SS & HC

[anomaly]

Ss & Hc

This is the real deal on social security with some commentary on health care.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/6822964

 

[Blue Hobgoblin]

Brilliant article. Bush's plan is aimed to destory everything the New Deal and the Great Society hoped to accomplish and is nothing but another shameless, heartless sell-out to the fatcats in this country.

 

[Schweddy]

I wouldn't call "Rolling Stone" a real deal about anything... lol

Even if the trust fund does run out, Social Security will still be able to pay eighty percent of promised benefits. The actual shortfall would be a pretty small part of the federal budget, quite easily made up from other sources.

Screw that. I want 100% of the money I pay in - not 80%.

As much as congress steals from Social Security it is bound to happen again well before 2018. Then what?

The plan that Bush has on the table does not FULLY privatize Solicial Security. It's only like 20% that can be funded through a mutual fund. Oh wait... didn't I read something about 80%? 100%-20% is 80%... so... the WORST privatizing could do would be the exact same on the way as with not doing anything. Like Bush has said all along "Nothing is changing".

 

[Jufarius87]

the new deal was created to activly use government to solve problems not put bandaids on them something liberals forgot a long time ago

bush social security plan allows people to control their own financial destiny in the event of a social security collapse people could still fall back on thier own investments why do you have a problem with that?

the liberal idea of national health care is crap it allows for no choose and do you really want someone telling you which doctors you can go see? i think not

 

[anomaly]

Of course it doesn't fully privatize social security, that would make the elderly much too angry. But one can see that this is the first step to privatization. The problem with investing your own money to get social security is twofold as I see it. One, since it will then be up to you to invest the money, not all Americans will do it. Two, do you really want your money going through the ups and downs of the stock market? What if, 5 years ago, you had invested in Enron stock? If you read the article, you know that nothing's wrong with SS. Don't you all remember that old American proverb: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Oh and by the way Vauge, Rolling Stone only conducted the interview, the "real deal", as I put it, was by the Princeton economics professor.

 

[gypsy0032]

Social Security was never meant to be permanent. It was implemented as a temporary measure. However, it is a good program, and I probably say this because I have paid into it for years. I agree that it needs to be fixed. Bush's ideas are not the right way to go about it. There is a simple fix........don't let the Government give itself loans from the funds, which they then tend to write off.

 

[Pacridge]

Social Security was never meant to be permanent. It was implemented as a temporary measure. However, it is a good program, and I probably say this because I have paid into it for years. I agree that it needs to be fixed. Bush's ideas are not the right way to go about it. There is a simple fix........don't let the Government give itself loans from the funds, which they then tend to write off.

Social Security was meant to be a temporary program? I've been doing a lot of reading of the original bills and letters/arguments for and against Social Security lately. Why do you think it was intended to be temporary?

As for the Government and the loan situation. I agree about the loaning part. But when has the Government ever written off any of these loans?

 

[Squawker]

Social Security was meant to be a temporary program?

I don't recall reading that, but it was designed so that very little money would ever be paid out. You had to 65 before you could collect any money and people didn't live that long. It was really just another tax that the Government never planned to give back. I still think the whole SS system should be eliminated. Lets just pay for the old people who need the help and call it Senior Assistance Program. The young people wouldn't have to pay as much into the system and they could invest their own money.

 

[Pacridge]

I don't recall reading that, but it was designed so that very little money would ever be paid out. You had to 65 before you could collect any money and people didn't live that long. It was really just another tax that the Government never planned to give back. I still think the whole SS system should be eliminated. Lets just pay for the old people who need the help and call it Senior Assistance Program. The young people wouldn't have to pay as much into the system and they could invest their own money.

Really? Social Security is just a tax the government never intended to give back. Why then did they start paying it out the very same month they started collecting it? That's an odd way to handle a tax you never intend to return to the people.

And after a lot of reading of old studies and letters regarding the orignal debate and Social Security Act of late. I can tell you they arrived at the 65 age number by doing research based on life expectancy (actuary tables) and that's not accurate.

Here's a link to get some actual facts regarding Social Security:

http://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html

 

[Squawker]

Why then did they start paying it out the very same month they started collecting it?

They had to make it look good. lol I don't want to sound condescending but the government was actually operating as an insurance company does. The "premiums" collected paid for the people who filed claims. The "profit" went into the deep pockets of the government. When they had to pay more claims they raised the premium -- they didn't buy smaller pockets. Eliminate the middle man -- SS -- and give it directly to only those who need it. If we ever had Federal health care that is the way it would work, so why not with this?

 

[Pacridge]

They had to make it look good. lol I don't want to sound condescending but the government was actually operating as an insurance company does. The "premiums" collected paid for the people who filed claims. The "profit" went into the deep pockets of the government. When they had to pay more claims they raised the premium -- they didn't buy smaller pockets. Eliminate the middle man -- SS -- and give it directly to only those who need it. If we ever had Federal health care that is the way it would work, so why not with this?

I don't mean to sound condescending either but have you read anything about how this was set up? What the regulations and accounting standards are? I mean according to you people- people weren't expected to live that long. The stats say something different. According to you the profits go into the deep pockets of government. It sure wasn't set up that way. Though we did allow our politicians to start borrowing from it. Sorry, what you're saying doesn't match with the program's laws.

 

[gypsy0032]

Social Security was meant to be a temporary program? I've been doing a lot of reading of the original bills and letters/arguments for and against Social Security lately. Why do you think it was intended to be temporary?

As for the Government and the loan situation. I agree about the loaning part. But when has the Government ever written off any of these loans?

Still working on finding where I had seen that Soc Sec was meant to be temporary. As it stands right now, it appears that I have misread, and you are right that it was never meant to be temporary at all.

But the lending issue. We all accept that the government borrows from the general funds, which encompasses Soc Sec. However, they pay back into these funds with government bonds. They are "written" off, as I said, but they may as well be. Government bonds are generally IOU's which really aren't worth the paper they are printed on. So at this point, we're arguing semantics.

Just one site that covers some of this.
http://home.flash.net/~bob001/ss.htm
I can dig up a multitude of other sites.

 

[Squawker]

It sure wasn't set up that way. Though we did allow our politicians to start borrowing from it. Sorry, what you're saying doesn't match with the program's laws.

Yes Pacridge, I should have put in IMHO. Obviously, that would not be put on paper. I am not the only one who thinks SS was a tax and scam.

Source

 

[Pacridge]

Yes Pacridge, I should have put in IMHO. Obviously, that would not be put on paper. I am not the only one who thinks SS was a tax and scam.

Source

I see that was your opinion, that makes more sense then. I still say I find it difficult to see it as a program designed to take and never give when it starting giving what it was taking the same month it started taking it. But we could go in circles debating this endlessly. As for the source you cite: I find it hard to put faith in the opinions of anyone who states: but for the guile of the U.S.’s worst president, the socialist F.D.R., I certainly don't think the man who guided us through WWII was our worst. We've had some clunkers.

 

[Squawker]

I find it hard to put faith in the opinions of anyone who states: but for the guile of the U.S.’s worst president, the socialist F.D.R., I certainly don't think the man who guided us through WWII was our worst. We've had some clunkers.

I wonder if that is what future generations will think about what todays "hate Bush" crowd is writing.

 

[Pacridge]

I wonder if that is what future generations will think about what todays "hate Bush" crowd is writing.

Yep, they'll be saying he's a clunker.

 

[Pacridge]

Still working on finding where I had seen that Soc Sec was meant to be temporary. As it stands right now, it appears that I have misread, and you are right that it was never meant to be temporary at all.

But the lending issue. We all accept that the government borrows from the general funds, which encompasses Soc Sec. However, they pay back into these funds with government bonds. They are "written" off, as I said, but they may as well be. Government bonds are generally IOU's which really aren't worth the paper they are printed on. So at this point, we're arguing semantics.

Just one site that covers some of this.
http://home.flash.net/~bob001/ss.htm
I can dig up a multitude of other sites.

I'm having a hard time with the US Government bonds not being worth the paper they're printing them on. See I own shares in several mutual funds that, in part, invest in US government bonds. I sure wish somebody would have told me they were worthless before I bought into them. And somebody might want to tell all these foreign governments that US Government Bonds are worthless. Since when they loan us that cash they're buying bonds to do it. Hum, strike that. Since they're worthless, maybe we'd better not tell them. Cause face it, they're going to be really pis*ed when they find that out. You thought there was a lot of Anti-Americanism before, wait till they find out we've been giving them worthless slips of paper in exchange for cash.

 

[Pacridge]

Still working on finding where I had seen that Soc Sec was meant to be temporary. As it stands right now, it appears that I have misread, and you are right that it was never meant to be temporary at all.

But the lending issue. We all accept that the government borrows from the general funds, which encompasses Soc Sec. However, they pay back into these funds with government bonds. They are "written" off, as I said, but they may as well be. Government bonds are generally IOU's which really aren't worth the paper they are printed on. So at this point, we're arguing semantics.

Just one site that covers some of this.
http://home.flash.net/~bob001/ss.htm
I can dig up a multitude of other sites.

I went and checked out the source you provided. There's a few things they're not telling you, plus a couple things they're just padding. First the numbers they're quoting from Social Security. They claim: "The ratio of workers paying Social Security taxes to retirees receiving benefits is getting worse. There were 16.5 workers for each Social Security recipient in 1950. Today there are only 3.2 workers per recipient. According to current projections, in 2030 there will be fewer than 2 workers per recipient"

The number 16.5 from 1950 is accurate. The number from today is off, though by very little. It should be 3.3 not 3.2. When I first read that I thought- Oh, it's an older source so it probably was 3.2 recently. Wrong, the last time it was 3.2 was in 1980. It is not projected to be 3.2 again until 2010. But that's only by the projections on one table. Social Security provides three separate estimates. Which this site forgot to mention. Low cost, intermediate cost and high cost. Which brings me to According to current projections, in 2030 there will be fewer than 2 workers per recipient. That's only based on the worse case projections and even that number isn't accurate; It actually won't, per the high cost projection, reach fewer than 2 until 2035, five years after the date this site cites. Based on intermediate projections it reaches it in 2065 and based on the low cost table it never gets there.The projections are calculated through 2080. So, they're fudging on their numbers here and there and they're not telling you that they're numbers only account of the worst case possible projections.

The site then goes on to give several statistics regarding what a typical retiree brings home and how much this or that is in % when compared to this or that. But none of the rest of the stats have any sources cited so it's not possible to check their numbers further. So I have no way to check and see if they're playing fast and loose with the numbers as they did with the above. Or if now they're being completely straight forward. No way to tell. But to be honest I'm always a little leery of people who say things like:

The Only Way for the Little Guy to Get Rich!

Like this site does right before it lists some more stats you can't go verify. It always makes me feel like I'm watching an "Infomercial."

 

[Squawker]

But to be honest I'm always a little leery of people who say things like:

The Only Way for the Little Guy to Get Rich!

I must be seeing things. **smacks self in head to clear the fog. Is this the same Pacridge who thinks Al Frankens anti Republican rants are true?

 

[Pacridge]

I must be seeing things. **smacks self in head to clear the fog. Is this the same Pacridge who thinks Al Frankens anti Republican rants are true?

Same guy and I'm still waiting for that "time and place" for you to enlighten me otherwise. Other then your post where you claimed he switched words on Hume to make it appear Hume was lying. Which by the way, I tried to fact check that too- hasn't been holding up so well. I'm still waiting for a copy of a tape from someone and I'll get back to you more on that. But other than that I'm still waiting.

But yes, when I read/hear things like:

The Only Way for the Little Guy to Get Rich!

I think Infomercial. Esp. when it been proceeded by misleading or mis-stated stats, fact and or figures.

What's that got to do will Al Franken's exposing BS?

 

[Squawker]

Same guy and I'm still waiting for that "time and place" for you to enlighten me otherwise.

Well, shoot. I was gonna save that for ya birthday, but if you insist.

Source

 

[Pacridge]

Well, shoot. I was gonna save that for ya birthday, but if you insist.

Source

Wow! early birthday present. Actually I've seen this site, several months ago. You can find several others much like it by going to goggle and typing in "franken lies" Though I esp. like this one, it's hilarious. I really like their Levittown logic. The cite states:

Popular Fox News host Bill O’Reilly is proud of his upbringing in the well-known, post-World War II, working-class community of Levittown, Long Island, in New York. On page 74 of Lies (p. 78 in the paperback), Franken tries to tell his audience that O’Reilly is not from Levittown, but from the "affluent suburb" of Westbury, which, according to Franken, is "several miles apart" from Levittown. Yikes! Did someone momentarily lose sight of his "impossibly high standard"?
On the April 12, 2004, episode of The O’Reilly Factor, Bill exhibited the actual deed from his boyhood home for all his audience to see. Only the street location was covered. (His mother still lives there.) The words "Levittown, New York" were clearly displayed in reference to the home’s location.

They then post a blurry image file that's basically unreadable. Ahh! the smoking gun. Only problem is on this very cite they use a Washington times article to attempt and prove another point. In it O'Reilly mother states he's from Westbury. From the Post piece:

"O'Reilly actually grew up in Westbury, Long Island, a middle-class suburb a few miles from Levittown, according to his mother Angela, who still lives in the Levitt-built house Bill grew up in. His late father, William O'Reilly Sr., was a currency accountant with Caltex, an oil company; Angela "Ann" O'Reilly was a homemaker who also worked as a physical therapist."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A62722-2000Dec12?language=printer

So, basically by using a photo copy of a an old document you can't read this cite claims not only is Franken lying about where O'Reilly grew up, So is O'Reilly's own mother. Priceless.

Another thing this cite doesn't mention is when origanally questioned about the Westbury/Levittown fiasco O'Reilly told a USA Today reporter that the two towns are the same place. A claim he eventually backed down from, when several reporters bought maps.

And this cite goes on to claim that Franken states O'Reilly's mother's makes a comment in a the Post piece about the "family taking vacations in Florida" However, Franken never makes that claim in his book, merely that she told the reporter that, not that it's in the piece. Franken got the info by speaking the the reporter and he never claims it in the piece.

Your cite's good, but it isn't my favorite cite that tries to pin the tail on Franken. My favorite is one, I can't remember it's name. I'll try to find it for you, I used to have it book marked. It takes on the Ann Coulter lies head on, well sort of head on anyway. That cite states they can prove Al Franken is lying about Ann Coulter. In Frankens book he exposes several of Coulter's lies and the fact that she does some of her lying by twisting and lying in her end notes. So this site, in it's genius, gets 10 (10 out of nearly 800) of Ann's end notes and shows that in these 10 end notes she's not lying. Therefore Ann Coulter doesn't lie in her end notes. Brilliant! Boy will liberals be glad to hear that this logic works. Now they can finally prove Bill Clinton never lied to the Grand Jury. Simply get several statements he made to the Grand Jury that weren't lies and Ta DA! See, Bill Clinton doesn't lie when giving Grand Jury testimony. Brilliant!

 

[Squawker]

You didn't let me down m/f .
m/f means my friend -- not that bad word. lol
Sorry for another edit folks -- when ya get older this happens.

 

[Pacridge]

You didn't let me down m/f .
m/f means my friend -- not that bad word. lol
Sorry for another edit folks -- when ya get older this happens.

Of these sites the best one, by far, that I've found is one that looks into Frankens words solely base on him. The one's, like the one you sourced, that attempt to prove that Franken lies and the people he's exposed as liars do not, don't check out so well. Everyone of them that I've fact check don't check out. "Franken’s lying about O'Reilly!" "Oh, and so is O'Reilly's own mother." That's just hilarious.

That cite also claims that O'Reilly really did come from a meager background and to prove they use the WP piece. Which states among other things:

"As for Dad never earning more than $35,000, what O'Reilly doesn't mention is that Dad retired in 1978, when a $35,000 income was the equivalent of $92,000 in today's dollars."
And...

"Bill Jr. and his younger sister, Janet; weren't exactly deprived, either. Both children attended private school, and the family sent Bill to Marist College, a private college in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., as well as the University of London for a year, without financial aid."

Sounds like things were tight alright.

But in regards to O'Reilly's statements regarding his background and his up bringing. Every quote I've read and every time I've heard O'Reilly speak of this, I've found that to him it's probably completely accurate that he had "a meager up bringing." I mean think about it. The guy's currently bringing in somewhere between 7.5 and 13 million a year (last I checked). I don't think it's a far stretch for someone making that kind of income to now say "hey, I wasn't always well to do." "I come from really modest means." So, I don't think O'Reilly lying when he makes those statements.

I think where he got himself into trouble is when he padded those statements and claimed he was from even more meager means. And in an attempt to emphasize that he fabricated where he actually lived. Then when called on it he, at first, tried to claim he never said he was from Levittown. Then when called on that he tried to claim they’re both the same place. Then when called on that he brings out a deed, that he won’t actually let anyone examine, and now claims that they’re not the same place but he’s really from the place he originally claimed to be from. At this point he’s on video making so many different statement regarding this he’s basically lying about where he’s from and then lying about lying about it. He must be taking lessons from Ann coulter.

I wish I'd hadn't had a computer crash and lost all my book marks. I had a site that looked into Franken , his statements, and numbers and stats he uses for stuff. If I get some time I’ll go see if I can find it again. I think you’d find it interesting. They made some good points. Which is why I originally stated that it’s completely possible that Franken is lying about stuff. And that I think it’s completely possible that they’re all lying to us. But really the fact that he may be lying doesn’t some how prove that some one else isn’t lying. And these cites that attempt to make that connection or use that logic have, in my experience, never fact checked out.

 

[gypsy0032]

I went and checked out the source you provided. There's a few things they're not telling you, plus a couple things they're just padding. First the numbers they're quoting from Social Security. They claim: "The ratio of workers paying Social Security taxes to retirees receiving benefits is getting worse. There were 16.5 workers for each Social Security recipient in 1950. Today there are only 3.2 workers per recipient. According to current projections, in 2030 there will be fewer than 2 workers per recipient"

The number 16.5 from 1950 is accurate. The number from today is off, though by very little. It should be 3.3 not 3.2. When I first read that I thought- Oh, it's an older source so it probably was 3.2 recently. Wrong, the last time it was 3.2 was in 1980. It is not projected to be 3.2 again until 2010. But that's only by the projections on one table. Social Security provides three separate estimates. Which this site forgot to mention. Low cost, intermediate cost and high cost. Which brings me to According to current projections, in 2030 there will be fewer than 2 workers per recipient. That's only based on the worse case projections and even that number isn't accurate; It actually won't, per the high cost projection, reach fewer than 2 until 2035, five years after the date this site cites. Based on intermediate projections it reaches it in 2065 and based on the low cost table it never gets there.The projections are calculated through 2080. So, they're fudging on their numbers here and there and they're not telling you that they're numbers only account of the worst case possible projections.

The site then goes on to give several statistics regarding what a typical retiree brings home and how much this or that is in % when compared to this or that. But none of the rest of the stats have any sources cited so it's not possible to check their numbers further. So I have no way to check and see if they're playing fast and loose with the numbers as they did with the above. Or if now they're being completely straight forward. No way to tell. But to be honest I'm always a little leery of people who say things like:

The Only Way for the Little Guy to Get Rich!

Like this site does right before it lists some more stats you can't go verify. It always makes me feel like I'm watching an "Infomercial."

No no, you misunderstand. I was only using that site as a reference for bonds being used to pay back the general funds. Not the numbers.

And I still contend that government bonds are worthless. As long as we have a deficit every year, then our government is bankrupt. So how can the bonds hold any valure.