NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok he is sitting around ringing the bell while riding through town yelling about it goin bankrupt, his solution is to have up and coming workers to divert their money htat would go to social security to a private account.

i jsut realised why SS is going to go bankrupt, bush is going to drive it into bankrupcy, if i recall, doesnt the current working generation pay for the current old people on social security generation, if people stop paying, money stops going in and thus it goes bankrupt, GENIOUS. Leave to Bush to make something happen how he said it would happen if they follow his plans.

Do you think you could revise the grammar in that so that it makes some kind of sense, then maybe I can reply.

thats about as good as it gets, ill summarise

bush wants privatisation of social security, he declares its bankrupcy in x number of years
as i understand it, the social security is being supported by the current working class paying into it
if bush wins, money actually going into SS will be diverted to unsafe private accounts, taking more money away from ss
this ENSURES its bankrupcy. where as if we stick it out, the baby boomers will die out and eventually more money WILL be going into the system than is rightfully being removed and it will be ok

The current system of Social Security will bankrupt the entire United States government in 2013 (i think that's right), the year the Baby Boomers retire. The ratio will be one person working to three people drawing out of SS. We'd run out of money overnight.

If we privatize SS, people will be putting their money into an account from which only they will be able to withdraw from, thus meaning they won't run out of SS money, unless of course they don't put in enough. People would be responsible for themselves, and thus the government would be able to fund other welfare programs such as Medicaid and Medicare, along with all the other myriad government functions.

So, once you get the facts right and put it context, Bush doesn't seem quite so stupid.

no, your missing it. privatise means people will have their own accoutns they can CHOOSE to put money into or not, money will no logner go to social security. that money will be based in the stock market instead of how the current system is, if another black tuesday occurs, everyone is fucked.


and if i recall, arnt the baby boomers most all retired NOW (some may be)? and no it wont go bankrupt in 2013, socialsecurityreform.org estimates 2037, the gov estime is in early 2042, and look at the governemtn estimate, they assume all the people now on social security will still be alive in a good 30-40 years, hell many baby boomers wont be alive in 30 years unless they all live to ripe old ages

no, your missing it. privatise means people will have their own accoutns they can CHOOSE to put money into or not, money will no logner go to social security. that money will be based in the stock market instead of how the current system is, if another black tuesday occurs, everyone is fucked.


and if i recall, arnt the baby boomers most all retired NOW (some may be)? and no it wont go bankrupt in 2013, socialsecurityreform.org estimates 2037, the gov estime is in early 2042, and look at the governemtn estimate, they assume all the people now on social security will still be alive in a good 30-40 years, hell many baby boomers wont be alive in 30 years unless they all live to ripe old ages

Exactly. Social Security, if privatized, will not go bankrupt because there will be an even ratio of input and output. Yes, individuals may go bankrupt, or run out of money, but not the system as a whole. But a crash of the stock market is an inherent risk off capitalism. Not changing Social Security isn't going to eliminate that risk.

Baby Boomers were mostly born in the late forties and early fifties. My dad was born in '47, and he's fifty-eight. He's one of the older ones, and he has another seven years until he reaches retirement age. That puts it at 2012. So, maybe my estimate is off, maybe other people's are, either way Social Security is in trouble if if it isn't reformed.

And this is completely off-topic, but did you know the Mayans predicted the end of the world to be December 23rd, 2012? Intriguing...sorry. I'll shut up now. :rolleyes:

thats about as good as it gets, ill summarise

bush wants privatisation of social security, he declares its bankrupcy in x number of years
as i understand it, the social security is being supported by the current working class paying into it
if bush wins, money actually going into SS will be diverted to unsafe private accounts, taking more money away from ss
this ENSURES its bankrupcy. where as if we stick it out, the baby boomers will die out and eventually more money WILL be going into the system than is rightfully being removed and it will be ok

OK I think I understand now.
The demographic timebomb is a problem that faces all welfare systems. It is not just a problem of baby boomers, but of changing working practices and lifestyles.
People live longer, stay in school longer, and work for fewer years. This combination means, given the point that you correctly make about the present tax payers supporting the present dependants, that too little wealth is being spread too thinly over too many recipients. This does mean that the system is goiung bankrupt. That is the prediction based on current trends, anyway.

What can be done about it?
1. Tax more. This solves the economic problem but is political suicide in the USA at least. It may be the solution adopted by some European countries (Germany, Sweden etc.)
2. Pay out less. Also political suicide. You can not reduce pensions, school fee subsidies, health care etc. without losing elections.
3. Bite the bullet. This means that, before the mess gets completely out of hand, break out of the cycle. The government will have to foot the bill for the current recipients by imposing cuts elsewhere. (Military spending would be a good choice here, IMHO). The current workers no longer contribute to the state welfare scheme so they pay less tax, this means that they can invest in private pensions, health care, college funds etc.

In the US, only this third option is really possible. If you can think of another option, please post it. The doubt I have is where, given his particular views, Bush will get the money to fund this option. Probably just push the defecit up another trillion dollars or so.

Exactly. Social Security, if privatized, will not go bankrupt because there will be an even ratio of input and output. Yes, individuals may go bankrupt, or run out of money, but not the system as a whole. But a crash of the stock market is an inherent risk off capitalism. Not changing Social Security isn't going to eliminate that risk.

Baby Boomers were mostly born in the late forties and early fifties. My dad was born in '47, and he's fifty-eight. He's one of the older ones, and he has another seven years until he reaches retirement age. That puts it at 2012. So, maybe my estimate is off, maybe other people's are, either way Social Security is in trouble if if it isn't reformed.

And this is completely off-topic, but did you know the Mayans predicted the end of the world to be December 23rd, 2012? Intriguing...sorry. I'll shut up now. :rolleyes:
there is no social security if its privatised, the system as a whole will go bankrupt if the private system is adopted which will jeopardise indiviuals are social security is supposed to be a SAFETY NET for people who can no longer work, YOUR NOT SUPPOSED TO BE FUCKING BANKRUPT BECAUSE OF IT, and it will jeopardise all people already on social security. bush is trying his damndest to fuck over this country

you dont reform something by taking it apart, you reform something by REFORMING IT. social security is supposed to prevent a bunch of people who worked all their damn lives from becoming poor and unable to live if some shit goes down

there is no social security if its privatised, the system as a whole will go bankrupt if the private system is adopted which will jeopardise indiviuals are social security is supposed to be a SAFETY NET for people who can no longer work, YOUR NOT SUPPOSED TO BE FUCKING BANKRUPT BECAUSE OF IT, and it will jeopardise all people already on social security. bush is trying his damndest to fuck over this country

you dont reform something by taking it apart, you reform something by REFORMING IT. social security is supposed to prevent a bunch of people who worked all their damn lives from becoming poor and unable to live if some shit goes down

In response to your first paragraph, I just have one question. Can you tell me how privatizing Social Security would bankrupt the "system?" And what system are we talking about? Explain it to me, because I would like to know.

Social Security was meant to act as a supplement for people's income. Never was it meant to act as their sole source of income.

The Real Problem with Bushbag is that he doesn't know what he's doing.
That is why SS would go to bankrupsy ( I think I spelled it right).
He sucks. He is an Idiot. And by the way, a friend I know who has a professor at Yale roomed with Bushbag while they were at Yale. He said that Bush was a "Lazy, Druk moron who never did his work."

The Real Problem with Bushbag is that he doesn't know what he's doing.
That is why SS would go to bankrupsy ( I think I spelled it right).
He sucks. He is an Idiot. And by the way, friend I know who has a professor at Yale roomed with Bushbag while they were at Yale. He said that Bush was a "Lazy, Druk moron who never did his work."


Bankruptcy.

And as for Bush being so stupid, I find that funny. Rather than trying to defeat his ideas in reasoned debate, you resolve to just mock him and cal him stupid, or say that he looks like a monkey. This fact speaks volume about your confidence in your own ideas.

In response to your first paragraph, I just have one question. Can you tell me how privatizing Social Security would bankrupt the "system?" And what system are we talking about? Explain it to me, because I would like to know.

Social Security was meant to act as a supplement for people's income. Never was it meant to act as their sole source of income.
the system being social security, privatising social security means taking social security apart and each person CAN set up their own personal account and pay into it, bush is TRYING to bankrupt social security

what do you mean supplement to incomes

the system being social security, privatising social security means taking social security apart and each person CAN set up their own personal account and pay into it, bush is TRYING to bankrupt social security

what do you mean supplement to incomes

How is Bush trying to bankrupt Social Security? You still haven't explained it.

Social Security was implement as part of FDR's New Deal in the thirties, to try to help out poor people. People were not earning high wages, and so the government stepped in and added social security to give them a little extra money to help them get on their feet. The idea was that everyone would pay a little money to help those most in need. It was never, under FDR's plan, meant to be a retiree's sole source of money.

no, your missing it. privatise means people will have their own accoutns they can CHOOSE to put money into or not, money will no logner go to social security. that money will be based in the stock market instead of how the current system is, if another black tuesday occurs, everyone is fucked.


and if i recall, arnt the baby boomers most all retired NOW (some may be)? and no it wont go bankrupt in 2013, socialsecurityreform.org estimates 2037, the gov estime is in early 2042, and look at the governemtn estimate, they assume all the people now on social security will still be alive in a good 30-40 years, hell many baby boomers wont be alive in 30 years unless they all live to ripe old ages
Chessie you disappoint me. I thought you were capable of some critical thinking. Here's how the future will play out for Social Security. If nothing changes, there will be fewer workers paying for more retirees. Since there is no such thing as a Social Security trust fund, the government will have to raise taxes, reduce benefits, or some combination of that.

Again, if nothing is done, the break-even point, where cash into the system exceeds benefits out is around 2012. The bankrupt point where the government simply can't maintain current benefits is around 2042. Bush doesn't have anything to do with this. If you want to blame someone, blame FDR. This whole thing was his idea. Or blame Congress. They are the ones who have been spending the surplus funds.

Bush has proposed a reasonable solution. The system won't run out of money because people are slowly made more responsible for their own retirement. The big sticking point is how much it will cost when the 4% or whatever is no longer given to currently retired recipients. That could cost a lot, but when the transition is over, the cost will decrease, as the current recipients will die off and the new recipients will make smaller claims on government resources.

A little history lesson now. Back in 1998, the President went on a tour to "Save Social Security". He was opposed to any more tax cuts because Social Security was in trouble. All the prominent Democrats were on board with the plan to save SS.

Conclusion? As long as we keep raising taxes to save Social Security everything is fine. I don't know how many of you work, but you are all young enough to benefit from this plan. This is one thing you should support Bush on because it will only improve your future.

Bankruptcy.

And as for Bush being so stupid, I find that funny. Rather than trying to defeat his ideas in reasoned debate, you resolve to just mock him and cal him stupid, or say that he looks like a monkey. This fact speaks volume about your confidence in your own ideas.

Bush IS stupid. I mean, who would say to an Dictactor in africa "So, you have blacks in your country to?" A Dictator who IS BLACK!! Come on! How dumb can you get!?!

How is Bush trying to bankrupt Social Security? You still haven't explained it.

Social Security was implement as part of FDR's New Deal in the thirties, to try to help out poor people. People were not earning high wages, and so the government stepped in and added social security to give them a little extra money to help them get on their feet. The idea was that everyone would pay a little money to help those most in need. It was never, under FDR's plan, meant to be a retiree's sole source of money.
Wrong. It's true that people were not earning high wages, but the real problem was that they weren't saving money. FDR did what all Democrats do. He made the people dependant on government by paying Social Security instead of giving them incentives to save. In subsequent years, the supplement became a dole, LBJ added Medicare, Bush added drug coverage and the government becomes more and more necessary.

