a lot of sense. This year is a political freebie since it's an off-election year. That makes this year an opportune time.

Bush & Co (being the corporatocracy's blue hands) were given a busy agenda last year for passing business friendly laws this year. They jumped on four items within days. Today, the first two are already in the bag, which were class-action lawsuits and bankruptcy. They're still working on SS, and making strides on oil-drilling in national preserves. When you think about how briskly this was proposed and done, it's clear it was already planned.

It's not about SS. It's an entire business-compliant package that has to be completed this year. The earlier, and thus the furthest from next year's elections, the better.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 29, 2005 5:52 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Hi SoupCatcher,
I don't know if you'll cruise by and see this, but not being able to get the link to the reduced lifespan info was just bugging me.
Anyway, it was from the New England Journal of Medicine (requires paid subscription). I did find this from ScienceDaily:
Quote:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050325144425.htm Explosion Of Child Obesity Predicted To Shorten U.S. Life Expectancy
It's been assumed that U.S. life expectancy would rise indefinitely, but a new data analysis, published as a special report in the March 17 New England Journal of Medicine, suggests that this trend is about to reverse itself -- due to the rapid rise in obesity, especially among children.
A review by obesity researcher David Ludwig of Children's Hospital Boston, epidemiologist S. Jay Olshansky of the University of Illinois at Chicago, and colleagues concludes that obesity now reduces average life expectancy by about 4 to 9 months, a conservative estimate. More ominously, the researchers further conclude that if the current epidemic of child and adolescent obesity continues unabated, life expectancy could be shortened by two to five years in the coming decades.

Anyway, there is a bit more at the link if you want to read up on it.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 30, 2005 11:59 PM

SOUPCATCHER


Hi Rue!
Thanks for the link. It was a sobering article. I have friends who buy their children fast food every day of the week and I can physically see the difference so the following paragraph hit pretty close to home:
Quote:

excerpted from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050325144425.htm
n the past 40 years, fast food, junk food, and soft drinks have become a prominent part of the landscape. Food advertising directed at children has exploded, and portion sizes have ballooned (see attached fact sheet). Schools have become purveyors of fast food and soft drinks through contracts with the food and beverage industry that help fund school programs -- even as they cut physical education classes from their curricula to save money. At the same time, children are becoming more sedentary, spending more time watching TV and using computers.


On a related note, my sister-in-law and I were just talking recently that it seems like girls are going through body changes usually associated with puberty at a younger age than they did when we were growing up. We were just speculating but one of the things we talked about was the use of bovine growth hormone and potential affects on children who consume a lot of dairy and beef (specifically from fast food providers who do not label if their beef contains rbST or rBGH). I have no idea if that's even possible (and I'm sure Monsanto would say it isn't) but we were just brainstorming.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 31, 2005 5:01 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


HI SoupCatcher,

I'm glad you found it interesting.

To further go down this path, here is an article about earlier menarche (from 2000): http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/children/03/31/early.puberty.wmd/

In the past I had passed it off to better nutrition, higher weight, and less activity.

Recently, though, I found this (excerpted):
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050328182123.htm
Quote:

Organic Diet Makes Rats Healthier
A team of European scientists has found in an experiment that rats that ate organic food were much healthier than those that ate conventional diets.
The scientists found that the organically-fed rats enjoyed several health benefits, in that they slept better, had stronger immune systems and were slimmer than rats fed conventional diets.
... speaking to The Journal newspaper, Dr Brandt said: “What this research shows is that clearly there are links between food and health which is more to do than with just nutrients."

It's not menarche, but it's the first study I've come across that links agrochemicals, preservatives, dyes etc to reduced mammalian health.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 1, 2005 6:50 PM

DEUTSCHMANNECROS


Hello, I'm a newbie. I must admit as a conservative libertarian, i too, once was intice by some socialistic policies. Although, I support tarriffs and controled trade and labor unions vs. corporations, I believe social secruity like all pyramid schemes is doomed. In the beginning the small amount of retirees were generiously rewarded by dozens of workers, however because the baby-boomeer population increased a generation, the retirees now randically flip the pyramid to minority of workers working social security to pay dozens more ratio of retirees. I like, the elderly, because of their kindness, respect,and wisdom, like my grandparents, however, social security should be kept for them and gradually phased out for the younger generation, of whom would be encouraged in invest in bonds, banks, secure market investment,Iras,4o1ks and other private retirement plans. Besides if I get social security, which i pay now, I'm getting robbed, because when I retire there will be none left. I'd much rather get a larger return by invest my ex-social security funds, into the market, rather than our corrupt and inefficent bureacratic government. Less government, MORE PEOPLE POWER!!!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 7, 2005 12:18 AM

SOUPCATCHER


Hi Rue,

Thanks for the article on early menarche. It's always nice when scientific research validates personal observation. Although there was nothing nice about the conclusions from the research, definitely sobering. I'll make sure to pass it along to my sister-in-law as well.

The second article was also interesting. My girlfriend and I have been enjoying organic produce for a while now (so it's nice to see some research backing that up). About four years ago we decided to try this organic produce service that makes weekly deliveries - they leave a box on the back porch. Even though the fruit and vegetables are more expensive than non-organic we found that our food expenses actually went down (due to not going to the store as much - basically it helped us cut down on impulse buying). And we have definitely noticed a difference in quality. The size of organic fruits and vegetables is smaller but the taste is much richer (and since I have a less developed palate that's definitely saying something).

I've also been following with disgust the efforts of the large agribusinesses to redefine what it means to be organic. If you don't want to compete by changing your practices I guess you just lobby to modify the rules. It's the Tom DeLay way of doing business.

---------------------
Next up: Early "Nutcrusher" Jubal and the Firebuggers

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 7, 2005 12:41 PM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.


Quote:

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
If you don't want to compete by changing your practices I guess you just lobby to modify the rules. It's the Tom DeLay way of doing business.

---------------------
Next up: Early "Nutcrusher" Jubal and the Firebuggers



LOL. You left out Bill Frisch (pardon any misspelling), no more fillibusters.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 14:12 - 3411 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:18 - 2071 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:16 - 6 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL