Bush "Explains" His Social Security Scam

[Pacridge]

Hoot, I am in total agreement with you. I also believe that if the borrowed funds from Social Security were put back into the system we would be in less of a compromised position. The Bush plan wants to eliminate the debt to the Social Security plan, which if it is done, this would assuredly jeopardize SS. As a so called "Baby Boomer" we have heard this "crisis" term from politicians for many years. Fear tactics work on the public and every politician understands that fact. It is the best way to get what they want and less of what the people want.

I believe there is a much better option and that is to tell the truth about how SS is used by the government whereby robbing Paul to pay Peter makes the system at a so called "crisis" moment now.

I think that's a great point. The funds that were "borrowed" now are often being referred to as "IOU's" and "Worthless slips of paper" by many trying to sell the Bush plan. I'd like to know exactly when United States Government Bonds became "Worthless slips of paper" Since I own some mutual funds that, in part, place some of their monies in federal bonds.

 

[Pacridge]

Hoot, excellent argument. Would you post some proof of the CBO?

This is the first post, that has me actually re-thinking Bush's SS plans. I have not personally thought about the 'growth' of gov't between now and then.

Here's a link to the Jan. '05 update from the CBO.

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6064&sequence=0

 

[Hoot]

Here's a link to the Jan. '05 update from the CBO.

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6064&sequence=0

Thanks, Pac...to be honest...I read an article at work by a pulitzer prize winning economist, and as I was supposed to be working, (Ha ha) I did not take notes, so my numbers in my last post were rough estimates based on my memory.

Suffice it to say, Bush's projections for GDP are much lower than what most experts predict.

A higher GDP means a greater and longer solvency of S.S.

Still...I think everyone agrees S.S. needs to be "tweaked."

We can "tweak" S.S. by raising taxes, raising the cap, lowering benefits, raising the retirement age, cutting spending in other areas, or any number or combination of other fixes.

Personally...I'd start by taking S.S. benefits away from the incredibly wealthy...regardless of how long they've paid into the system...it's ludicrous to give S.S. benefits to millionaires.

 

[Jaymo]

"This is the first post, that has me actually re-thinking Bush's SS plans."
You really want to see what it does to YOUR SS benefits?
<A HREF= http://democrats.senate.gov/ss/calc.html#> Calculate your loses under the Bush plan</a></p>
<p>Raise the contribution ceiling from 90 thou a year to 150 a year and the SS program will be solvent for at least 100 more years! o the math.

 

[anomaly]

Vauge, I think the real point is that, although SS does need to be reformed, Bush's plan is not the way to go about it. Spending 2 trillion dollars on a plan when we are already a few hundred trillion dollars in debt? And implementing this plan at the expense of the nation's education system (which has received various cuts in order to fund Bush's SS plan and his wars)? And trusting that the stock market will continue to grow over the next few decades? It's much too expensive and it's much too risky. Not to mention that Bush will have to raise taxes and/or lower benefits if he implements this plan.

 

[Squawker]

Spending 2 trillion dollars on a plan when we are already a few hundred trillion dollars in debt?

The actual figure is around 7 trillion which has accumulated since the late 80’s.

And implementing this plan at the expense of the nation's education system (which has received various cuts in order to fund Bush's SS plan and his wars)?

There have been no cuts to education.

And trusting that the stock market will continue to grow over the next few decades?

The money will be invested is something like mutual funds which have been a safe investment.

It's much too expensive and it's much too risky.

It’s too expensive to do nothing. No one has shown the estimates for the cost of living in 2050 yet.

 

[Fantasea]

Here's a link to the Jan. '05 update from the CBO.

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6064&sequence=0

My problem with estimates made by government entities is that they never, never, never, never, never come even close to reality when the 'due' date arrives. Have we ever seen a single social program, weapons system, aircraft, ship, or anything else that came in anywhere near the projected cost even when the projected time involved was just a few years? I am not aware of any.

What follows is the first paragraph of the CBO statement found on the above link.

The Congressional Budget Office most recently released long-term (100-year) Social Security projections in The Outlook for Social Security (June 2004). As a result of both economic and technical revisions, those projections have changed slightly. The attached tables and figures present the updated projections. The Outlook for Social Security presented ranges of uncertainty around the central projections; those estimates will also be updated and will be posted in the near future.

As far as the government repaying the 'IOUs' is concerned, this is nonsense. The social security tax is collected as wages are earned and is dumped, along with all of the other taxes collected, into the General Fund.

All of the government's obligations are paid from the General Fund. Among these obligations are the Social Secutiry payments made each month.

The fact that there is a budget deficit indicates that all of the tax money has been spent and that additional money had to be borrowed to meet obligations.

So, all of the Social Security taxes collected are paid out as soon as they are received. Over the years, Social Security taxes collected have exceeded Social Security benefits paid.

An 'excess', yes. A surplus, no. Since the inception of the Social Security System, Congress has always spent the 'excess' money as fast as it came in.

Yes, there are bookkeeping entries, in the form of notes,that keep track of the amount of the excess collections. However, since the government has no money of its own, if ever it was decided to redeem the 'notes', the money needed to do so would have to be raised. How does the government raise money? Either of two ways, borrow it or tax us.

Take your pick. Either way, it comes out of our pockets.

With respect to Private Retirement Accounts, this seems to be the only way to keep money out of the reach of Congress. Buried in conservative investments for thirty or forty years, the growth of these accounts should provide a better payoff than the does the current system.

 

[anomaly]

But even if these accounts somehow all accumulate, as you, Fant, speculate they will, how will you pay for the massive cost of privatization? Follow Bush's lead and cut education even more? Also, going back to these private accounts, if they're truly private, they become nothing more than a 401k, meaning that they don't neccesarily have to go towards retirement. People can take them out. Besides, when trillions of dollars go into these accounts, assuming there's no investment involved (it hasn't been mentioned by Bush's grand scheme yet), what kind of interest do you expect to collect on these accounts? This plan would hurt the very poor, though, as they would be pressured to take some money out to live on (as both my uncles have done with their 401k).

 

[Pacridge]

As far as the government repaying the 'IOUs' is concerned, this is nonsense.

Yeah, the US Government paying off on these US Government Bonds- that's just crazy talk.

 

[gordontravels]

But even if these accounts somehow all accumulate, as you, Fant, speculate they will, how will you pay for the massive cost of privatization? Follow Bush's lead and cut education even more? Also, going back to these private accounts, if they're truly private, they become nothing more than a 401k, meaning that they don't neccesarily have to go towards retirement. People can take them out. Besides, when trillions of dollars go into these accounts, assuming there's no investment involved (it hasn't been mentioned by Bush's grand scheme yet), what kind of interest do you expect to collect on these accounts? This plan would hurt the very poor, though, as they would be pressured to take some money out to live on (as both my uncles have done with their 401k).

I read this and laughed. You have little understanding of what is going on with the private accounts and surely haven't been listening to the news reports about what the Administration wants to do or how these accounts would work. I'll give you a few of the ideas put forward in answer to some of the misinformation you have here:

Do you realize what it will cost to fix Social Security in the first place? Can you see what a tax to raise trillions will do to job creation and the associated job loss? You are concerned about hurting the poor? Hey! I'm just asking. I have this premis - if you don't like privatization, what is your alternative? Fair question no? Haven't heard that education would be cut but maybe you have heard something I haven't.

I also haven't heard anything about the Private Accounts being anything like a 401K. They may be private but the money never leaves the SS system. You can't borrow against it, take it out or do anything with it except pay into it and receive your benefits when you retire. What is left when you die is then in your will to go to whom you want it to and it becomes part of their SS account. You know, if you don't like a program for maybe partisan reasons you should at least learn what it is before you down it. You state, "People can take them out!" Really? Please, cite where you found that one, I'd like to see.

Another point? You want to know - SS accounts are currently earning less than 1 1/2%. Now here's what and where you can find an answer to your own question. Get a copy of the Wall Street Journal or Investor's Business Daily on say Saturday or Monday and look up some of the larger mutual funds like Fidelity and Oppenheimer. You will find that these "low risk" funds in either stocks, bonds or mixed vehicles are making 4 or 5 times what the SS system is making on Treasuries. You don't know that do you?

And finally, since you think the poor would be hurt because they would be forced to take money out of SS which they can't do you are blowing smoke. You want to protect the poor? Don't let the politicians use SS to spend and let the poor workers reap the benefits of the market which they would be able to do with their withholding but not with their smaller paycheck. Don't think taxing the rich will do it either. The rich employ the poor and that is a fact. People with money create jobs and when you take more from them they eliminate jobs. That is a fact also. You want to protect the poor, right?

I await where you found out that a 401k will be the model for the private accounts. I say, "It doesn't exist!" You would do better to use facts to bolster your partisan view because that is what your view is; it surely isn't based on political facts or economic facts. And, just look at the title of this thread; how open minded can you get. Facts? Hey, why worry about facts? They might not do your partisan view much good. Of course, making up stuff is much easier, isn't it :duel ~~~

 

[Pacridge]

I read this and laughed. You have little understanding of what is going on with the private accounts and surely haven't been listening to the news reports about what the Administration wants to do or how these accounts would work. I'll give you a few of the ideas put forward in answer to some of the misinformation you have here:

Do you realize what it will cost to fix Social Security in the first place? Can you see what a tax to raise trillions will do to job creation and the associated job loss? You are concerned about hurting the poor? Hey! I'm just asking. I have this premis - if you don't like privatization, what is your alternative? Fair question no? Haven't heard that education would be cut but maybe you have heard something I haven't.

I also haven't heard anything about the Private Accounts being anything like a 401K. They may be private but the money never leaves the SS system. You can't borrow against it, take it out or do anything with it except pay into it and receive your benefits when you retire. What is left when you die is then in your will to go to whom you want it to and it becomes part of their SS account. You know, if you don't like a program for maybe partisan reasons you should at least learn what it is before you down it. You state, "People can take them out!" Really? Please, cite where you found that one, I'd like to see.

Another point? You want to know - SS accounts are currently earning less than 1 1/2%. Now here's what and where you can find an answer to your own question. Get a copy of the Wall Street Journal or Investor's Business Daily on say Saturday or Monday and look up some of the larger mutual funds like Fidelity and Oppenheimer. You will find that these "low risk" funds in either stocks, bonds or mixed vehicles are making 4 or 5 times what the SS system is making on Treasuries. You don't know that do you?

And finally, since you think the poor would be hurt because they would be forced to take money out of SS which they can't do you are blowing smoke. You want to protect the poor? Don't let the politicians use SS to spend and let the poor workers reap the benefits of the market which they would be able to do with their withholding but not with their smaller paycheck. Don't think taxing the rich will do it either. The rich employ the poor and that is a fact. People with money create jobs and when you take more from them they eliminate jobs. That is a fact also. You want to protect the poor, right?

I await where you found out that a 401k will be the model for the private accounts. I say, "It doesn't exist!" You would do better to use facts to bolster your partisan view because that is what your view is; it surely isn't based on political facts or economic facts. And, just look at the title of this thread; how open minded can you get. Facts? Hey, why worry about facts? They might not do your partisan view much good. Of course, making up stuff is much easier, isn't it :duel ~~~

Some of logic I agree with here, and with some of your facts I also agree. As for: "I also haven't heard anything about the Private Accounts being anything like a 401K. They may be private but the money never leaves the SS system" I thought the whole point of creating these accounts was to allow investment into the markets, instead of the Social Security system? Thus allowing the people the the chance to for the larger gains that the market typically returns. If what you're saying is correct and the accounts are going to be set up and "the money never leaves the SS system" how exactly are the gains going to be more?

And did you actually read "anomaly's" post? Here's what he said: "Also, going back to these private accounts, if they're truly private, they become nothing more than a 401k, meaning that they don't neccesarily have to go towards retirement" I think the key word you may have missed in his post was "if." He said if they're truly private that's how they would work. He never said they were going to be or even were proposed to be truly private. I believe he's making the point that the accounts being proposed will not be completely private. But that IF they did become completely private then they would be nothing more then the 401K's we currently have.

 

[Fantasea]

But even if these accounts somehow all accumulate, as you, Fant, speculate they will,

The naysayers have always looked on the negative side and struggled to find excuses for why new ideas will not work rather than finding ways to make new ideas work. However, if one looks at any ten year increment of the DJI since the end of WWII, one will see that the growth of investment grade securities has always outpaced the rate of inflation. Why should we believe that America's best days are behind it?

how will you pay for the massive cost of privatization? Follow Bush's lead and cut education even more?

Despite the efforts of the socialist-lib-dems to prevent it, the economy continues to improve. As it continues to improve, tax revenues will continue to rise. As tax revenues continue to rise, more money will be available to pay the costs of both. If the socialist-lib-dems would climb aboard and stop playing the role of the anchor, the economic ship of state would move along much faster.

Also, going back to these private accounts, if they're truly private, they become nothing more than a 401k, meaning that they don't neccesarily have to go towards retirement. People can take them out.

Responsible persons do the correct thing. Irresponsible persons suffer the consequences of their folly. It has been ever thus.

Should the responsible many be handicapped by the irresponsible few?

Since the current system will be still available to those who wish to continue with it, only those who opt for Private Retirement Accounts will have them.

Besides, when trillions of dollars go into these accounts, assuming there's no investment involved (it hasn't been mentioned by Bush's grand scheme yet), what kind of interest do you expect to collect on these accounts?

While, to date, no list of qualified investments has been published, the 'rumblings' seem to indicate a short list of conservative vehicles with minimal risk. Any return above the rate of inflation would be a decided plus as compared to the present system.

