argexpat
Active member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2004
- Messages
- 460
- Reaction score
- 8
- Location
- I was there, now I'm here
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
HighSpeed said:Nothin against the rich, but only the rich will benefit from this. The middle class is screwed on this. The average high school drop out, people making min wage, or uneducated people will not invest their money on this plan.
GW is spending the surplus money, if he didnt spend it, there would be money there and SS will be ok.
argexpat said:Over the weekend, Bush was asked how his plan would ensure that Social Security won't run out of money down the road. Here is our illustrious, Harvard-MBA president's answer, taken verbatim from the White House website:
"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."
Maybe his earpiece was on the fritz that day.
anomaly said:Bush's SS plan is a joke. Everyone's probably heard me rant about it (It's in the economics forum if by chance you missed it), but there's something else. What really irks me is how he is flat out lying right now. Bush has said on numerous occasions that SS will go bankrupt in 2042. That's impossible! SS was designed so that it will never go bankrupt, but if nothing is done (or if Bush goes through with his plan) by 2042 you will get less out of the system than you put in.
The problem is you have no idea what you're talking about, and yet you write things anyway.HighSpeed said:The problem is, he's borrowing money from the surplus and not paying it back.
I guess I don't know what a "lephar" is. Man, hearing you telling a joke is like hearing a democrat talk about morality.MeChMAN said:Also Having Bush talk about econmics is like a lephar giving a facial.... It dosen't really work!
ConservativeShane said:The problem is you have no idea what you're talking about, and yet you write things anyway.
ConservativeShane said:I guess I don't know what a "lephar" is. Man, hearing you telling a joke is like hearing a democrat talk about morality.
ConservativeShane said:The problem is you have no idea what you're talking about, and yet you write things anyway.
HighSpeed said:What I think you are saying is that ignorance is much more expensive than education.Nothin against the rich, but only the rich will benefit from this. The middle class is screwed on this. The average high school drop out, people making min wage, or uneducated people will not invest their money on this plan.
Those who accept the education that the system forces upon them do well, economically.
Those who reject the education that the system forces upon them suffer, economically.
Those who become educated, through their tax contributions, get to support those who reject education.
Those who refuse to become educated then blame everyone else for their misfortune, don't they?
GW is spending the surplus money, if he didnt spend it, there would be money there and SS will be ok.
There is not, and never has been, any surplus social security money. Collections in excess of benefits paid? Yes. Surplus money? No.
Since the Democrats set up the social security system in the 1930s, all of the social security taxes collected have gone, along with all other tax revenues, into the general fund from which all government expenditures are paid.
When you're wearing a pair of pants having a single pocket, it doesn't make any difference. Everything goes into and comes out of the same place.
That's how the federal system works.
You're right, the site is about political debate. Therefore I feel the responsible thing to do if I see someone spewing half-truths is call them out on it.HighSpeed said:Since you have nothing helpful to say, why say it? If you don't agree with my opinions, don't agree with it. This forum is about political debate, not criticizing people like you do. I can turn around and say to you, what you just said to me. But I won't do that, I'm better of a person than that.
ConservativeShane said:You're right, the site is about political debate. Therefore I feel the responsible thing to do if I see someone spewing half-truths is call them out on it.
ConservativeShane said:The problem is you have no idea what you're talking about, and yet you write things anyway.
Fantasea said:There is not, and never has been, any surplus social security money. Collections in excess of benefits paid? Yes. Surplus money? No.
I repeat:Pacridge said:How are collections in excess of benefits paid not a surplus? That's how I've heard them referred to for years by members of both parties. Haven't I?
Fantasea said:I repeat:
There is not, and never has been, any surplus social security money. Collections in excess of benefits paid? Yes. Surplus money? No.
Since the Democrats set up the social security system in the 1930s, all of the social security taxes collected have gone, along with all other tax revenues, into the general fund from which all government expenditures are paid.
When you're wearing a pair of pants having a single pocket, it doesn't make any difference. Everything goes into and comes out of the same place.
That's how the federal system works.
To put it another way, think of a grocer who sells peaches, pears, and grapes. Some months he takes in more on the peaches, some months, its the pears, and some months, its the grapes.
All the money he takes in goes into his checking account.
When the rent is due each month the grocer writes a check to the landlord. Who can tell whether the landlord is getting peach, pear, or grape money? Neither the grocer, nor the landlord cares.
The whole ruckus started when Al Gore invented that imaginary 'lock box' as part of the Dems 'scare the seniors' campaign.
What he didn't realize was that those old codgers weren't as unsophisticated as he thought.
I read it.Pacridge said:[/indent]So, I'm sorry, Fantasea you're wrong that there is not and has not ever been any Social Security Surplus.
Fantasea said:I read it.
What the SS website says is that Uncle Sam takes the excess and lends it to Uncle Sam who pays interest to Uncle Sam and will, when needed, return the money to Uncle Sam.
If I erred, it was on the number of pockets in the pants. Instead of just one, perhaps there are two. But they're both on the same pair of pants worn by Uncle Sam. One contains the money and the other contains the IOUs he writes to himself.
This tells me, and anyone who looks through the smoke and mirrors, that any surplus is, and always was, mythical, at best.
This financial legerdemain is simply a series bookkeeping entries that amount to a wash. If Uncle Sam ever decides to cash in those Treasury Notes, he'll have to borrow the money to do so. Or else raise your taxes.
Ergo, excess contributions, yes. Surplus, no.
Just for the fun of it, try lending yourself some money and see how it works out. Whether you charge yourself interest is optional.
I don't have a degree in economics and neither do you. We could talk back and forth indefinitely and never agree with one another. I look at the numbers and see a plan that makes since, I assume you have looked at the numbers and have made your decision. We're a republic democracy for a reason. The best I can do is suggest you read this: Behind Social Security's Big Numbers by Andrew Grossman. Draw whatever conclusion you like from it, but at least read it.anomaly said:If you're so sure he's wrong, then why don't you come in here and explain Bush's 'plan' to me, because the more I look at it, the more I don't understand how anyone could support it.
ConservativeShane said:I don't have a degree in economics and neither do you. We could talk back and forth indefinitely and never agree with one another. I look at the numbers and see a plan that makes since, I assume you have looked at the numbers and have made your decision. We're a republic democracy for a reason. The best I can do is suggest you read this: Behind Social Security's Big Numbers by Andrew Grossman. Draw whatever conclusion you like from it, but at least read it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?