Bush IS stupid. I mean, who would say to an Dictactor in africa "So, you have blacks in your country to?" A Dictator who IS BLACK!! Come on! How dumb can you get!?!
He could've thought Brazil is in Africa.

Bush IS stupid. I mean, who would say to an Dictactor in africa "So, you have blacks in your country to?" A Dictator who IS BLACK!! Come on! How dumb can you get!?!

Perhaps a source on that quote? Maybe?

Chessie you disappoint me. I thought you were capable of some critical thinking. Here's how the future will play out for Social Security. If nothing changes, there will be fewer workers paying for more retirees. Since there is no such thing as a Social Security trust fund, the government will have to raise taxes, reduce benefits, or some combination of that.

Again, if nothing is done, the break-even point, where cash into the system exceeds benefits out is around 2012. The bankrupt point where the government simply can't maintain current benefits is around 2042. Bush doesn't have anything to do with this. If you want to blame someone, blame FDR. This whole thing was his idea. Or blame Congress. They are the ones who have been spending the surplus funds.

Bush has proposed a reasonable solution. The system won't run out of money because people are slowly made more responsible for their own retirement. The big sticking point is how much it will cost when the 4% or whatever is no longer given to currently retired recipients. That could cost a lot, but when the transition is over, the cost will decrease, as the current recipients will die off and the new recipients will make smaller claims on government resources.

A little history lesson now. Back in 1998, the President went on a tour to "Save Social Security". He was opposed to any more tax cuts because Social Security was in trouble. All the prominent Democrats were on board with the plan to save SS.

Conclusion? As long as we keep raising taxes to save Social Security everything is fine. I don't know how many of you work, but you are all young enough to benefit from this plan. This is one thing you should support Bush on because it will only improve your future.
i msut be missing something

as i understand it, populations increase exponentially, that is, the younger generation far outnumbers the old generation. and since the youn generation pay for the old generation in social security, there shouldnt be a problem here


no i dont see how putting all my money in a private stock market based account helps my future, especially with the dollar looking like a sickly old man at this point and going to bomb in the chinese pull the his plug

and no the numbers i saw was bankrupt 2042, break even in 2020s or 30s


having everyoen pay into own accoutns = less money into social security efficiently killing the system IF it wasnt going to die anyway, but thus making you look like the savior of the nation because you predicted its death, despite the fact you caused it

and according to www.ssa.gov social security was originally a retirement plan. which i dont think is what you are saying other guy

Bush IS stupid. I mean, who would say to an Dictactor in africa "So, you have blacks in your country to?" A Dictator who IS BLACK!! Come on! How dumb can you get!?!
Now there's a reason to leave Social Security til another time. Are you posting from an rehab facility or from prison?

He could've thought Brazil is in Africa.

That wasn't what he was thinking. And when he was talking to the Dictator, it was a country IN Africa. By the way, where did Brazil come form?

Now there's a reason to leave Social Security til another time. Are you posting from an rehab facility or from prison?

No, the Quote was actualy from a Book of Bushisms entitled "Still More Bushisms," if not "More Bushisms."

That wasn't what he was thinking. And when he was talking to the Dictator, it was a country IN Africa. By the way, where did Brazil come form?
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/brazil.htm

It's what I assumed your wildly inaccurate claim was originally based off of.

Hmm...Brazil isn't quite in Africa, buddy.

i msut be missing something

as i understand it, populations increase exponentially, that is, the younger generation far outnumbers the old generation. and since the youn generation pay for the old generation in social security, there shouldnt be a problem here

The number of workers produced by the "baby-boom" was an anomoly in population increases. The problem with Social Security comes from two areas. The first is the large number of workers that are going to be supported by relatively fewer workers. The second is that people are living longer. So, instead of needing SS payments until 65, or so, they will need them into their 80s. The population thing might work itself out, but only after some very rough years.

no i dont see how putting all my money in a private stock market based account helps my future, especially with the dollar looking like a sickly old man at this point and going to bomb in the chinese pull the his plug

and no the numbers i saw was bankrupt 2042, break even in 2020s or 30s


having everyoen pay into own accoutns = less money into social security efficiently killing the system IF it wasnt going to die anyway, but thus making you look like the savior of the nation because you predicted its death, despite the fact you caused it

and according to www.ssa.gov social security was originally a retirement plan. which i dont think is what you are saying other guy

How do I start here? Well, the stock market has always averaged about 11% growth over any long period. I think the definition of "long" is 20 years, or so. That is better than the 2% that SS will promise you. And better than the 5% or so that inflation will cost you. Put you money in the market

I don't understand the second paragraph about acoutns = less, so I'll ignore it. I think I explained the transition well enough, anyway.

Last, of course the SS administration wants you to think they are a retirement plan. They want to keep the population dependant on government handouts.

Bush is only doing what every politician in the last half of the 20th century has realized is needed. Problem is that none of them had the courage to push it through. Bush sure does need to do something good to make up for that drug fiasco.

Here is something that needs to be considered.

The Republicans have been trying to get an amendment in the Constitution stating that Foreign Governers, or Senators could run for president. Of course, it will be passed since the three branches of government are more than 60% republican. And who will they vote for? The Skynet Dude. Another thing, I also heard that they are also trying to bring the Draft back to help the troops in Iraq.

Here is something that needs to be considered.

The Republicans have been trying to get an amendment in the Constitution stating that Foreign Governers, or Senators could run for president. Of course, it will be passed since the three branches of government are more than 60% republican. And who will they vote for? The Skynet Dude. Another thing, I also heard that they are also trying to bring the Draft back to help the troops in Iraq.
You must be the one in rehab. All Congress can do is pass a law. Two thirds of the states must ratify the amendment within some number of years. Look up the Equal Rights Amendment. It never even got votes in all the states.

I heard about the draft, too. Charlie Rangle, a Democrat from NY, is the one that wants to bring back the draft. I heard about the draft on another occaison. The recent Presidential election when Kerry and his pals in the media tried to do everything they could to win. They were the ones saying the Republicans wanted to restore the draft, when Rangle was the only one.

If you would take five minutes to look up some of these riduculous musings, you'd realize how stupid you look.

Of course, it will be passed since the three branches of government are more than 60% republican. And who will they vote for? The Skynet Dude. Another thing, I also heard that they are also trying to bring the Draft back to help the troops in Iraq.

The House and Senate are both Republican majorities, but not 60%. The Judicial Branch (i.e. Supreme Court) is fairly moderate as a whole (and the rest of the courts are pretty liberal), and the Executive Branch...can't be broken down percentage-wise.

As for the draft, how many times must Bush and the Republican leadership say they don't want a draft before you stop believing Kerry's campaign ads?

Stfu

Stfu

Who is that addressed to? I assume myself and Myrmidonisia, correct?

The funny part is that people don't get it. not all of the money is going to be put into private accounts. Social security will still be there. I personally like the idea that if when I am old, I will be screwed over because i was stupid, not because my generation outnumbers the current SS paying generation.

Glenorand :sniper:

The only problem with letting people choose when to withdraw their money from a privatized account, is that they will make poor choices. Many people may choose not to put money in their SS acount because they need it to help cover their expences, or try to make a large purchace they can't afford. Let's face the fact that many people will make a stupid decision on their social security down the road somewhere. SS was invented by FDR after the great depression to prevent people from bieng homeless. The money offered by SS at that time was not enough to live comfortably but at least keep them off the street if there was to be a financial cricis or they were no longer able to work because of old age or medical reasons. If bush removes this saftey cushon, and something unexpectedly goes wrong we will have a bad situation on our hands.

There was a good segment on ABC News last night on this.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/YourMoney/story?id=412634&page=1

To sum up, SS is totally solvent until 2042 without taking any action. If we raise payroll taxes 1% it's solvent for the next 75 years. Now the President said that there is a looming deficit of 11 trillion dollars in Social Security's future, which is correct, if no action is taken now until the end of time.

So the question is, why is the President creating a Social Security crises. The answer is me, or rather millions if Americans just like me. Before my layoff after 9-11 I had a tidy sum in a 401K like most working Americans, that I converted into cash for living expenses while I was out of work. The job I got, though similar to what I was doing before pays less and has no 401K.

There are millions of American who have been off shored and outsourced that are in the same situation. That's hundred of millions of dollars not going into the stock market like clockwork every week.

The only people really supporting this are die hard Bush fans and day traders that want a little more action on the tables. Have you noticed that Bush has said nothing about being able to put this cash into safe Bond funds?

The current system of Social Security will bankrupt the entire United States government in 2013 (i think that's right), the year the Baby Boomers retire. The ratio will be one person working to three people drawing out of SS. We'd run out of money overnight.

Um, no. In 2018 the system will begin paying out more than it's taking in as the bulk of baby boomers begin to claim it. That is not the same as going bankrupt; it has a surplus built up to account for that. Even the social security board of trustees says that Social Security is solvent and stable for decades into the future. Bush's assumptions on the state of the economy, if his social security plan is ignored, are abysmally pessimistic, and he is presenting them as though they are assured. His assumptions on the economy when he touts his own plan are that the economy will undergo tremendous growth, even though it has hardly grown at all since he came into office.

If we privatize SS, people will be putting their money into an account from which only they will be able to withdraw from, thus meaning they won't run out of SS money, unless of course they don't put in enough. People would be responsible for themselves, and thus the government would be able to fund other welfare programs such as Medicaid and Medicare, along with all the other myriad government functions.


And who is going to teach them how to pick stocks? Playing the market is not something that everyone makes money on, especially those who don't have much to begin with. For those without a financial education the stock market is just a boring form of going to Vegas.

So, once you get the facts right and put it context, Bush doesn't seem quite so stupid.
Context rarely does anything to make Bush sound less stupid. There are only so many contexts in which it makes sense to offer help in putting food on your family.

The only problem with letting people choose when to withdraw their money from a privatized account, is that they will make poor choices. Many people may choose not to put money in their SS acount because they need it to help cover their expences, or try to make a large purchace they can't afford. Let's face the fact that many people will make a stupid decision on their social security down the road somewhere.

This is precisly what the Bush fans like about it. The heart of the modern conservative agenda, regardless of what they say about christian values (which include charity and humility), is callous disregard for the pain and suffering of others. If people don't have any money when they're old it's because they were too stupid and lazy to earn and save enough when they were young. They deserve to die poor.

The Real Problem with Bushbag is that he doesn't know what he's doing.
That is why SS would go to bankrupsy ( I think I spelled it right).
He sucks. He is an Idiot. And by the way, a friend I know who has a professor at Yale roomed with Bushbag while they were at Yale. He said that Bush was a "Lazy, Druk moron who never did his work."

Even if Bush is an idiot, he is STILL better than Kerry, as the majority of Americans stated on November of this Year.

Chess, your flamebaiting aside, are you sure you're not secretly a brit? I mean, look at your spelling. Who knows, you may be drinking tea and eating scones this very minute.

Either way, if this idea is so bad, as you seem to persist irrationally (attacking Bush is pointless - this idea is good or bad regardless of its source), how do you plan to fix it? I'm listening.

Until the almighty Chess can come up with a magical solution, I'm going with the only hope we have.

I had to put up with Clinton, so stop crying and try to make the best of Bush.

The current system of Social Security will bankrupt the entire United States government in 2013 (i think that's right), the year the Baby Boomers retire. The ratio will be one person working to three people drawing out of SS. We'd run out of money overnight.

If we privatize SS, people will be putting their money into an account from which only they will be able to withdraw from, thus meaning they won't run out of SS money, unless of course they don't put in enough. People would be responsible for themselves, and thus the government would be able to fund other welfare programs such as Medicaid and Medicare, along with all the other myriad government functions.

So, once you get the facts right and put it context, Bush doesn't seem quite so stupid.

Problem: How many retirement funds lost a great deal of money due to the executive corporate fraud?

How many people have ever seen their money disappear from social security.

People are responsible for themselves(hmmm the favorite battle cry of libererians :rolleyes:)

Social security was created to cover the people from the last time poor mistaken rich businessmen ripped off everybody.

Until we see people like Ken Lay serving time in Solidad being bubba's bitch, privatization of social security will be a disaster.

My mother say 40% of her retirement investing disappear with all the accounting "mistakes"

Hmmm for some reason I don't see the shrub letting his buddy "Kenny-Boy" doing any serious time if at all.

The funny part is that people don't get it. not all of the money is going to be put into private accounts. Social security will still be there. I personally like the idea that if when I am old, I will be screwed over because i was stupid, not because my generation outnumbers the current SS paying generation.

Glenorand :sniper:

The savings and loan scandle say many old people loose money.

The current accounting "mistakes" saw great reductions in value.

T
There are millions of American who have been off shored and outsourced that are in the same situation. That's hundred of millions of dollars not going into the stock market like clockwork every week.


Hey now! You don't belive job exporting creates new jobs? :eek:

For example, I know one company the exported 100 jobs(150 employees in the company). It did create new jobs!

A total of 3 new jobs were created in the US office.

Even if Bush is an idiot, he is STILL better than Kerry, as the majority of Americans stated on November of this Year.


How is three million more votes the majority of americans?

It's just a simple majority.

The SS system currently earns 2% or less a year - abysmally low compared to any other form of investment. The stock market has never had a period of 10 years in which it did not return at least 10%. The plan is not to invest all money in private accounts, just a small percentage - currently discussing 4-5%. Those accounts, by the way, will operate similar to 401k's or IRA's, and no withdrawals will be allowed until retirement, just like SS. It will not affect seniors retiring now and for the next 10 years or so (I'm not sure about the exact number of years, but that's the last I heard). The problem is that we currently use SS money to pay for other parts of government spending besides SS, and need to replace the 4-5%/year being lost to the private accounts.
By the way, not all employers use SS. Texas teachers do not use SS, they use their own retirement system, and do much better. Galveston retirees have done MUCH better by withdrawing from the SS system (an option no longer available, due to Congress): Galveston Retirement (http://www.tppf.org/government/perspect/holbrook.html)

How is three million more votes the majority of americans?

It's just a simple majority.
Um, the definition of majority:
1 obsolete : the quality or state of being greater
2 a : the age at which full civil rights are accorded b : the status of one who has attained this age
3 a : a number greater than half of a total b : the excess of a majority over the remainder of the total : MARGIN c : the preponderant quantity or share
4 : the group or political party whose votes preponderate

I think getting more votes, and more than 50% of those votes - something Clinton never did, by the way - qualifies as a majority of Americans.

Hey now! You don't belive job exporting creates new jobs? :eek:

For example, I know one company the exported 100 jobs(150 employees in the company). It did create new jobs!

A total of 3 new jobs were created in the US office.


Woohoo! :D

I wanna post the most obvious fact here. Our country is supposedly a free country, a basis by which our country lets people kill babies as an act of freedom, yet we're supposed to be forced to use our own hard earned money, something that is our own property, something that effects us and no one else, unlike abortion, in a way that our government dictates? This way is in fact not logical at all, the fat is that due to inflation, we all lose out to SS, when in fact if the money were just put into a bank account, we would be gaining money.

I wanna post the most obvious fact here. Our country is supposedly a free country, a basis by which our country lets people kill babies as an act of freedom, yet we're supposed to be forced to use our own hard earned money, something that is our own property, something that effects us and no one else, unlike abortion, in a way that our government dictates? This way is in fact not logical at all, the fat is that due to inflation, we all lose out to SS, when in fact if the money were just put into a bank account, we would be gaining money.

Um, the definition of majority:
1 obsolete : the quality or state of being greater
2 a : the age at which full civil rights are accorded b : the status of one who has attained this age
3 a : a number greater than half of a total b : the excess of a majority over the remainder of the total : MARGIN c : the preponderant quantity or share
4 : the group or political party whose votes preponderate

I think getting more votes, and more than 50% of those votes - something Clinton never did, by the way - qualifies as a majority of Americans.

Yes but more Americans voted against Bush than ever voted for a President in any previous election. I know you're going for the "Mandate" thing, but this election was a squeaker, by every definition but Republican.

We're going to grind the Republican party into the ground over Social Security. As the dollar slides, inflation goes sky high, and Iraq goes to hell just remember, you bitches won't have power for another fifty years after 2008. Enjoy your new Hoover.

Um, the definition of majority:
1 obsolete : the quality or state of being greater
2 a : the age at which full civil rights are accorded b : the status of one who has attained this age
3 a : a number greater than half of a total b : the excess of a majority over the remainder of the total : MARGIN c : the preponderant quantity or share
4 : the group or political party whose votes preponderate

I think getting more votes, and more than 50% of those votes - something Clinton never did, by the way - qualifies as a majority of Americans.

Problem: His use implies that most americans voted for him. Fact is he got 61 million while Kerry got 58 million.

He won by a small margin as compared to previous recent Presidents.

Yes but more Americans voted against Bush than ever voted for a President in any previous election. I know you're going for the "Mandate" thing, but this election was a squeaker, by every definition but Republican.

We're going to grind the Republican party into the ground over Social Security. As the dollar slides, inflation goes sky high, and Iraq goes to hell just remember, you bitches won't have power for another fifty years after 2008. Enjoy your new Hoover.
Not going for anything other than pointing out your factually incorrect statement that Bush did not have the majority of voters vote for him.

As to SS, it is entirely possible that could be a defeat for Bush, though I hope not, as I like the idea of having more control over the money I put into SS.

The dollar has already fallen quite a bit, but I don't see it going much further, but it does make things cheaper for us in other ways.

Inflation is completely under control, except for energy, which has always been volatile.

I am not, nor are the majority of Republicans, a "bitch", and such flaming is unworthy of intelligent debate.

As to not having power for another 50 years after 2008, I'll let the election of 2008 happen before I make any judgements on that score.

As to Hoover - please, inflation and unemployment under Carter were far worse than they ever were under Bush. On percentage basis, Bush is nowhere near Hoover, it's pure twisting the figures to try to make him out to be one.

I wanna post the most obvious fact here. Our country is supposedly a free country, a basis by which our country lets people kill babies as an act of freedom, yet we're supposed to be forced to use our own hard earned money, something that is our own property, something that effects us and no one else, unlike abortion, in a way that our government dictates? This way is in fact not logical at all, the fat is that due to inflation, we all lose out to SS, when in fact if the money were just put into a bank account, we would be gaining money.

Ahh my poor christian friend. Bring abortion into a discussion about retirement?

Savings accounts? Problem: They are only insured up to 100000 dollars.

Freedom means having some laws. Not freedom from laws.

Problem: His use implies that most americans voted for him. Fact is he got 61 million while Kerry got 58 million.

He won by a small margin as compared to previous recent Presidents.
So he won by a small margin. Didn't say he didn't. The FACT still remains that he won the MAJORITY of the votes, plus he won a simple majority (over 50%), which Clinton never did. I can't believe we are arguing over a simple fact. Not trying to rub anybody's face in it, but Bush did win with a majority - a simple fact that we should not be arguing over. You want to argue policy, fine. You want to argue that Bush did not win a majority - you lose.

Problem: His use implies that most americans voted for him. Fact is he got 61 million while Kerry got 58 million.

He won by a small margin as compared to previous recent Presidents.
MOST Americans DID vote for him. That's what MAJORITY means!

As to Hoover - please, inflation and unemployment under Carter were far worse than they ever were under Bush. On percentage basis, Bush is nowhere near Hoover, it's pure twisting the figures to try to make him out to be one.

Please.

I bet you are one of those people that talk about the Prosperity of Clinton was really Regans plans. As more then one Repub has tried to tell me; it takes 10 years for plans to take effect.

And yet the problems of the 70s was all Carters fault.

And yet the shrub can't be blamed for the collapsed economy on his first term.

MOST Americans DID vote for him. That's what MAJORITY means!

And yet close to 1/2 didn't buy his message.

did you know the Mayans predicted the end of the world to be December 23rd, 2012?


oh no!!! we're all gonna diiiiiiiieeeeeeieieieiiieeieeeeiee!!!!!"!!!!!#!!!!!!11!!!111oneone :(

Please.

I bet you are one of those people that talk about the Prosperity of Clinton was really Regans plans. As more then one Repub has tried to tell me; it takes 10 years for plans to take effect.

And yet the problems of the 70s was all Carters fault.

And yet the shrub can't be blamed for the collapsed economy on his first term.
Didn't say they were, did I? Simply rebutting his arguement that Bush is another "Hoover". By the way, I didn't know the economy "collapsed". At its highest point, I don't think unemployment ever went over 6.2 %, a figure most countries would love to have at their best. We had a recession that most economists agree was starting before Bush got into office, officially declared before his tax cuts ever went into effect.
By the way, don't "bet" on anything. It diminishes the quality of your debate.

And yet close to 1/2 didn't buy his message.
Your statement:
"How is three million more votes the majority of americans?"
It contradicts itself!!! More votes = majority of Americans. Logic, please!!!

MOST Americans DID vote for him. That's what MAJORITY means!

Nope. Most americans did not vote for him. :p

Not going for anything other than pointing out your factually incorrect statement that Bush did not have the majority of voters vote for him.

As to SS, it is entirely possible that could be a defeat for Bush, though I hope not, as I like the idea of having more control over the money I put into SS.

The dollar has already fallen quite a bit, but I don't see it going much further, but it does make things cheaper for us in other ways.

Inflation is completely under control, except for energy, which has always been volatile.

I am not, nor are the majority of Republicans, a "bitch", and such flaming is unworthy of intelligent debate.

As to not having power for another 50 years after 2008, I'll let the election of 2008 happen before I make any judgements on that score.

As to Hoover - please, inflation and unemployment under Carter were far worse than they ever were under Bush. On percentage basis, Bush is nowhere near Hoover, it's pure twisting the figures to try to make him out to be one.

Hey buddy as far as American adversity under Bush, the worst is yet to come. Wait as the debt mounts and the dollar continues to slide. The only thing controlling inflation now is the World Com class book keeping of Bush appointees. How long do you think it'll take the world markets to figure that one out Sparky.

But hey have it your way. I've got four years of patience to watch you Republicans make a dog's breakfast out of the US economy.

Nope. Most americans did not vote for him. :p
Most Americans who voted, if that's what you are getting at, since a large percentage of Americans do not vote with any regularity. Those who didn't don't have any room to complain.

Yes but more Americans voted against Bush than ever voted for a President in any previous election. I know you're going for the "Mandate" thing, but this election was a squeaker, by every definition but Republican.

We're going to grind the Republican party into the ground over Social Security. As the dollar slides, inflation goes sky high, and Iraq goes to hell just remember, you bitches won't have power for another fifty years after 2008. Enjoy your new Hoover.
http://www.economist.com/images/20041204/CSF138.gif
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v243/Kwangistar/CUUR0000AA0_188395_1105857829622.gif
Hmmm....

Edit : Found one closer to 1973.

Your statement:
"How is three million more votes the majority of americans?"
It contradicts itself!!! More votes = majority of Americans. Logic, please!!!

Again you fail to see the meaning. He suggests that most of the country gave him a mandate.

I will make it simple for you. 300 million people are in this country. Let's cut 100 million for too young, etc.

So 61 million voted for him and yet 139 million did not.

So yes a majority of voting americans did vote him. That is still not the majority of americans.

And yet close to 1/2 didn't buy his message.

But over a half did. That's the point I made. You might hate Bush, but you're in the minority if you do. Why do you have such a hard time grasping the definitions of words? Are you that much of a Clinton fan?

Tell me, why do the Democrats have such a hard time having a logical debate without flamebaiting? It's like Michael Moore manufactures dems...he's your God. And if he says Bush is the anti-Christ, you flame Bush. Honestly, grow up and learn to think for yourself. There must be some reason why a majority voted for Bush. Sure they could all be brainwashed by Rush or Bill, but why don't you think outside the box for a second and investigate the possibility that maybe he's not as bad as his political enemies (who have a bias against him) make him out to be?

Besides, why hasn't anyone wondered how the 9/11 attacks on the WORLD TRADE CENTER might have affected the value of the dollar (international trade) or the current economy?

The reason I never take anything a democrat says seriously, nor ever vote for them, is because I have yet to meet a single democrat who can back up their point without profanity or flaming.

Hey buddy as far as American adversity under Bush, the worst is yet to come. Wait as the debt mounts and the dollar continues to slide. The only thing controlling inflation now is the World Com class book keeping of Bush appointees. How long do you think it'll take the world markets to figure that one out Sparky.

But hey have it your way. I've got four years of patience to watch you Republicans make a dog's breakfast out of the US economy.
When those things occur I'll be sure to congratulate you. Until they do, I prefer to look at things as they are, and use my own judgement on what will happen in the future. Which is obviously very different from yours, but hey, that's what this country is all about, right? And my name is not Sparky - if you knew my real name, I'd have to kill you ... MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! ;)

http://www.economist.com/images/20041204/CSF138.gif
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v243/Kwangistar/CUUR0000SA0_188390_1105857555900.gif
Hmmm....


Wow you posted graphs with no context. Yay! :D

Bush IS stupid. I mean, who would say to an Dictactor in africa "So, you have blacks in your country to?" A Dictator who IS BLACK!! Come on! How dumb can you get!?!
Well, if you could get the geographic area of the fellow who Bush said this too right, or his method of reaching power as well, I'd call this a credible arguement against Bush's intelligence...BUT

He said the comment to the elected President of Brazil, who was Latino.

While Brazil has the largest African population in the western hemisphere, the fact isn't very well known, hell, I didn't know about it until I learned of this quote. One cannot be expected to know about the ethnic composition of random nations.

When those things occur I'll be sure to congratulate you. Until they do, I prefer to look at things as they are, and use my own judgement on what will happen in the future. Which is obviously very different from yours, but hey, that's what this country is all about, right? And my name is not Sparky - if you knew my real name, I'd have to kill you ... MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! ;)

We'll see Sparky, we'll see. :D

Again you fail to see the meaning. He suggests that most of the country gave him a mandate.

I will make it simple for you. 300 million people are in this country. Let's cut 100 million for too young, etc.

So 61 million voted for him and yet 139 million did not.

So yes a majority of voting americans did vote him. That is still not the majority of americans.
So I presume you then postulate that those who did not vote must have obviously wanted to vote for Kerry? Our political leaders are decided by voters. Voters determine who gets elected. He received the majority of votes. So, he has a mandate from those who voted him into office. Why is that so hard to admit?

Wow you posted graphs with no context. Yay! :D
Seems to me that inflation and a sliding dollar don't go hand in hand. Throughout the massive 40% rise and fall during the eighties, inflation stayed at a steady amount. Of course its different this time, right?

We'll see Sparky, we'll see. :D
I know people who were predicting that for late 2003 early 2004 and it didn't seem to happen...

But over a half did. That's the point I made. You might hate Bush, but you're in the minority if you do. Why do you have such a hard time grasping the definitions of words? Are you that much of a Clinton fan?

Tell me, why do the Democrats have such a hard time having a logical debate without flamebaiting? It's like Michael Moore manufactures dems...he's your God.

Hmmm challenge the shrub means your a Moore supporter? Sorry buddy, never saw F. 9/11.

*Blather snip*

The reason I never take anything a democrat says seriously, nor ever vote for them, is because I have yet to meet a single democrat who can back up their point without profanity or flaming.

And yet you don't see flaming or profanity from me. And yet you suggest Moore does my thinking for me.

You really understand Democrats.....

So I presume you then postulate that those who did not vote must have obviously wanted to vote for Kerry? Our political leaders are decided by voters. Voters determine who gets elected. He received the majority of votes. So, he has a mandate from those who voted him into office. Why is that so hard to admit?

No postulating at all. The claim of a majority of Americans was made. We are talking about a majority of votes! ;)

As to mandate? What is that? Just sounds a tad bit self-absorbed.

What was the mandate given to Nixon? ;)

No postulating at all. The claim of a majority of Americans was made. We are talking about a majority of votes! ;)

As to mandate? What is that? Just sounds a tad bit self-absorbed.

What was the mandate given to Nixon? ;)
Man-date? Ewwwwwwwwwww.

No postulating at all. The claim of a majority of Americans was made. We are talking about a majority of votes! ;)

As to mandate? What is that? Just sounds a tad bit self-absorbed.

What was the mandate given to Nixon? ;)
What was the mandate given to Clinton? Especially after the Republicans took over the House?

And Bush hasn't been impeached (yet), though the Michael Moore wing of the Democratic party would sure like to try . . .

No postulating at all. The claim of a majority of Americans was made. We are talking about a majority of votes! ;)

As to mandate? What is that? Just sounds a tad bit self-absorbed.

What was the mandate given to Nixon? ;)
The only people that matter in an election are those that vote, thus I presumed you meant those that voted. And you know what happens when you assume ... :D

Man-date? Ewwwwwwwwwww.
Wonder who his "man-date" could be? :p Good one, by the way. Very punny!

But, I'll be serious now:

The fact that social security will run out of money, by the furthest estimate, in 2042 hits me pretty damn hard. Because then I'll be 67, and I don't appreciate people saying that it isn't a crisis, to me it is. And I see two possible solutions:

Raise the retirement age: Yep, this one is absolutely vital. You know why? Simple, the government arbitrarily picked a number that was above the average life expectancy of the time, so as to minimize payments. But now people are living longer and longer, and as such, the logic for choosing 65 is now obsolete. Now I'm not suggesting raising the age to 80 or anything, but raising it to 70 seems appropriate to me.

The privatization plan: while nowhere near as necessary as raising the retirement age, it would help. I'd also suggest that with the dividends from the stocks in the private accounts be put in the general pot. Also, with complaints about a Black Tuesday scenario, I dismiss these. For several reasons, first the accounts would be highly diversified, and in solid companies, Honda, GM, Microsoft and the like, secondly, if the situation got bad enough the funds could be pulled at a trigger point (of course, this would have nasty economic ramifications, and I admit that there must be some way to deal with this.) I also don't believe that privatisation accounts would bankrupt social security, since a loan would be taken out by the government to cover the transition period, which would be rough, but once the transition is handled, the problems are solved (as far as I can tell)

Oh yeah. THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY TO DESTROY SOCIAL SECURITY!

Wonder who his "man-date" could be? :p Good one, by the way. Very punny!
Bush & Clinton, ewwwwwwwwww.

The problem with Bush is that he'll never have to live on Social Security.

The problem with Bush is that he'll never have to live on Social Security.
Why is that a problem?

The problem with Bush is that he'll never have to live on Social Security.
Actually, no government employees will have to live on social security. They ALL have a kick-ass retirement program.

Seems to me that inflation and a sliding dollar don't go hand in hand. Throughout the massive 40% rise and fall during the eighties, inflation stayed at a steady amount. Of course its different this time, right?


Well yes it is. We stopped manufacturing a lot of goods domestically. Inflation has started up as the dollar slides, not only do we pay more for oil, but for the first time we are paying more for consumer and many durable goods since they are predominately made outside the country.

The American corporations that manufacture overseas can afford to absorb some sliding dollar inflation at the cost of their bottom line, but this hurts the value of the Stock Market and they can't afford to do this indefinitely. As debt mounts and the dollar slides they have to raise prices on everything from socks to refrigerators. Not that Americans aren't buying their junk now on cheap credit. ;)

Right now inflation is just annoying, but what you have to wait for is the critical mass moment, like what nearly happened when the Japanese Central Bank announced it could no longer afford to buy up dollars last year. Luckily the Chinese stepped in financing us, but recently they've started complaining that they can't keep this up. When we can no longer find someone to buy our debt dollars, watch for the big sell off.

Massive dollar slide tsunami.

When that happens watch for Nixon style inflation. I'm talking the early 70s man, double digits. Bush will not rein in debt, the only question is when.

Actually, no government employees will have to live on social security. They ALL have a kick-ass retirement program.
Which is very similar to what Bush wants to do with 4-5% of the social security money. I mean, God forbid Congress allows the unwashed masses to have the same benefits they have.

Which is very similar to what Bush wants to do with 4-5% of the social security money. I mean, God forbid Congress allows the unwashed masses to have the same benefits they have.

How is jeopardizing the Social Security fund like the great retirement and health bennies of Federal Employees? That's just silly, your just pulling this stuff out of your ass.

Looking at my own pay stub I would say the majority of working Americans pay $25.00 to $50.00 weekly to Social Security. Currently the SSI fund is good till 2042. If you take money from it, it won't be. On the other hand if you increase the SSI contribution just 1%, (and that only a few more dollars a week for most people) it's good for the next 75 years.

All the Republicans want to do is to siphon off hundreds of millions of dollars out of the SSI fund to shore up the slumping Stock Market. They aren't giving you a choice in your investment, 401K programs are more flexible. Most people can direct their investments instantly online to safe Bond or Money Market funds when the market looks rocky.

How is jeopardizing the Social Security fund like the great retirement and health bennies of Federal Employees? That's just silly, your just pulling this stuff out of your ass.

Looking at my own pay stub I would say the majority of working Americans pay $25.00 to $50.00 weekly to Social Security. Currently the SSI fund is good till 2042. If you take money from it, it won't be. On the other hand if you increase the SSI contribution just 1%, (and that only a few more dollars a week for most people) it's good for the next 75 years.

All the Republicans want to do is to siphon off hundreds of millions of dollars out of the SSI fund to shore up the slumping Stock Market. They aren't giving you a choice in your investment, 401K programs are more flexible. Most people can direct their investments instantly online to safe Bond or Money Market funds when the market looks rocky.
Look, the market always increases over long periods of time. I think long is defined as 20 years or so, but certainly shorter than someones working years. This even includes the entire 10 years of the thirties depression. The average increase over this "long" period is 11%. That's pretty good. Any market index fund will get you that return. Social Security will get you 2%. That's where these social security privatized funds will go.

Another reason why YOU want this reform is that the money you save becomes yours. Everyone loses money in the Social Security scheme. Unless you are one of the few that outlive the payments that you put in. Then the money is gone. You can't will it to anyone, it's just gone. If these reforms are adopted, people will own their own retirement savings. If they die before spending all the money, it's inheritable.

Last, Bush doesn't need to risk anything on this reform. It's only going to cost money and will never be repaid by decades of loyalty to the Republican party. When FDR created the program, checks went out right away and seniors were hooked. Forty years from now, someone isn't going to start withdrawing money and say "Thanks George" and start voting Republican forever.

If you do some research beyond what DU has to say, you will find this is an idea that only has advantages to you if you are under 25 to 30 years old. Try the Wall Street Journal as one source. The Heritage foundation as another.

Look, the market always increases over long periods of time. I think long is defined as 20 years or so, but certainly shorter than someones working years. This even includes the entire 10 years of the thirties depression. The average increase over this "long" period is 11%. That's pretty good. Any market index fund will get you that return. Social Security will get you 2%. That's where these social security privatized funds will go.

Another reason why YOU want this reform is that the money you save becomes yours. Everyone loses money in the Social Security scheme. Unless you are one of the few that outlive the payments that you put in. Then the money is gone. You can't will it to anyone, it's just gone. If these reforms are adopted, people will own their own retirement savings. If they die before spending all the money, it's inheritable.

Last, Bush doesn't need to risk anything on this reform. It's only going to cost money and will never be repaid by decades of loyalty to the Republican party. When FDR created the program, checks went out right away and seniors were hooked. Forty years from now, someone isn't going to start withdrawing money and say "Thanks George" and start voting Republican forever.

If you do some research beyond what DU has to say, you will find this is an idea that only has advantages to you if you are under 25 to 30 years old. Try the Wall Street Journal as one source. The Heritage foundation as another.


Say what you like, but this plan does less than zero to insure SSI solvency.

I agree that in the past long term Market Funds have delivered good returns, but you can't use the past as a gauge for the future. One of the reasons for this sudden revaluing of the solvency of SSI is the forecast by economists that the growth if the US economy will be considerably smaller in the future. With economic growth in flux around 1.5%, as opposed to the historic 3.8%, there is no way the market will deliver as it has in the past.

SSI is also your disability insurance. It's what you get if you can no longer work. True you can't take it with you when you die, but there's a chance you may need it for a long time while your alive. Bush's plan threatens this as well. For most Americans, SSI disability is the only thing that well keep them from becoming homeless if they become disabled and can no longer work.

Look, the market always increases over long periods of time. I think long is defined as 20 years or so, but certainly shorter than someones working years. This even includes the entire 10 years of the thirties depression. The average increase over this "long" period is 11%. That's pretty good. Any market index fund will get you that return. Social Security will get you 2%. That's where these social security privatized funds will go.

Another reason why YOU want this reform is that the money you save becomes yours. Everyone loses money in the Social Security scheme. Unless you are one of the few that outlive the payments that you put in. Then the money is gone. You can't will it to anyone, it's just gone. If these reforms are adopted, people will own their own retirement savings. If they die before spending all the money, it's inheritable.

Last, Bush doesn't need to risk anything on this reform. It's only going to cost money and will never be repaid by decades of loyalty to the Republican party. When FDR created the program, checks went out right away and seniors were hooked. Forty years from now, someone isn't going to start withdrawing money and say "Thanks George" and start voting Republican forever.

If you do some research beyond what DU has to say, you will find this is an idea that only has advantages to you if you are under 25 to 30 years old. Try the Wall Street Journal as one source. The Heritage foundation as another.

and the money isnt safe and durable and definete, hey if oyu want inheritable money banks are great choices, that is no reason to do away with social security

the best way to bankrutp social security is to convicne people to stop putting money in it

Say what you like, but this plan does less than zero to insure SSI solvency.

I agree that in the past long term Market Funds have delivered good returns, but you can't use the past as a gauge for the future. One of the reasons for this sudden revaluing of the solvency of SSI is the forecast by economists that the growth if the US economy will be considerably smaller in the future. With economic growth in flux around 1.5%, as opposed to the historic 3.8%, there is no way the market will deliver as it has in the past.

Let's say the market only averages 7% over the next thirty years. That's still money you would own and control at the end of your working years. That's still better than the 2% that SSI will provide. And it's probably not as good as the market will really perform.

Economists aren't able to predict trends like a Kalman filter can. The markets just don't behave like predictable systems. The economists certainly didn't forsee the boom brought on by the internet in the '90s, so why should we take the doom and gloom predictions by some as gospel? We should always be ready for a recession; we just shouldn't obsess over it.

Now, that brings up a good point in SSI reform. In any good retirement plan, the risk is taken in the early years. There is plenty of time to recover, even profit from a downturn. I put a lot of money into my 401K during the last few years. I hope to reap the rewards during the boom part of the cycle. Anyhow, the SSI reforms have to provide a means to reduce risk exposure when the investor is nearing retirement age. That isn't the time to have everything invested in the market. Still some, but certainly just enough to keep the fund solvent until the investor dies.

Two things to close. Isn't it nicer to talk about investors than recipients? And if this plan is passed into law, I'm getting a Certified Financial Planner certificate!
SSI is also your disability insurance. It's what you get if you can no longer work. True you can't take it with you when you die, but there's a chance you may need it for a long time while your alive. Bush's plan threatens this as well. For most Americans, SSI disability is the only thing that well keep them from becoming homeless if they become disabled and can no longer work.
I tried briefly to find the proportion of disabilty recipients vs retirement recipients and I couldn't. My hunch is that the percentage of retirees vs the percentage of disability recipients is several orders higher. I would guess that it's probably 1000 or more times higher, but I can't prove it. Maybe someone else can provide that number. Anyhow, that doesn't affect my argument too much. Just expand Medicare/Medicaid to cover disabilities that aren't taken care of with Workman's comp or private disability insurance. My disability insurance from work is far superior to SSI and costs a small fraction of it.

and the money isnt safe and durable and definete, hey if oyu want inheritable money banks are great choices, that is no reason to do away with social security

the best way to bankrutp social security is to convicne people to stop putting money in it
Last post this afternoon. I still need to get some stuff done and this isn't helping. Just agree with me and I'll be able to stop with a clear conscience:)

There are many localities that were able to opt out of SSI. My wife doesn't contribute a penny because the county schools have their own retirement system. There's also Galveston, Texas, where the municipal employees don't pay into SSI. This is true for both places as far as I can tell. When someone retires after completing thirty years of service they stop drawing their regular paycheck. The next check is a monthly retirement check. That retirement check represents a real raise over their pre-retirement earnings. Both systems invest in the market, as well as other means of diversification. Both systems have some pretty retirees that are pretty happy that they aren't involved in this debate.

oh no!!! we're all gonna diiiiiiiieeeeeeieieieiiieeieeeeiee!!!!!"!!!!!#!!!!!!11!!!111oneone :(

I said that was off topic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!11111111 :p

Originally Posted by Myrmidonisia

Economists aren't able to predict trends like a Kalman filter can. The markets just don't behave like predictable systems. The economists certainly didn't forsee the boom brought on by the internet in the '90s, so why should we take the doom and gloom predictions by some as gospel? We should always be ready for a recession; we just shouldn't obsess over it.

Oh Yeah and they didn't predict the technology bust either. By the way the "Doom and Gloom" predictions of 1.5% growth are from the economic heads that govern Social Security itself. Yes the very numbers that the shortfall predictions are based on, that the President is in fact using to sell this scheme.

Of course the glowing predictions of high Market returns completely ignore these numbers, they are based on past performance, not expected future performance. The Republicans are using economic bait and switch to sell this.

Chess, your flamebaiting aside, are you sure you're not secretly a brit? I mean, look at your spelling. Who knows, you may be drinking tea and eating scones this very minute

leave chess alone, we brits have a good pensions system and we know what we are talking about! it's you americans who can't even spell the word "colour"
LONG LIVE ENGLISH SOCIALISM!!!......back to my scones i go :mad:

Oh Yeah and they didn't predict the technology bust either. By the way the "Doom and Gloom" predictions of 1.5% growth are from the economic heads that govern Social Security itself. Yes the very numbers that the shortfall predictions are based on, that the President is in fact using to sell this scheme.

Of course the glowing predictions of high Market returns completely ignore these numbers, they are based on past performance, not expected future performance. The Republicans are using economic bait and switch to sell this.
Well I'm glad I'm in a position to put the max away in my 401K and my Roth IRA each year. It's too bad the people that need that option are being denied the choice by the obstructionists in Congress.

My money is going to the market, not to the bank. I don't count on SSI and I have convinced my kids not to count on SSI. Not for a penny. They all have started Roth IRAs with matching funds from me. Should compound pretty well for them. I guess my RL job is done. Let's all get together in 30 years and see how things have panned out.

thats about as good as it gets, ill summarise

bush wants privatisation of social security, he declares its bankrupcy in x number of years
as i understand it, the social security is being supported by the current working class paying into it
if bush wins, money actually going into SS will be diverted to unsafe private accounts, taking more money away from ss
this ENSURES its bankrupcy. where as if we stick it out, the baby boomers will die out and eventually more money WILL be going into the system than is rightfully being removed and it will be ok QUOTE]

http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/censusstatistic/a/aabirthrate.htm

Odd, where are the additional people coming from then??

And what about the continued increase in life expectancy??

[QUOTE=Chess Squares]no, your missing it. privatise means people will have their own accoutns they can CHOOSE to put money into or not, money will no logner go to social security. that money will be based in the stock market instead of how the current system is, if another black tuesday occurs, everyone is fucked.

Actually the way I have been hearing it 2% of their Social Security taxes would be diverted into private accounts in funds of their choosing.

http://www.house.gov/kolbe/press1999/pr_990505_SocialSecurity.html

2% hardly sounds like a horrific decrease in monies going into the Social Security system does it?

However 2% of SS funds going into the Market will have a decided impact on growth in the stock market and on the bussiness sector as a whole, fueling continued growth in the economy.



http://santorum.senate.gov/pressreleases/record.cfm?id=180710

Santorum and Gregg also responded to the release of the 2001 Social Security Annual Trustees' Report today that estimates that Social Security expenditures will exceed tax revenues in 2016, and the trust funds will remain solvent until 2038, at which time the government will be able to pay only 72% of benefits.

According to Santorum, "The American public is led to believe that Social Security is fine because the trust funds are expected to remain solvent until 2038. But what is repeatedly glossed over is the fact that in 15 years, Social Security payroll tax receipts will no longer be sufficient to pay benefits. In order to redeem bonds in the trust funds, the government will either have to increase taxes, reduce Social Security or other spending, or return to deficits. These options are unacceptable and underscore the urgent need for meaningful Social Security reform."

According to Gregg, "Despite the short-term improvement, Social Security's long-run insolvency has remained the same. Social Security's total unfunded liability in 2001 dollars is projected to be $22.2 trillion over the next 70 years, more than six times larger than the national debt. Without structural reform, Social Security will not be able to deliver what it has promised to working Americans. We have no choice but pursue reform to ensure Social Security will be there for baby boomers and future generations."


Truthfully Chess Squares, 22.2 Trillion dollars does sound like a lot of money doesnt it?

And people have been talking aboutthe insolvency problem of the Social Security system for 25 years or more, so this isnt exactly a problem Bush made up himself is it??

Even with the death of the baby boomers the declining birth rate means that fewer workers will be supporting more retirees than the surrent system, meaning that to maintain the system you either have to tax the workers heavily, decrese the benefits or run up the defict spending.

Which option are you favoring Chess Squares?

and if i recall, arnt the baby boomers most all retired NOW (some may be)?

The baby boom started after WWII, so call it 1945, That means the oldest of baby boomers are 60 this year, not that many people retire before 65, add to that the baby boom lasted until 1965 means that some of the Baby Boomers are only 40 this year.

Hardly near retirement age wouldn't you say Chess Squares?

Also see the projections for Social Security Spending as a percentage of the GDP
http://www.gao.gov/cghome/ssr.pdf

Now 2050 is just plain scary

Another chart shows that by 2050 each retiree will be supported by only 2 workers. How much SS Tax do you think it will take to support those retirees at that time

Its this age demographic that makes the SS fund a problem to be solved Before it becomes insolvent.

Will taking 2% out of Social Security Funds mean that the fund will start spending the investment trust fund sooner? Yes, it will, by perhaps a few Months.

Will 2% of the SS funds invested in the stock market have a positive impact on the stock market? Yes it will and possitive growth in the Stock market will mean growth pretty much throughout the economy wont it?

Meaning that us Baby Boomers who expect to work for another 20 years or so will likely see an increase in our own incomes and just maybe make the investments, save the money, pay off the houses, put the kids through colledge and half a dozen other things that will help us make it through our Golden years, which for me looks to be around 20 years or so long. Thats how long I will be drawing SS almost half of the amount of time I was putting into SSI.

Lets think about this for a moment, Making roughly $4000 a month, ( highest I have ever been paid, sad isnt it? ) paying in to SSI ~$ 250 a month.

But oddly enough SSI sent me a statementthat if I was to retire now I would receive approximately $1000 a month. Or if I wait till retirement age of 65 I will be looking at approximately $ 1800 a month.

Now how many workers will be shouldering my SSI benefits if I retire at 65?

Given my own taxes ( without mucking about with inflation ) it looks like it will take about 8 workers, will there be that many I wonder

How many will still be shouldering it when I reach 80 given the lowering birth rate?

What's your age Chess Squares? Will you be funding my SS benefits?

and no it wont go bankrupt in 2013, socialsecurityreform.org estimates 2037, the gov estime is in early 2042, and look at the governemtn estimate, they assume all the people now on social security will still be alive in a good 30-40 years, hell many baby boomers wont be alive in 30 years unless they all live to ripe old ages

http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2001pres/20011010.html

I look likely to reach 2039 ( 77 years old, another 34 years ) an old age yes, but what been happening with the life expectancy in the last few decades?

When I was a child 60 was considered old. Now thats just not the case is it?
And the life expectancy just keeps rising, maybe I will make it to 85, not entirely out of the question is it?

I might even make it to 100 ( ok thats highly unlikely, but possible isnt it? ) And that whole time I will be drawing 2000 a month, right????

And no it wont go bankrupt in 2013 thats just when revenues will not meet obligations and it will just start have to start to to draw money out of the investment fund to cover thier obligations, thus lowering interest paid to the fund by the investment fund meaning the next year, and they will have to draw even more out of the investment fund to meet their obligations.

A progressively larger percentage each year after that until 2042 when the investment fund will be entirely depleted and the system will not be able to meet its obligations.

So when I am 80 the SSI system will have to either
A. ) Raise taxes sharply
B.) Cut my benefits sharpy
C.) Use defict spending to fund the obligations of the SS program

Which are you in favor of Chess Squares?

Here is something that needs to be considered.

The Republicans have been trying to get an amendment in the Constitution stating that Foreign Governers, or Senators could run for president. Of course, it will be passed since the three branches of government are more than 60% republican. And who will they vote for? The Skynet Dude. Another thing, I also heard that they are also trying to bring the Draft back to help the troops in Iraq.

Actually its a democrat Charles Rangle (spelling?) that has been advocating the return to the draft.

The DoD is against it since it will mean they HAVE to take illiterates as soldiers. In the high tech environment that the military is becoming an illiterate is worse than useless.

Bush has stated over and over again that he is against re-instituting the draft. But somehow it keeps being blamed on republicans. I wonder why

Ahh my poor christian friend. Bring abortion into a discussion about retirement?

Savings accounts? Problem: They are only insured up to 100000 dollars.

Freedom means having some laws. Not freedom from laws.

Hummm, How many savings accounts can a single person have?...

Oh yes as many as they want

10 savings accounts can hold a million. More than I will ever pull out from SSI unless I live to be 105.

I'm asking what should be an obvious question. The break even point is the first time that social security has as much money going out as going in? If so, what happened to all the money the fund should have built up over the years. Seems like 70+ years of surpluses should provide the funds to cover more than 20-30 years of deficits. Perhaps the government should focus more on paying back the funds they've skimmed off than revamping the entire system. Maybe with those getting rid of Bush's lavish tax cuts for the weathy. Just a thought.

it's you americans who can't even spell the word "colour"

our bad...what were we thinking, taking extraneous and unnecessary vowels out of words?

Ah, I'm just kiddin' with you. I love british people. Except Prince Harry. friggin' nazi. Sorry. It appears I've strayed off topic.

If so, what happened to all the money the fund should have built up over the years?

Well, it started going away when Lyndon Johnson and the Democrat-controlled Congress took Social Security out of the independent "Trust" Fund and put it into the "General" Fund, so that Congress could spend the money coming into it.

And of course, you can't forget that Jimmy Carter started giving annuity payments to illegal immigrants. They reaped the benefits and never paid into the system, so who know how much money it's lost?

How is jeopardizing the Social Security fund like the great retirement and health bennies of Federal Employees? That's just silly, your just pulling this stuff out of your ass.

Looking at my own pay stub I would say the majority of working Americans pay $25.00 to $50.00 weekly to Social Security. Currently the SSI fund is good till 2042. If you take money from it, it won't be. On the other hand if you increase the SSI contribution just 1%, (and that only a few more dollars a week for most people) it's good for the next 75 years.

All the Republicans want to do is to siphon off hundreds of millions of dollars out of the SSI fund to shore up the slumping Stock Market. They aren't giving you a choice in your investment, 401K programs are more flexible. Most people can direct their investments instantly online to safe Bond or Money Market funds when the market looks rocky.

Well Sparky is that any different than what your saying? You want to pull an additional 1% of everyones paycheck to fund the SSI fund dont you? Thats not hunbreds of millions of dollars Sparky thats Billions of Dollars

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/policy/docs/chartbooks/fast_facts/2003/text_c35.shtml
$627 billion in revenue collected by the Social Security trust funds in 2002.

Thats with SSI collecting 12.4% ( 6.2 percent from my check and 6.2% my employer pays in to the system as well, which he could be paying me! )

You want to increase it another 1%? That equals about 50 Billion a year you want to take out of peoples hands and give it to the Government

And your griping about the 4 to 5% they want to take out of the 12.4 %?

And no Sparky that will not lower the SSI taxes to 7.4% of payroll tax but lower it to about 11.8% of payroll taxes.

Ohhhh scary, thats about what? 4 billion? maybe 5 billion that people will get to invest?

So basically you want to confiscate 10 times the amount of money for the SSI program than the Republicans want to take from the program correct?

And Democrats call Republicans Greedy? :confused:

And have you ever looked at mutual funds?? Deposit 10 dollars a week into a mutual fund and in 40 years you will have more than a million dollars in the account.

It's called Compound Interest. You will never get a return like that from the government no matter how hard you try.

Oh and the depression? Look at where the stock market was 20 years later.

Look it up Sparky, you might just be surprised

The stock market has ALWAYS paid off in the long run, someone said 10%, but I think its closer to 12% in a twenty year span.

SSI returns what? 2%?

Keep trusting the government to take care of you Sparky, after all look how well it has taken care of seniors for the last 40 years.

Sorry about the Sparky, was just too easy :)

I'm asking what should be an obvious question. The break even point is the first time that social security has as much money going out as going in? If so, what happened to all the money the fund should have built up over the years. Seems like 70+ years of surpluses should provide the funds to cover more than 20-30 years of deficits. Perhaps the government should focus more on paying back the funds they've skimmed off than revamping the entire system. Maybe with those getting rid of Bush's lavish tax cuts for the weathy. Just a thought.

I am afraid it went to fund tax cuts, military spending, education, city centre redevelopment you name it htey sppent it on it. The problem was that they did not forsee the demographic changes, so this was the fountain of eternal revenue, there would always be more coming in than going out.
But you knew that anyway.

How is jeopardizing the Social Security fund like the great retirement and health bennies of Federal Employees? That's just silly, your just pulling this stuff out of your ass.

<snip of material replied to in previous post cause it was just so much fun all by itself >

401K programs are more flexible. Most people can direct their investments instantly online to safe Bond or Money Market funds when the market looks rocky.

Well its called the Thrift Savings Plan, ( at least for the majority of Government workers, Representitives and Senators and ex presidents all receive an annual pension that equals their last year of pay, but then again they got to vote for it so of course they screwed over everyone )

ANYWAY, Under the Thrift Savings Plan I can invest up to 10% of my paycheck tax free ( yes more than 6.2 % you pay in SSI ) in a variety of funds. From Treasury bonds, and extreemly stable funds to very volitile funds that can at times pay upwards of 20% per year. Of course the more volitile the fund the more likely it is to flat line and end up costing you money.

To the best of your knowledge Ultra Cool People, has anyone ever lost any money investing in Treasury Bonds?

Under certain circumstances a Government Employee can invest 15% of their income into the fund. For a GS-14 Step 10 that equates to around 15,000 a year

And how much can you invest in a 401K a year without paying taxes on it?
$2000 ?

So yeah there are remarkable parrallels between the Thrift Savings plan where government employees get to invest their wages tax free and what Bush is proposing, where EVRYONE will have the same opportunity, only difference is that Government employees have a Much Higher level of investment possible without having to pay taxes

How much do you have saved?? Oh wait, your trusting the government arent you?

Be well

AAhhzz

Not being an economist, there is only so much I can add to this debate. But it seems to me that the stock market is just gambling. Someone has to lose for someone else to win.

Not being an economist, there is only so much I can add to this debate. But it seems to me that the stock market is just gambling. Someone has to lose for someone else to win.

To a certain extent yes it is.

However there are mutual funds that invest soley in extreemly stable stocks. These Blue Chip stocks represent true investments in the sense that they never lose money. Now granted they dont GAIN money quickly, but they dont lose it

If you stick with these your going to see a very tidy sum in your account over a 40 year span.

Finally when your in the stock market your basically betting that the economy will continue to grow over the long term. No one has ever lost money betting FOR the US economy.

Funny thing is when your investing in the stock market your helping to fuel that growth.

Sort of a self fullfilling prophecy.

Respectfully

AAhhzz
*nope not an economist either but I have been watching the stock market over 20 years and even with the DotCom bubble burst and the Enron / World Com scandles it has still has made money hand over fist*

Pretty soon the whole damn health entitlement system in this country is going to crash. If you think SocSec is bad you need to look at the numbers in Medicare. 3rd pic down shows that debacle.

Might help if i gave the link: http://www.economist.com/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=3559860

Pretty soon the whole damn health entitlement system in this country is going to crash. If you think SocSec is bad you need to look at the numbers in Medicare. 3rd pic down shows that debacle.

Might help if i gave the link: http://www.economist.com/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=3559860

YIKES!

I knew Medicare was becoming a burden on the budget, but I did not realize How Big a burden, I should have noticed :eek: :(

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/sheets/24_12.xls

row 501 shows Medicare Total expedatures FY 2003 (actual) and 2004 through 2009 .

How much do you have saved?? Oh wait, your trusting the government arent you?

Be well

AAhhzz

Oh hello Biff.

Hummm, How many savings accounts can a single person have?...

Oh yes as many as they want

10 savings accounts can hold a million. More than I will ever pull out from SSI unless I live to be 105.

And yet the guarantee your money is protectected is not guaranteed.

Did the savings and loans people get all their money back?

How long did it take if they did?

Why did our funds people vist our company to tell everybody they didn't invest right when the funds lost money?

Well Sparky is that any different than what your saying? You want to pull an additional 1% of everyones paycheck to fund the SSI fund dont you? Thats not hunbreds of millions of dollars Sparky thats Billions of Dollars

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/policy/docs/chartbooks/fast_facts/2003/text_c35.shtml
$627 billion in revenue collected by the Social Security trust funds in 2002.

Thats with SSI collecting 12.4% ( 6.2 percent from my check and 6.2% my employer pays in to the system as well, which he could be paying me! )

You want to increase it another 1%? That equals about 50 Billion a year you want to take out of peoples hands and give it to the Government

And your griping about the 4 to 5% they want to take out of the 12.4 %?

And no Sparky that will not lower the SSI taxes to 7.4% of payroll tax but lower it to about 11.8% of payroll taxes.

Ohhhh scary, thats about what? 4 billion? maybe 5 billion that people will get to invest?

So basically you want to confiscate 10 times the amount of money for the SSI program than the Republicans want to take from the program correct?

And Democrats call Republicans Greedy? :confused:

And have you ever looked at mutual funds?? Deposit 10 dollars a week into a mutual fund and in 40 years you will have more than a million dollars in the account.

It's called Compound Interest. You will never get a return like that from the government no matter how hard you try.

Oh and the depression? Look at where the stock market was 20 years later.

Look it up Sparky, you might just be surprised

The stock market has ALWAYS paid off in the long run, someone said 10%, but I think its closer to 12% in a twenty year span.

SSI returns what? 2%?

Keep trusting the government to take care of you Sparky, after all look how well it has taken care of seniors for the last 40 years.

Sorry about the Sparky, was just too easy :)

Yes it's so much better to trust my future to the Republicans. :rolleyes:

Oh and Sparky, that is the biggest load of crap, the very numbers that predict the SSI shortfall peg real growth at 1.5% which means you market returns will be pretty stagnant. Why don't you get your head out of the President's ass and do some real research. You might be surprised what some fresh air will do. :)

Yes it's so much better to trust my future to the Republicans. :rolleyes:

Oh and Sparky, that is the biggest load of crap, the very numbers that predict the SSI shortfall peg real growth at 1.5% which means you market returns will be pretty stagnant. Why don't you get your head out of the President's ass and do some real research. You might be surprised what some fresh air will do. :)

Wouldnt a 1.5% increase be the worst case scenario?

Is it not best to plan for the worst and be prepared for it, than to plan on the best and be caught unprepared?

Can you show me a single ten year span in which the stock market made as low a return as SSI makes eveyr year? Any references?

If not I will take it as a given that the market out performs the SSI fund. What a shocker! :eek:

As for numbers I note you dont argue with the numbers I supplied.

Would not a 1% increase in SSI taxes equate to about 50 Billion a year? Somehow I cant trust your numbers, after 50 billion a year to make up a 22 Trillion dollar defict over a 70 year period doesnt seem reasonable does it?

Lets see...50 billion times 70 = 3.5 Trillion. Nope, looks like your going to need to keep increasing the taxes as you go along does it not?? 3.5 Trillion is a far cry from 22 Trillion isnt it?

How large a percentage of Your Paycheck are you willing to part with to keep SSI going? If you looked at the charts you would see that by 2050 it is estimated that every retiree will only have 2 workers supplying them with thier SSI benefits. So are you willing to have your wages cut by 20% to support the retirees? 25%? 50%?

And nice anatomical references there, must be utterly devistating when you use them in your usual conversations

Be well

Wouldnt a 1.5% increase be the worst case scenario?

Is it not best to plan for the worst and be prepared for it, than to plan on the best and be caught unprepared?

Can you show me a single ten year span in which the stock market made as low a return as SSI makes eveyr year? Any references?

If not I will take it as a given that the market out performs the SSI fund. What a shocker! :eek:

As for numbers I note you dont argue with the numbers I supplied.

Would not a 1% increase in SSI taxes equate to about 50 Billion a year? Somehow I cant trust your numbers, after 50 billion a year to make up a 22 Trillion dollar defict over a 70 year period doesnt seem reasonable does it?

Lets see...50 billion times 70 = 3.5 Trillion. Nope, looks like your going to need to keep increasing the taxes as you go along does it not?? 3.5 Trillion is a far cry from 22 Trillion isnt it?

How large a percentage of Your Paycheck are you willing to part with to keep SSI going? If you looked at the charts you would see that by 2050 it is estimated that every retiree will only have 2 workers supplying them with thier SSI benefits. So are you willing to have your wages cut by 20% to support the retirees? 25%? 50%?

And nice anatomical references there, must be utterly devistating when you use them in your usual conversations

Be well


I didn't argue your numbers beecause you didn't give a source. Here read this, and wash your head it smells like ass. :p

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/YourMoney/story?id=412634&page=1

And yet the guarantee your money is protectected is not guaranteed.

Did the savings and loans people get all their money back?

How long did it take if they did?

Why did our funds people vist our company to tell everybody they didn't invest right when the funds lost money?

The Set up

1966-1979 Market interest rates fluctuate with increasing intensity and S&Ls experience difficulty with each interest rate rise. Interest rate ceilings prevent S&Ls from paying competitive interest rates on deposits. Thus, every time the market interest rates rise, substantial amounts of funds are withdrawn by consumers for placement in instruments with higher rates of return. This process of deposit withdrawal ("disintermediation") and the subsequent deposit influx when rates rise ("reintermediation") leaves S&Ls highly vulnerable. Concurrently, money market funds become a source of competition for S&L deposits. S&Ls are additionally restricted by not being allowed to enter into business other than accepting deposits and granting home mortgage loans.

1980-1982 Statutory and regulatory changes give the S&L industry new powers in the hopes of their entering new areas of business and subsequently returning to profitability. For the first time, the government approves measures intended to increase S&L profits as opposed to promoting housing and homeownership.

March, 1980--Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (DIDMCA) enacted. The law is a Carter Administration initiative aimed at eliminating many of the distinctions among different types of depository institutions and ultimately removing interest rate ceiling on deposit accounts. Authority for federal S&Ls to make ADC (acquisition, development, construction) loans is expanded. Deposit insurance limit raised to $100,000 from $40,000. This last provision is added without debate.
November, 1980--Federal Home Loan Bank Board reduces net worth requirement for insured S&Ls from 5 to 4 percent of total deposits. Bank Board also removes limits on the amounts of brokered deposits an S&L can hold.

August, 1981--Tax Reform Act of 1981 enacted. Provides powerful tax incentives for real-estate investment by individuals. This legislation helps create a "boom" in real estate and contributes to over-building.

September, 1981-- Federal Home Loan Bank Board permits troubled S&Ls to issue "income capital certificates" that are purchased by FSLIC and included as capital. Rather than showing that an institution is insolvent, the certificates make it appear solvent.

1982-1985 Reductions in the Bank Board's regulatory and supervisory staff. In 1983, a starting S&L examiner is paid $14,000 a year. The average examiner has only two years on the job. Examiner salaries are paid through OMB, not the Bank Board. During this period of supervisory and examination retraction, industry growth increases. Industry assets increase by 56% between 1982 and 1985. 40 Texas S&Ls triple in size between 1982 and 1986; many of them grow by 100% each year. California S&Ls follow a similar pattern.

August, 1985--Only $4.6 billion in FSLIC insurance fund. Chairman Gray tries to gain support for recapitalizing FSLIC on Capitol Hill. In 1986, GAO estimates the loss to the insurance fund to be around $20 billion.

1986-1989 Compounding of losses as insolvent institutions are allowed to remain open and grow, allowing ever increasing losses to accumulate.

August, 1987--Competitive Equality Banking Act of 1987 enacted. The Act authorizes $10.8 billion recapitalization of the FSLIC with only $3.75 billion authorized in any 12-month period. Also contains forbearance measures designed to postpone or prevent S&L closures.


February, 1988--Bank Board introduces the "Southwest Plan" to consolidate and package insolvent Texas S&Ls and sell them to the highest bidder. The strategy is to resolve insolvencies quickly while conserving scarce cash for FSLIC. The Bank Board uses a number of strategies to pay for the difference between assets and liabilities of the failed institutions: FSLIC notes, tax incentives, and income, capital value and yield guarantees. The Bank Board disposes of 205 S&Ls through the Southwest Plan with assets of $101 billion.

November, 1988--George Bush elected President. S&L problem not part of election debate.

1989--President Bush unveils S&L bailout plan in February. In August, Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA). FIRREA abolishes the Federal Home Loan Bank Board and FSLIC, switches S&L regulation to newly created Office of Thrift Supervision. Deposit insurance function shifted to the FDIC. A new entity, the Resolution Trust Corporation is created to resolve the insolvent S&Ls.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_scandal

Savings and Loan crisis of the 1980s was a wave of savings and loan failures in the USA, caused by mismanagement, failed speculation and, in some cases, fraud. The US taxpayers took the brunt of the ultimate cost, which totalled around US$600 billion.


Did the savings and loans people get all their money back?

I would think that 600 Billion would have resolved this situation, but alas I can not find a reference stating the it was finally totally resolved

How long did it take if they did?

I seem to recall that this situation was sorted out by the mid 1990's but I can not find a reference to establish this and my memory is less than an impeachable witness.

Do you have a reference?

Why did our funds people vist our company to tell everybody they didn't invest right when the funds lost money?[/

Depends, if your investment portfolio looks anything like the Thrift Savings plan you have several options for investment at various levels of risk The lowest risk investments tend to be the ones with the lowest expected return.

If you, or your company, or your union made an investment in higher return stocks you accepted the implied risk that these stocks pose.

So tell me, who was the one picking the stocks and accepting the risks in your situation? Was it you that picked the stock/mutual fund?

A Company representitive?

A Union representitive?

Who ever it was is the person who has to accept the blame for the loss.

The Thrift Savings plan makes it extreemly clear that the higher the potential return the more risk an investor takes, with the lowest returns ( ~ 4 to 6% annually ) having virtually no risk and the higher you go from that level the more risk your assuming.

Works out great if you watch the market closely and know when to pull your funds out of the higher risk catagories and place them in the low risk funds

Sucks if you dont watch it and have to learn from the 5 o clock news that the stocks that you own have turned into so much paper.

Be well

AAhhzz

I didn't argue your numbers beecause you didn't give a source. Here read this, and wash your head it smells like ass. :p

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/YourMoney/story?id=412634&page=1

So I read

Paragraph 9 "The only thing to argue here is whether "now" is the time to act. Actuaries agree that the existing pay-as-you-go formula — in which revenue collected from the payroll taxes of current workers pays the benefits of current retirees — will fund benefits at current levels through 2018. After that, there will be too few workers and too many retirees for payroll tax revenue to fully cover retiree benefits. But actuaries estimate there is enough money in the Social Security trust fund to make up the difference through 2042. "

Odd I stated pretty much the same thing in my post. I think Iused the 2014 year as the year that the SSI trust fund will start to be raided to make up the difference, resulting in less income from the trust fund every year, and increasing the amount the trust fund is depleteed every year untill it runs out in 2042. Oh yes I did say that didnt I?