This plan would hurt the very poor, though, as they would be pressured to take some money out to live on (as both my uncles have done with their 401k).

This comment is not directed at your uncles, per se, but the only poor people I have ever come across, and I have come across many, fall into three categories:

1. Those who are incapacitated in some way and are dependent upon governmental entitlements or private charities. These persons would not be effected, one way, or the other other, by changes to the Social Security System.

2. Those who have decided that they do not wish to be part of the 'world, as we know it'. These persons would not be effected, one way, or the other other, by changes to the Social Security System.

3. Those with a Luddite complex who insist on clinging to the 'old ways' and will not adopt, adapt, and adjust to the technological changes in the workplace. They refer to themselves as the 'old dogs who won't learn new tricks'. Instead of joining in, they watch as the world passes them by and complain that life is unfair.

On second thought, perhaps your uncles would have been better advised to find ways to use their 401K money to improve their marketable skills, rather than to 'eat their seed money', as it were.

It's always easy to criticize something new. I prefer to find ways to make old things better.

Progress cannot be stopped. It trampled the Luddite's of yesterday. It tramples the Luddite's of today. It will trample the Luddite's of tomorrow.

 

[Fantasea]

Yeah, the US Government paying off on these US Government Bonds- that's just crazy talk.

I trust that you are familiar with the concept: "out of context".

 

[gordontravels]

Some of logic I agree with here, and with some of your facts I also agree. As for: "I also haven't heard anything about the Private Accounts being anything like a 401K. They may be private but the money never leaves the SS system" I thought the whole point of creating these accounts was to allow investment into the markets, instead of the Social Security system? Thus allowing the people the the chance to for the larger gains that the market typically returns. If what you're saying is correct and the accounts are going to be set up and "the money never leaves the SS system" how exactly are the gains going to be more?

And did you actually read "anomaly's" post? Here's what he said: "Also, going back to these private accounts, if they're truly private, they become nothing more than a 401k, meaning that they don't neccesarily have to go towards retirement" I think the key word you may have missed in his post was "if." He said if they're truly private that's how they would work. He never said they were going to be or even were proposed to be truly private. I believe he's making the point that the accounts being proposed will not be completely private. But that IF they did become completely private then they would be nothing more then the 401K's we currently have.

Wrong and Wrong ! (he pops his knuckels and charges the keyboard) The money is collected by the Social Security System and then goes to the designated account. It is just like a financial advisor account. Social Security continues to take the money from the paycheck and the money is deposited into the private account but the individual cannot take money from the account. It is part of the Social Security payout at retirement and cannot be borrowed against nor cashed in. The worker can move his investments between vehicles on an approved list and those approved investment vehicles will be low risk. Portfolios can then be weighted between stocks and bonds depending upon the workers age so that the older worker will have more principle protection as he nears retirement.

As for Anomly and his "if" - these accounts are "owned" by the retiree. My father died 1 year after he retired. My mother got $289. If he would have owned his retirement account, the money would have been willed to my mother and then she would have collected the extra payment from that account. When she died, her account would go to who she willed. This is into perpetuity and passes from heir to heir. You don't own the ground the Congress sits on but it belongs to you and the work inside is yours and the most often self-serving politicians are doing your work or; the work of the people.

I know I run amok sometimes but, I like it better than what I used to do. However, a 401k and a Private Retirement Account through Social Security is one, and I do say, one of the legs that will have to be considered if the table we eat off of is to stand. I know about the projected 2 trillion to fund the program but, if we wait and listen to the detractors who say there is no crisis, the crisis will only grow. I think Democrats and Republicans and Bernie should all get together and do something to stop the increasing problem. Greenspan thinks something should be done and he is the man that has worked for Democrats and Republicans. Now it is time for Repulicans and Democrats to work for us which means to work together. Makes me proud to be Non-Partisan :duel ~~~

 

[Pacridge]

I trust that you are familiar with the concept: "out of context".

You said: "As far as the government repaying the 'IOUs' is concerned, this is nonsense"

I replied: "Yeah, the US Government paying off on these US Government Bonds- that's just crazy talk."

Exactly what am I taking out of context?

 

[anomaly]

The naysayers have always looked on the negative side and struggled to find excuses for why new ideas will not work rather than finding ways to make new ideas work. However, if one looks at any ten year increment of the DJI since the end of WWII, one will see that the growth of investment grade securities has always outpaced the rate of inflation. Why should we believe that America's best days are behind it?

What faith in the 'free market'! You know it will continue to rise? And Bush has already said the gov't will not invest money. This will be left up to people. And you assume that people all make financially sound decisions? And what of the ones who, for whatever reasons, fail in the market? Poverty for them, then right? You are far too overconfident in your market, Fant.

