Cons: Speak! (1 Viewer)

[anomaly]

This is just a friendly request to any conservative. Please oh Please come in here and defend your position on Social Security!! I've looked at the situation and I haven't the slightest idea how anyone could support Bush's plan.

 

[Gabo]

Here is my simple view on it.

Ok, right now we have pay as you go.
-It relies on the ever-changing worker to retiree ratio
-It will continue to decline in service as the average lifespan increases
-Benefits are discriminitive against those with lower lifespans
-Any surplus in the system is automatically taken and given to the federal budget

A completely privatized system (not what Bush wants, I'm saying COMPLETELY privatized) works much differently.
-Everyone is in charge of their own retirement like they should be
-The money you put into retirement actually INCREASES as time goes by
-Even very safe accounts give an increase in funds, no matter how small
-You have some extra funds should a crisis or other pressing issue arise
-It's easy to plan out exactly how much money you'll be able to get, how long you can get it, and you are confident that it won't disappear



The simplest thing to think of is when you create a savings account. If you take the money out as soon as you invest, you get no interest accumulation. The longer you leave it in for, the more interest you receive.

Seems completely logical to me.

 

[Pacridge]

Here is my simple view on it.

Ok, right now we have pay as you go.
-It relies on the ever-changing worker to retiree ratio
-It will continue to decline in service as the average lifespan increases
-Benefits are discriminitive against those with lower lifespans
-Any surplus in the system is automatically taken and given to the federal budget

A completely privatized system (not what Bush wants, I'm saying COMPLETELY privatized) works much differently.
-Everyone is in charge of their own retirement like they should be
-The money you put into retirement actually INCREASES as time goes by
-Even very safe accounts give an increase in funds, no matter how small
-You have some extra funds should a crisis or other pressing issue arise
-It's easy to plan out exactly how much money you'll be able to get, how long you can get it, and you are confident that it won't disappear



The simplest thing to think of is when you create a savings account. If you take the money out as soon as you invest, you get no interest accumulation. The longer you leave it in for, the more interest you receive.

Seems completely logical to me.

Most of what you're talking about here we already have they're called such names as 401K's 301b's and some other numbers that I just can't remember at the moument.

Plus- "Any surplus in the system is automatically taken and given to the federal budget?" I don't think that's how the system is set up to work, though I did know the Feds have borrowed from the system several times. Replacing that money would be a good start to getting the system back on track.

 

[anomaly]

Good distinction though, Gabo. What I want to hear is a conservative defend BUSH'S plan, not come in here and talk about a different plan. Honestly I haven't seen any conservative (except a politician) talk favorably about Bush's plan, nor have I personally seen anything favorable in it.

 

[Gabo]

Most of what you're talking about here we already have they're called such names as 401K's 301b's and some other numbers that I just can't remember at the moument.

And they work wonders for those that invest in them!

Why not allow people to invest for their retirement likewise?

I already know plenty of people that invest like that because they can't be sure if the SS system will have anything for them when they retire. It's smart planning and a savings system that works!

 

[anomaly]

Actually, the government advises us to do more than just rely on SS for our retirement. We are urged to invest in 401k's and to save money in accounts. SS is just part of it. But we can't let SS be destroyed (as Bush will do) because unfortunately many of the poor rely on SS for retirement. But if you do want the elderly to live in poverty, Bush's plan is for you.

 

[Schweddy]

Actually, the government advises us to do more than just rely on SS for our retirement. We are urged to invest in 401k's and to save money in accounts. SS is just part of it. But we can't let SS be destroyed (as Bush will do) because unfortunately many of the poor rely on SS for retirement. But if you do want the elderly to live in poverty, Bush's plan is for you.

What about the poor?

I honestly do not understand what you have against Bush's SS plan. It is a VOLUNTEER plan if you want to invest a PORTION (up to 4% of the current 6.3%) of what you put in. Plus, under the new plan the portion that you invest the government can never touch. Quite different than the current scheme. The government borrows from SS all the time.

Face it - you don't like it BECAUSE it is the Presidents plan. Nothing else.

 

[Pacridge]

What about the poor?

I honestly do not understand what you have against Bush's SS plan. It is a VOLUNTEER plan if you want to invest a PORTION (up to 4% of the current 6.3%) of what you put in. Plus, under the new plan the portion that you invest the government can never touch. Quite different than the current scheme. The government borrows from SS all the time.

Face it - you don't like it BECAUSE it is the Presidents plan. Nothing else.

I try very hard to give Mr. Bush credit when he's got it comming and I make an honest attempt not to dismiss his proposals simply because they're his proposals. Granted I don't care much for his policies, so maybe there is some truth to what you're saying. But I've tried to look at this Social Security issue as open minded as possible and I can't for the life of me understand how anyone could be for it.

So, you might be right. Maybe all of us find problems with the plan because we just don't like the man that proposed the plan. And given the fact that I have every reason to believe he's going to be able to get it passed, I'd really like to find some good in it. Here's the two points that find the most troubling, maybe you can tell me why I shouldn't be concerned about them:

1. According to Bush's plan it going to cost a lot of money to began letting people to begin voluntarily placing some of their current Social Security withholding into private accounts. Even according to Bush this is going to massively add to the deficit.

2. According to Bush's press sec., Scott McCellan, the private accounts don't address the systems up and coming short falls. Even if we do allow the accounts, they don't address or solve the problems.

So since I'm pretty sure this is going to happen. Do me a favor and tell me why I should like this plan.

 

[Gabo]

Plus, under the new plan the portion that you invest the government can never touch.

Sorry, but that is a total lie.


The government will be able to touch it however they wish. They will be in charge of where and how much you can invest, as well as how much you take out when you retire.

Also, if you have any money left when you pass, the government takes some of it.

 

[Schweddy]

In case one gets the urge - take a gander at the 4 proposals:
http://www.ssab.gov/NEW/Publications/Financing/actionshouldbetaken.pdf


Some Q&A taken from the SS website:
http://www.ssa.gov/qa.htm

I'm 35 years old. If nothing is done to improve Social Security, what can I expect to receive in retirement benefits from the program?​

Unless changes are made, at age 73 your scheduled benefits could be reduced by 27 percent and could continue to be reduced every year thereafter from presently scheduled levels. See the Trustees Report​

Sorry, but I want EVERY penny I have contributed. SS is under no obligation to pay - at all.

What will happen if Social Security is not changed?​

If Social Security is not changed, payroll taxes will have to be increased, the benefits of today's younger workers will have to be cut, or massive transfers from general revenues will be required. Social Security's Chief Actuary states, "If benefits were reduced to meet the shortfall in revenue for the combined program, the reduction would need to be 27 percent starting with the exhaustion of the Trust Fund in 2042 and would rise to 32 percent for 2078. Alternatively, if additional revenue were provided beginning in 2042, revenue equivalent to a payroll tax rate increase of about 3.1 percentage points (from 12.4 percent under current law to about 15.5 percent) would be needed for the year. The additional revenue needed for 2043 would be equivalent to a payroll tax rate increase of about 4.5 percentage points for the year. Thereafter, the amount of additional revenue needed would gradually rise, reaching an amount equivalent to an increase in the payroll tax rate of about 5.9 percentage points for 2078 (or about 50 percent higher than today's rate). See the Trustees Report​

But there is nothing wrong with SS right?

Sorry, but that is a total lie.

Quote from Prez in State of Union address:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/02/20050202-11.html

"Here's why the personal accounts are a better deal. Your money will grow, over time, at a greater rate than anything the current system can deliver -- and your account will provide money for retirement over and above the check you will receive from Social Security. In addition, you'll be able to pass along the money that accumulates in your personal account, if you wish, to your children and -- or grandchildren. And best of all, the money in the account is yours, and the government can never take it away."

 

[Gabo]

While SOME of the money can be passed on to future generations, in actuality that amount is limited and the rest is given to the government...

 

[Schweddy]

:spin:

Very nice. You cannot pass on to future generations now. If you die early your kids/spouse does indeed get a check, but you cannot dictate whom it goes to.

In the setup that has been advised, the bulk of the money will continue to go to wherever it did before. The rest is your choice. Um... can one say 401k? Very similar.

Libs scream - "Don't treat us like dummies", then when an option comes along to actually be able to think for yourself "OMG, don't make us think!! We are not smart enough." The additional funds that it will take to change to the new system will mostly be admistrative fees (ahem like 401k) and education on the new system. 401k is very successful, why can't the government do something similar? There will be insurance for sudden losses and strict controls for which fund to place in.

Did you read the line where it says "VOLUNTEER" - guess that keeps getting washed over due to partisanship.

 

[shuamort]

Here's my problem with the whole Social Security thing. Bush's proposal is no more fiscally conservative than Clinton was fiscally liberal. To be an honest fiscal conservative, he should be proposing the future abolition of Social Security. In my opinion, everyone currently in the system will get their pay-outs that they've paid in, retirees et al will be kept on the plan until their demise.

In a true fiscally conservative US, we would be allowed to save our own money for retirement and not have the government necessitate its involvement in our personal fiduciary affairs. These pecuniary intrusions are leading to a society that doesn't believe in personal responsibility.

I can defend Bush's plan as a step towards this kind of US and I applaud the efforts.

 

[globalvision]

shuamort do you honestly believe in the abolition of social security, being a libertarian i assume you do. do we owe nothing to those that are unemployed and have no retirement funds. can we honestly standby and watch people starve to death. i believe in personal responsibility but surely we must have a standard whereby no one lives in poverty. unless you have been studying nozick im which case social justice simply does not exist.

 

[Pacridge]

I'm 35 years old. If nothing is done to improve Social Security, what can I expect to receive in retirement benefits from the program?
Unless changes are made, at age 73 your scheduled benefits could be reduced by 27 percent and could continue to be reduced every year thereafter from presently scheduled levels.​

What will happen if Social Security is not changed?
If Social Security is not changed, payroll taxes will have to be increased, the benefits of today's younger workers will have to be cut, or massive transfers from general revenues will be required. Social Security's Chief Actuary states, "If benefits were reduced to meet the shortfall in revenue for the combined program, the reduction would need to be 27 percent starting with the exhaustion of the Trust Fund in 2042 and would rise to 32 percent for 2078. Alternatively, if additional revenue were provided beginning in 2042, revenue equivalent to a payroll tax rate increase of about 3.1 percentage points (from 12.4 percent under current law to about 15.5 percent) would be needed for the year. The additional revenue needed for 2043 would be equivalent to a payroll tax rate increase of about 4.5 percentage points for the year. Thereafter, the amount of additional revenue needed would gradually rise, reaching an amount equivalent to an increase in the payroll tax rate of about 5.9 percentage points for 2078 (or about 50 percent higher than today's rate).
​

But there is nothing wrong with SS right?



"Here's why the personal accounts are a better deal. Your money will grow, over time, at a greater rate than anything the current system can deliver -- and your account will provide money for retirement over and above the check you will receive from Social Security. In addition, you'll be able to pass along the money that accumulates in your personal account, if you wish, to your children and -- or grandchildren. And best of all, the money in the account is yours, and the government can never take it away."

Fist let me say it's nice to see a valid and honest attempt at a response from someone defending the Bush plan. Most of the responses I've seen simply make snide comments about other posters argument without presenting any information or facts to rebut them. So thank-you.

And I agree that the comment concerning that assertion that government will be able to touch your private account is a complete lie and is not at all what Bush said. I actually agree with something you said in an earlier post- that to some no matter what Bush says, it's wrong. And then they twist it and turn it so it is wrong. I'm not sure how doing that makes anything better.

Now I've seen and read most of the numbers you're cite here. I still can't understand how removing funds from a system that has a short fall of funds solves that problem. I find it interesting that the table the Social Security site supplies shows that even by 2080 there will be " 40 Beneficiaries
per 100 covered workers." So even then will have far more people paying in then taking out.

Now in your response you state: "But there is nothing wrong with SS right?" To my knowledge no one is or has said that. What I've heard, and I've been hearing this for several years, is the system is headed for trouble if we don't make adjustment. I've been listening to this debate national and I'm hearing more and more people on the right make that assertion, that the people on the left claim there nothing wrong with Social Security. That's pure spin and nobody's saying that. Everyone agrees the system is headed for short falls.

You also state:

"Here's why the personal accounts are a better deal. Your money will grow, over time, at a greater rate than anything the current system can deliver -- and your account will provide money for retirement over and above the check you will receive from Social Security. In addition, you'll be able to pass along the money that accumulates in your personal account, if you wish, to your children and -- or grandchildren."

​

First you might be 100% correct here. Then again you might not. Really no one can say for sure what's going to happen to the market. But I think the odds are in your favor and in your favor by far. If you look at the market for any length of time it has always increased, always. Oh, sure there's been dips, even long ones, but take a snap shot of any 20 year period and it's gone up. I don't think there's any reason to believe that's going to change. Though there are some economists out there that claim by shifting so much into it or increasing the market at such high levels all at once, which is what you'd do by suddenly putting trillions of dollars into it, you do run some very major risks. But even if that doesn't happen, and I don't really think it would. And even if you're right and the private accounts create a greater return for some people, it doesn't explain how you're going to cover the trillions of dollars it's going to cost to get them started.

 

[Schweddy]

Another thing that has not been represented is that if you actually use the money that goes into SS for SS, then it would be off limits to Congress and would require congress to be more fiscally aware. It's a win-win. Much of the PORK spent is coming from the SS bucket. Remove some of the money going into it and it is unavailable to borrow. If congress has money to spend it will be so.

Sad part is, that some congressmen think that thier 50 million dollar bridge (that has never worked) is more important than anything else and will do thier damnedest to increase taxes to pay for it.

 

[shuamort]

shuamort do you honestly believe in the abolition of social security, being a libertarian i assume you do. do we owe nothing to those that are unemployed and have no retirement funds. can we honestly standby and watch people starve to death. i believe in personal responsibility but surely we must have a standard whereby no one lives in poverty. unless you have been studying nozick im which case social justice simply does not exist.

As I stated in my post, in my opinion we should continue to pay out the benefits for the current recipients. With that, no one would have "the rug pulled out from under them" as they were born into this system that is currently in place. They paid into this system that is currently in place and as such, should get back what they paid for. However, keeping a system like Social Security going and having it expanded far from its original intents to creating a more socialist society is really government gone awry.

Future generations, those not brought up in the system of Social Security, will have to learn how to manage their funds properly for retirement instead of having the government manage them. That should not be a function of the government.

 

[Pacridge]

Libs scream - "Don't treat us like dummies", then when an option comes along to actually be able to think for yourself "OMG, don't make us think!! We are not smart enough." The additional funds that it will take to change to the new system will mostly be admistrative fees (ahem like 401k) and education on the new system. 401k is very successful, why can't the government do something similar? There will be insurance for sudden losses and strict controls for which fund to place in.

Mostly admin. fees? That's completely untrue and one of the biggest problems with the Bush plan. Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," Cheney said the government would have to borrow $754 billion over the next 10 years, and conceded that the price tag would involve borrowing trillions of dollars more in subsequent decades. Of course the Dems. claim that number would be much larger. Over the weekend I found a source that seemed to be independent that had that number at 1.8 trillion over the next 10 years. But even if Bush and Cheney aren't low balling the number 754 billion is a lot of to add to an already huge deficit. Isn't it? And again how does taking money out of the system fix the system?

 

[anomaly]

:spin:

Very nice. You cannot pass on to future generations now. If you die early your kids/spouse does indeed get a check, but you cannot dictate whom it goes to.

In the setup that has been advised, the bulk of the money will continue to go to wherever it did before. The rest is your choice. Um... can one say 401k? Very similar.

Libs scream - "Don't treat us like dummies", then when an option comes along to actually be able to think for yourself "OMG, don't make us think!! We are not smart enough." The additional funds that it will take to change to the new system will mostly be admistrative fees (ahem like 401k) and education on the new system. 401k is very successful, why can't the government do something similar? There will be insurance for sudden losses and strict controls for which fund to place in.

Did you read the line where it says "VOLUNTEER" - guess that keeps getting washed over due to partisanship.

What praise for the 401k! The fact is that you're right: it's been very successful. Of course, that's assuming you don't take out your 401k to live on! This is exactly why SS should not be privatised. The rich have their retirement right there in the 401k. The poor are not so lucky. 2 of my uncles had to take out that money to live on after there jobs were outsourced (thank you, globalisation). Also, I notice that many of you (including fellow liberal, Pacridge) have high faith in the market. It is constantly moving, and though most times increases, it is highly possible that you could take out less money than you put in. As I've said before, stocks are often overpriced, companies fail, etc. etc. The SS program ensures that those who need retirement money (the poor) get it. All it needs are some minor adjustments. Bush's plan will not only hurt the poor in this country (and anyone whose stock fails), but it will also destroy the system that was once the backbone of FDR's New Deal. If the 'ceiling' is raised to, say, $300K, the system will be saved. It seems logical to save rather than destroy, but hey, that's just me.

 

[Gabo]

shuamort do you honestly believe in the abolition of social security, being a libertarian i assume you do. do we owe nothing to those that are unemployed and have no retirement funds. can we honestly standby and watch people starve to death. i believe in personal responsibility but surely we must have a standard whereby no one lives in poverty. unless you have been studying nozick im which case social justice simply does not exist.

We owe nothing to people that have decided to blow all their money instead of saving it.


But for those of you who think our world should not involve consequences for stupid actions, you can set up a private charity organization to give to the "helpless" people that decided partying and big screen TVs were more important than saving for their retirement.


There is no logic in FORCING the smart, rational people to pay for the stupid, irrational people to survive. If you personally want to do that, go ahead. But by no means should you be able to FORCE the rest of us to follow suit.

 

[globalvision]

We owe nothing to people that have decided to blow all their money instead of saving it.


But for those of you who think our world should not involve consequences for stupid actions, you can set up a private charity organization to give to the "helpless" people that decided partying and big screen TVs were more important than saving for their retirement.


There is no logic in FORCING the smart, rational people to pay for the stupid, irrational people to survive. If you personally want to do that, go ahead. But by no means should you be able to FORCE the rest of us to follow suit.

you have read robert nozick havent you, if not you should. so obviously you belive that taxes are unjust? those people who are unable to live unless on SS in there old age are not people who have wasted there money on big screen tv's as you say, they are hard working individuals doing low paid work. perhaps if you have been reading nozick you should read some of rawls as well to ballance it out.

are you really trying to say the smart people are above the 'stupid' people. do you really not care if people live or die. yep you are definatly influenced by nozick as he states that charity organisations are noble and so forth if not someone you have been talking to has been reading him.

 

[HighSpeed]

Most of what you're talking about here we already have they're called such names as 401K's 301b's and some other numbers that I just can't remember at the moument.

What's 301B? Did you mean 403b?

 

[Pacridge]

What's 301B? Did you mean 403b?

Oops! Yeah, sorry must of got to typing fast and didn't proof read very well.

 

[Gabo]

so obviously you belive that taxes are unjust?

Yes.

those people who are unable to live unless on SS in there old age are not people who have wasted there money on big screen tv's as you say, they are hard working individuals doing low paid work.

It is possible for any person to climb the ladder of economic success.
Those who devote time and energy to climbing that ladder deserve a better payoff than those who do not.

While I think FORCED contribution of the more fortunate to the less fortunate is immoral and unethical, I would still personally pay towards that charity if I could.

are you really trying to say the smart people are above the 'stupid' people. do you really not care if people live or die.

Cheap accusations like this are quite annoying.

Many assume because I don't support the public FORCE to do "good", that I am a selfish pig who hates poor people.

That's not true at all. Of course I care if people live or die, but I think those who earned a good retirement deserve one, while those who sat back and did nothing don't deserve much. I would still donate to these less fortunate, like I said before, but it doesn't mean they deserve the same benefits the hard workers do.

 

[anomaly]

Yes.



It is possible for any person to climb the ladder of economic success.
Those who devote time and energy to climbing that ladder deserve a better payoff than those who do not.

While I think FORCED contribution of the more fortunate to the less fortunate is immoral and unethical, I would still personally pay towards that charity if I could.




Cheap accusations like this are quite annoying.

Many assume because I don't support the public FORCE to do "good", that I am a selfish pig who hates poor people.

That's not true at all. Of course I care if people live or die, but I think those who earned a good retirement deserve one, while those who sat back and did nothing don't deserve much. I would still donate to these less fortunate, like I said before, but it doesn't mean they deserve the same benefits the hard workers do.

This is the normal rant of someone with undying faith in capitalism. What you fail to mention is that the whole concept of inheritance destroys the entire argument of capitalism that goes "under capitalism, people who work hard always are rewarded". With inheritance, you have people (such as GW Bush) that do not work particularly hard, are not naturally 'gifted', and frankly aren't very intelligent making loads of money. Also, people cannot always, as you simplistically suggest, freely move up or down the economic ladder with 'hard work'. Talk to any sociologist in this country about what they call life chances and you will see this.