Despite the efforts of the socialist-lib-dems to prevent it, the economy continues to improve. As it continues to improve, tax revenues will continue to rise. As tax revenues continue to rise, more money will be available to pay the costs of both. If the socialist-lib-dems would climb aboard and stop playing the role of the anchor, the economic ship of state would move along much faster.

The GNP continues to get higher, but we still have a 300 trillion dollar debt. And Bush's budget doesn't help this at all. He cuts too many programs, some of which work, he's cutting education again, and yet all of this cutting is balanced by his spending on war and on this new plan to 'reform' SS. Has it ever occured to you that those that do stay in the SS program (assuming Bush's plan passes the Senate, which it won't) who are now 40-55 yrs old will see their benfits lowered? Has it ever occured to you that everyon'es SS tax will increase? Bush is a new kind of conservative. Yes, he cuts, but then he spends just as much. Essentially, he does nothing to help the debt, in fact, the debt may rise.

Responsible persons do the correct thing. Irresponsible persons suffer the consequences of their folly. It has been ever thus.

Should the responsible many be handicapped by the irresponsible few?

Since the current system will be still available to those who wish to continue with it, only those who opt for Private Retirement Accounts will have them.

The system will be available only with some ill reforms (see above). And if SS is fully privatised, for which this plan sets the course, then the poor would be hurt, as they will certainly need to take out money on which to live. It's just like today's 401k if it is fully privatised.

While, to date, no list of qualified investments has been published, the 'rumblings' seem to indicate a short list of conservative vehicles with minimal risk. Any return above the rate of inflation would be a decided plus as compared to the present system.

This is the current market. It may very well slow, or suffer a loss. It can only go up so much before a depression is seen. And with trillions of dollars being invested, who knows the effect it will have.

This comment is not directed at your uncles, per se, but the only poor people I have ever come across, and I have come across many, fall into three categories:

1. Those who are incapacitated in some way and are dependent upon governmental entitlements or private charities. These persons would not be effected, one way, or the other other, by changes to the Social Security System.

2. Those who have decided that they do not wish to be part of the 'world, as we know it'. These persons would not be effected, one way, or the other other, by changes to the Social Security System.

3. Those with a Luddite complex who insist on clinging to the 'old ways' and will not adopt, adapt, and adjust to the technological changes in the workplace. They refer to themselves as the 'old dogs who won't learn new tricks'. Instead of joining in, they watch as the world passes them by and complain that life is unfair.

On second thought, perhaps your uncles would have been better advised to find ways to use their 401K money to improve their marketable skills, rather than to 'eat their seed money', as it were.

It's always easy to criticize something new. I prefer to find ways to make old things better.

Progress cannot be stopped. It trampled the Luddite's of yesterday. It tramples the Luddite's of today. It will trample the Luddite's of tomorrow.

The problem, of course, is that this system would not make things better. Mino reform to the SS system are needed, and they would effectively solve the crisis. Notice that Bush has to lie repeatedly to try to get support for his plan: 'SS will be bankrupt by 2042'----a complete and utter lie.

 

[Jaymo]

As I stated the first time I posted on this site: When the enrons of the world abscond with your investment funds we as a society will still have to take care of you! SS is an insurance policy NOT a retirement program! Wake up fools and smell the coffee, we have much bigger fish to fry like medical inflation than trying to KILL a system that has worked and has been the most successful social program on the face of this earth!

 

[Pacridge]

As I stated the first time I posted on this site: When the enrons of the world abscond with your investment funds we as a society will still have to take care of you! SS is an insurance policy NOT a retirement program! Wake up fools and smell the coffee, we have much bigger fish to fry like medical inflation than trying to KILL a system that has worked and has been the most successful social program on the face of this earth!

According the US government the Social Security is both an insurance and a retirement system. It's a retirement program for those who draw on it at retirement age and it's an insurance program for those who are disabled.

 

[Pacridge]

The GNP continues to get higher, but we still have a 300 trillion dollar debt.

Notice that Bush has to lie repeatedly to try to get support for his plan: 'SS will be bankrupt by 2042'----a complete and utter lie.

Where are you getting this 300 trillion dollar number from? I show the debt at around 7.8 trillion.

And yes, when Bush says it's going to be bankrupt, he's lying. Though lately I think he's stepped off that comment as so many have pointed out it's a lie. BTW- Right wing pundits who claim the "Democrats don't even think there's anything wrong with Social Security" are also lying.

 

[gordontravels]

What faith in the 'free market'! You know it will continue to rise? And Bush has already said the gov't will not invest money. This will be left up to people. And you assume that people all make financially sound decisions? And what of the ones who, for whatever reasons, fail in the market? Poverty for them, then right? You are far too overconfident in your market, Fant.

The GNP continues to get higher, but we still have a 300 trillion dollar debt. And Bush's budget doesn't help this at all. He cuts too many programs, some of which work, he's cutting education again, and yet all of this cutting is balanced by his spending on war and on this new plan to 'reform' SS. Has it ever occured to you that those that do stay in the SS program (assuming Bush's plan passes the Senate, which it won't) who are now 40-55 yrs old will see their benfits lowered? Has it ever occured to you that everyon'es SS tax will increase? Bush is a new kind of conservative. Yes, he cuts, but then he spends just as much. Essentially, he does nothing to help the debt, in fact, the debt may rise.

The system will be available only with some ill reforms (see above). And if SS is fully privatised, for which this plan sets the course, then the poor would be hurt, as they will certainly need to take out money on which to live. It's just like today's 401k if it is fully privatised.

This is the current market. It may very well slow, or suffer a loss. It can only go up so much before a depression is seen. And with trillions of dollars being invested, who knows the effect it will have.

The problem, of course, is that this system would not make things better. Mino reform to the SS system are needed, and they would effectively solve the crisis. Notice that Bush has to lie repeatedly to try to get support for his plan: 'SS will be bankrupt by 2042'----a complete and utter lie.

If I just start with your "300 Trillion National Debt" it really sets the tone for the rest of your post. Knee Jerk comes to mind. Partisan Liberal Democrat comes to mind. Definitely not informed comes to mind. Heck, how about hysterical. Just numbering off your paragraphs:

1. Your knowledge of the U.S. Market awaits for you to educate yourself. The investments that the holders of private accounts will have to choose from come from a list that will provide only low risk investments. If you would study the market and the world market you would see where the confidence in low risk investments comes from but, it is so evident you don't do that (300 Trillion National Debt? Really!). With conservative investment choices, the market is currently earning 6 times what Social Security is. Tell me, if that huge poverty creating downturn occurs in the market, what do you think that will do to Social Security itself if it is left the way it is. No, please, don't answer. You would be guessing anyway.

2. What's wrong with cutting education. The NEA has gotten the Democrats to push through spending that doesn't benefit the student in any way. Much of the spending is simply so those such as the NEA will flourish. I say cut where it will do the most good and force the remaining money to go where it will do the most good. By the time the Social Security program gets to the Senate it will be in its final stages of bi-partisan form. You think the President just sends a program to the Senate and they vote on it? Bills are written by Senators and Congressmen and go through Committee and votes and debate. Get real. And again, no matter what the President proposes in spending, it is the Senate and House that write the bills and spend the money. Why not learn how it works?

3. Your insistence that workers will be able to take money out of the private Social Security account just continues to show how little you know. You also fail to understand "balance" when investing which has to do directly with an investor's age. You are hopeless. Not in the sense of the future but in your own knowledge of what you argue. So hopeless. Must feel terrible. Private Account means it is owned by the worker and then his heirs with rules set by the Social Security system. It is a savings account of which the government holds the passbook. There are rules. Nevermind, you aren't reading this anyway.

4. Market averages and performance escape you even when they have been pointed out here over and over and you can go to sites on the web to confirm what has been pointed out to you over and over. So you see a depression coming? Just what will cause that? What signs do you see that a depression will hit the United States and, therefore, the entire world? Where do you get this information, 1929? Truly, market averages and performance not only escape you but, you don't pursue the very information that would disprove your, dare I say it? THEORY?

5. You cite lies from President Bush? Without major changes, not minor, to Social Security in the next 30 years, it will be, not go, bankrupt. As soon as the system starts paying out more than it takes in it will be bankrupt in reality if not in court. Any individual that would be in that position would see all savings gone and would have to borrow to pay and then pay what they borrow and bankruptcy would be the only way out unless a windfall occured. So it is no lie that the system will go bankrupt whether bankruptcy is declared or not. Of course the government could raise taxes on us. That would be a windfall; at least for the government.

The media and opposing politicians used to refer to the "Bush Doctrine" when refering to the Middle East. Now that Lebanon has kicked their Syrian government out and is heading toward true democracy such as has been started in Iraq and; electionshave been held in Saudi Arabia and; Hosni Mubarak is calling for more democracy in his Egypt and; a weak government is tottering in Syria and; the Mullahs in Iran are under more pressure from their own people for true democracy and the world community for nuclear weapons - you don't hear the term "Bush Doctrine" hardly at all any more. Reality is setting in. Even the French are back working with our President. Many things this President stands for are the right thing to do just as other Presidents have had their stand in the past. President Bush wanting to work with Democrats and Republicans in Congress to begin to fix the Social Security system is another example. My impression of your knowledge of the situation tells me you don't like President Bush and that, along with your lack of knowledge, colors your position :duel ~~~

 

[anomaly]

If I just start with your "300 Trillion National Debt" it really sets the tone for the rest of your post. Knee Jerk comes to mind. Partisan Liberal Democrat comes to mind. Definitely not informed comes to mind. Heck, how about hysterical. Just numbering off your paragraphs:

1. Your knowledge of the U.S. Market awaits for you to educate yourself. The investments that the holders of private accounts will have to choose from come from a list that will provide only low risk investments. If you would study the market and the world market you would see where the confidence in low risk investments comes from but, it is so evident you don't do that (300 Trillion National Debt? Really!). With conservative investment choices, the market is currently earning 6 times what Social Security is. Tell me, if that huge poverty creating downturn occurs in the market, what do you think that will do to Social Security itself if it is left the way it is. No, please, don't answer. You would be guessing anyway.

2. What's wrong with cutting education. The NEA has gotten the Democrats to push through spending that doesn't benefit the student in any way. Much of the spending is simply so those such as the NEA will flourish. I say cut where it will do the most good and force the remaining money to go where it will do the most good. By the time the Social Security program gets to the Senate it will be in its final stages of bi-partisan form. You think the President just sends a program to the Senate and they vote on it? Bills are written by Senators and Congressmen and go through Committee and votes and debate. Get real. And again, no matter what the President proposes in spending, it is the Senate and House that write the bills and spend the money. Why not learn how it works?

3. Your insistence that workers will be able to take money out of the private Social Security account just continues to show how little you know. You also fail to understand "balance" when investing which has to do directly with an investor's age. You are hopeless. Not in the sense of the future but in your own knowledge of what you argue. So hopeless. Must feel terrible. Private Account means it is owned by the worker and then his heirs with rules set by the Social Security system. It is a savings account of which the government holds the passbook. There are rules. Nevermind, you aren't reading this anyway.

4. Market averages and performance escape you even when they have been pointed out here over and over and you can go to sites on the web to confirm what has been pointed out to you over and over. So you see a depression coming? Just what will cause that? What signs do you see that a depression will hit the United States and, therefore, the entire world? Where do you get this information, 1929? Truly, market averages and performance not only escape you but, you don't pursue the very information that would disprove your, dare I say it? THEORY?

5. You cite lies from President Bush? Without major changes, not minor, to Social Security in the next 30 years, it will be, not go, bankrupt. As soon as the system starts paying out more than it takes in it will be bankrupt in reality if not in court. Any individual that would be in that position would see all savings gone and would have to borrow to pay and then pay what they borrow and bankruptcy would be the only way out unless a windfall occured. So it is no lie that the system will go bankrupt whether bankruptcy is declared or not. Of course the government could raise taxes on us. That would be a windfall; at least for the government.

The media and opposing politicians used to refer to the "Bush Doctrine" when refering to the Middle East. Now that Lebanon has kicked their Syrian government out and is heading toward true democracy such as has been started in Iraq and; electionshave been held in Saudi Arabia and; Hosni Mubarak is calling for more democracy in his Egypt and; a weak government is tottering in Syria and; the Mullahs in Iran are under more pressure from their own people for true democracy and the world community for nuclear weapons - you don't hear the term "Bush Doctrine" hardly at all any more. Reality is setting in. Even the French are back working with our President. Many things this President stands for are the right thing to do just as other Presidents have had their stand in the past. President Bush wanting to work with Democrats and Republicans in Congress to begin to fix the Social Security system is another example. My impression of your knowledge of the situation tells me you don't like President Bush and that, along with your lack of knowledge, colors your position :duel ~~~

I looked up the numbers, and actually the US total debt is 34 trillion (this is public, private and foreign debt) see link: http://www.miprox.de/Wirtschaft_allgemein/US-Schulden_The_big_Picture_fuer_2002.htm . To my rebutle:

1. Even if conservative investments are made (well, first, I should point out that Bush has stated that the gov't will not be investing money for you, so thatis your choice) your return on your investment depends heavily on if the market is up or down (I'm no retiree, but this site could be helpful: aarp.com ). So your estimate of '6 times what SS is earning' is really quite speculative. But really, why revamp a system that has worked quite well for decades now? Privatisation will inevitably lead to elderly poverty (see the article undr the economics forum in the thread 'SS and HC').

2. Here's what's wrong with cutting education: In my home state of Indiana, schools have received less funding each year for the past 4 years (coincidence?). Some poorer ones have had to drop art and music programs. But hey, who needs those anyway, right? Also, in Bush's proposed budget, Amtrak receives absolutely no funding. This means that people reliant on the system to get to work (as many are in Chicage, Philly, Boston) may, since they have no other way to get to work, lose their jobs. And, no, I don't know exactly how our gov't works, but the important thing is that his proposed 'plans' of SS and the budget probably will be altered (or, in the case of SS, most likely changed completely). For this I am quite thankful.

3. Well see, that is speculation. Bush hasn't really given any details about what the 'private accounts' will look like or how they will look. This is why the most important thing the President must do is supply the public with more information.

4. Actually, economic depressions in capitalism are inevitable. And it is true that the market can only climb so high before it falls. The depression of '29 was caused by laissez-faire policies. These policies created great success for businesses, but the worker suffered. As the worker suffered he could buy less and less, and so this great productivity in business turned into great surpluses. Earlier productivity was high, and so stocks were far overpriced from mad speculation. When the prices were put back down to their actual value, people began to sell, sell, sell. What evidence do we have that another depression is coming? Well, once again, laissez-faire economic policies have become popular, creating great productivity for businesses (this, of course, comes from mostly non-American labor now with globalization). While businesses are happy, it is the workers that suffer, as inequality has now reached a point not seen since the 1920s.

5. Hahaha. Your hopeless (and quite arrogant). The sytem cannot go bankrupt. It was made in such a way as to never go bankrupt. It's pay as you go, so as long as people are paying into the system, it will not go bankrupt. What will happen is, in 2042, SS will pay out less in benefits than people paid into the system. So this means that you will receive 73% of the money you paid into SS thru taxes when you retire (or receive SS in another way). It simply can't go bankrupt. I also find it humorous how you mention 'raising taxes'. Well, how do you think Bush is going to pay the 2 trillion dollar cost of his plan? How will he fund the SS for people who decide not to put money into private accounts? He will have to lower benefits and/or raise taxes. Perhas the best way to solve this crisis is to raise taxes or lower benefits for rich Americans. The ceiling could be raised to 200K, and, if benefits weren't increased, this would solve the crisis. Minor changes can solve this problem. The point is privatisation isn't neccesary, and, in fact, it's far too expensive.

6. What has Bush done 'right'? The illegal and unneccesary invasion of Iraq? The lowering of taxes for rich Americans? Further deregualtion and privatisation that will only hurt American and foreign workers for US companies? I don't see it.

 

[anomaly]

I can no longer edit, but I would like to apologize for my huge error in the deficit. I believe the reader will see no such gross errors this time.

 

[Jaymo]

The Neo- CON death Squads are out to kill all social programs of the new deal. They cannot stand the middle class and will do what ever it takes to reduce this Country to just the mega rich and the super poor. Remember they are very moral though! LOL

 

[Fantasea]

Initially, there were sixteen persons paying into Social Security for each one drawing benefits. Today, there are about four. By 2040 the estimate is that there will be only two persons paying in for each one drawing benefits.

Couple that with the fact that, initially, average life expectancy was about sixty-four, but is now about seventy-five and rising, and it becomes apparent to anyone who can reason, that absent a major overhaul, the system is headed for disaster.

The Bush plan to offer Private Retirement Accounts to persons who want them, while permitting those who do not want them to remain with the current system makes sense, especially these days when 'Choice' is so popular.

Does anyone have an alternative to propose? I haven't heard of any?

 

[Jaymo]

Initially, there were sixteen persons paying into Social Security for each one drawing benefits. Today, there are about four. By 2040 the estimate is that there will be only two persons paying in for each one drawing benefits.

Couple that with the fact that, initially, average life expectancy was about sixty-four, but is now about seventy-five and rising, and it becomes apparent to anyone who can reason, that absent a major overhaul, the system is headed for disaster.

The Bush plan to offer Private Retirement Accounts to persons who want them, while permitting those who do not want them to remain with the current system makes sense, especially these days when 'Choice' is so popular.

Does anyone have an alternative to propose? I haven't heard of any?

The Bush plan does NOTHING to make SS solvent period! In fact I don't know why we are even discussing a PLAN that does not even exist. The only thing you here is that SS needs to be fixed, yet Bush who by the way is the one who called SS a crisis situation has been silent on how to fix it.

The way to fix SS permanently is to 1.Raise the cap from $90,000.00 to what ever one makes per year and 2. Make it a crime punishable by impeachment to any politician to borrow, raid or steal the funds.