You did read it carefully did you not?

http://www.gao.gov/cghome/ssr.pdf

You did look at pages 4 and 5 didnt you?

As for references to numbers I did give a reference

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/policy/docs/chartbooks/fast_facts/2003/text_c35.shtml

$627 billion in revenue collected by the Social Security trust funds in 2002.

I will admit that I did make one mathmatical error here, of the 627 Billion only 85% of that is from payroll taxes, ( 532 Billion )

Another 13% is from the Interest collected by the Social Security Trust fund ( you know the Fund they start tapping in 2018 according to ABC, 2014 according to Government Accounting Office) ( 81.51 Billion )

And oddly enough 2% came from taxing the benefit paid from the SSI plan. So basically the beneficiaries are already not being paid the entire amount they were promised since they now have to pay back into the system. (12.54 Billion )

So in truth only 532 billion was from payroll takes

Now if 6.2 percent from me and 6.2% in matching funds from my employer equals 527 Billion that means each percentage point is worth 26.948 Billion

527 Billion divided by 12.4 = 26.948 Billion

Since you seem to have difficulty following numbers I am trying to be helpful here

We will refer back to this number later in this post so keep it in your thoughts

Heres something else I noted on the SS website

http://www.ssa.gov/history/reports/hsiao/hsiaoChapter4.PDF

That the OASDI system faces serious financial problems is agreed by the
Trustees of the system in their 1974 and 1975 Annual Reports, by the Panel on Social Security Financing, and by the Advisory Council on Social Security.

So this has been a known problem for 30 years? I dont see how you can lay the blame on Bush since it predates his tenure in office by 26 years.

Bush is just the first one to actually try to fix it.

Oddly enough this report only seems to advocate increasing taxes and decreasing benefits

Bush isnt advocating either of these is he? Just a reduced reliance on the government and increased reliance on themarket. Which since 1871 has never had a ten year strech where it Lost money, or did you find one?

I note you did not answer that question


Bush's Speech "By the time today's workers who are in their mid-20s begin to retire, the system will be bankrupt. So if you're 20 years old, in your mid-20s, I want you to think about a Social Security system that will be flat bust, bankrupt, unless the United States Congress has got the willingness to act now."

This is a reference to what happens in 2042 and is a scary half-truth. In 2042 the surplus accumulated in the Social Security Trust Fund — from decades of workers paying in more than retirees took out — will indeed be exhausted. But it does not mean workers retiring at that point would get nothing. If the system continues to operate on a pay-as-you-go basis, actuaries estimate retirees would collect Social Security income worth about 70 percent of today's benefits.

So you are suggesting that people who should retire in 2042 pay into the system and not receive the benefits they have paid for? Just accept that they will only receive 70 cents on the dollar of the benefits should receive?

Wonder what happens as the workforce population continues to decline as indicated on page 5 http://www.gao.gov/cghome/ssr.pdf

This might be another reference you missed, or perhaps it just didnt fit your conception of how the world should be so you rejected it.

But lets look at it closely now shall we?

By 2042 the chart seems to indicate that there will be ( I will be generous here the chart is not graphed as finely as one could hope for ) 3 workers per beneficiary

What will this do to the amount of tax those people will have to pay out?

Well the graph on page 4 http://www.gao.gov/cghome/ssr.pdf seems to indicate that Medicare Part A and Social Security will together consume about 24% of a persons paycheck. Eventually rising to about 28% in 2078 at the end of the chart

My my, thats a bit higher than the 14% currently for SSI and Medicare now isnt it?

Raise SSI 1.89% now as is being advocated in this ABC article and you wll forstall that situation somewhat, but you will not be able to keep it from evenutally happening

And while the president vowed again on Tuesday not to raise taxes to fix Social Security, actuaries further estimate benefits could be maintained at current levels through 2078 by raising payroll taxes 1.89 percent, or less than 1 percent on workers, and less than 1 percent on employers.

Oh, so the plan isnt actually advocating a 1% increase its proposing a 1.89% increase.

Well earlier we figured out that each percentage point equals 26.948 Billion dollars

26.948 Billion times 1.89 equals 50.932 Billion dollars

Humm Yes, I actually did say 50 Billion Dollars in the previous post didnt I? Seems my estimate turned out closer than yours

And what did that say? Benefits could be maintained at current levels through 2078?

Wonder what happens then?

Maybe thats when the benefits decline because even under the rosiest projections that is the breaking point, when is not enough revenue gathered to pay for the benefits the retirees have paid for?

Oh and one question, since benefits are based on the amount paid in will not benefits have to increase if we all start paying an additional 1.89% into the system?

Wonder if they took that into consideration

Can you provide a reference?

Article continued

This is the biggest and one of the most controversial numbers the president has been using to make his case. First, some perspective on that number: $11 trillion is the size of the annual GDP of the U.S. economy! What the president is suggesting is that unless Congress acts now, Americans will have to make up a shortfall equal to the entire U.S. economy. It's unlikely this shortfall will ever occur. It's an estimate of the gap between promised benefits and revenues to pay for them if the government does nothing between now and the end of time.

Well gee isnt that swell, assuming that in the best case scenario the world will end in about 4 Billion years as the Sun starts fusing helium as its main source of power and the increased heat drives it to expand into a red giant phase boiling off the athmospere and killing the final beneficiaries before they can collect their benefits that give us 4 billion years to make up 11 Trillion Dollars

Oh wait, those numbers hardly make sense do they?

11 Trillion dollars divided by 4 billion years is only 2,750 dollars a year. Which would be covered by what?

2,750 divided by 300,000,000 = $ 0.00000916 per person per year?

Then we hardly need to increase the payroll tax do we?

Somehow I doubt that this is meant to be a now till the end of time figure, perhaps ABC is engaged in a bit of hyperbole? No couldn't be, after all they are the media and absolutely controlled by the Bush cronies arent they?

Lets see what the reference I gave you before states

Page 2 of http://www.gao.gov/cghome/ssr.pdf shows the trust fund and the expected deficits to the SSI program.

In 2014 it appears to show a break even point and the Trust fund peaking out at about 2.3 Trillion dollars.

Each year after that the SSI program shows a deficit each year with 2018 looking to be about 200 billion and 2074 showing a deficit of 600 billion

Oh, wait a second thats 56 years with a minimum deficit of 200 Billion

56 times 200 Billion is 11,200 Billion, or in other words 11.2 Trillion

Odd how well it works out with what Bush is saying if you pay attention to the actual numbers and not to the pablum the media spoons out isnt it?

Article continues

There is no way to know whether this would be true. Certainly historical averages suggest the president is right. While stocks have returned, on average, 6.3 percent annually since 1871, the average return on the Social Security trust fund is around 2 percent. But the reason stocks have a higher average rate of return is because they carry a higher risk. The president suggested today that one way to avoid risk is to impose some "guidelines." He mentioned as a model the "Thrift Savings Plans," which invest conservatively in stocks on behalf of federal employees and return about 6 percent a year

Well well well, So we have a return rate of 6.3 Annually from the stock market?

Thats actually much lower than the figures I have seen for rate of return but perhaps thats just a difference in how it is being worked out mathmatically.

Then again this article has already played fast and slippery with the figures has it not? ( reference to the 11 trillion they dismissed as now till the end of time figure )

Or perhaps ABC is trying to break it to us easy that they have inside information that time will end in 2074? :)

The president is right that private accounts come with fewer limitations than a Social Security account. But Social Security benefits can be passed on in certain circumstances. Currently, if you die and your spouse makes less than $20,000 and is over 60 years old, she/he is entitled to survivor benefits. Children under 18 are also entitled to survivor benefits.

Survivor benefits are limited to 50% of the retirees benefits in most cases, odd how he doesnt mention this trivial little fact isnt it?

Is that enough numbers for you?

Or do you want to give me another article to tear to itty bits and peices? I am always willing to try and help. :)

Be well

AAhhzz

It comes down to this, doesn't it. Bail out SSI by raising taxes and/or reducing benefits. Or reform SSI so that it is truly self-sustaining. I guess there's a third choice and that's to do nothing until it's a crisis. Politics aside, which choice sounds like the best one? Unless I'm missing a few marbles, it sure sounds like the choice behind door number 2.

Face it. The present day detractors of this reform would be all in favor if it were being proposed by Al Gore or John Kerry. They still haven't gotten over the 2000 election and it's going to poison their thoughts for a long time to come.

Why let some facts and a little logic ruin a good argument? These guys can recite from the Dem Underground all day long.

Yeah it's funny, Clinton and the Dems were talking for years about how SS was in need of serious help to keep it going. Now when Bush talks about doing something, there is no problem with it. What the hell is wrong with you democrats? Sure, I know that this whole SS issue is near and dear to you as it is part of the "legacy" of FDR (your idol), but come on. If it was a problem during the Clinton years, and now it's not during Bushs' tenure, who the hell fixed it?



"We need to put that money into a SS lockbox for the future!"-Algore

I hate to quote myself in these threads, but no one ever pointed out why the folks represented in the following example weren't the best model for government retirement plans. They seem to be doing fine, even though they aren't dependent on the government for their retirement.

There are many localities that were able to opt out of SSI. My wife doesn't contribute a penny because the county schools have their own retirement system. There's also Galveston, Texas, where the municipal employees don't pay into SSI. This is true for both places as far as I can tell. When someone retires after completing thirty years of service they stop drawing their regular paycheck. The next check is a monthly retirement check. That retirement check represents a real raise over their pre-retirement earnings. Both systems invest in the market, as well as other means of diversification. Both systems have some pretty retirees that are pretty happy that they aren't involved in this debate.

I hate to quote myself in these threads, but no one ever pointed out why the folks represented in the following example weren't the best model for government retirement plans. They seem to be doing fine, even though they aren't dependent on the government for their retirement.

6 to 12% return on their investment and its stable, death benefits, disability payments and annuity payments for their retirement?

Errr...Which county was that in again?

Respectfully

AAhhzz
*Making preliminary plans to move as soon as I get an answer*

Ok he is sitting around ringing the bell while riding through town yelling about it goin bankrupt, his solution is to have up and coming workers to divert their money htat would go to social security to a private account.

i jsut realised why SS is going to go bankrupt, bush is going to drive it into bankrupcy, if i recall, doesnt the current working generation pay for the current old people on social security generation, if people stop paying, money stops going in and thus it goes bankrupt, GENIOUS. Leave to Bush to make something happen how he said it would happen if they follow his plans.
Do you have ANY understanding of math? Let me make it simple for you, even though you couldn't be bothered to vote in November, therefore forfeited any right to bitch and moan.

If you have more people contributing to the Rooseveltian Ponzi scheme (http://www.sec.gov/answers/ponzi.htm) known as Social Security than are being paid, by definition you have a "surplus." This "surplus" was supposed to be placed in a trust fund, where it would have been allowed to gather interest, and in turn it would have provided for those who haven't paid into the system (the original recipients in 1935, the handicapped on SSI, etc.) However, this trust fund was long ago raided by politicians (of both parties, though mostly Libs,) in order to finance their vote-buying schemes, also known as pork barrel spending.

Fast forward to 2018, when it is projected that recipients will outnumber payers by a factor of 3 to 1...think of the Baby Boom generation, and their retirement age. How long before the system has to pay more than it is receiving?

Oh, by the way, all that money you and I put into Social Security? It doesn't quite belong to you or I...if we die before we collect, our families get nothing of it.

Now, it is too late to do anything that benefits current recipients...but wouldn't you like to actually have something that YOU own, for YOUR retirement...something that you can pass on to YOUR kids?

I know I do.

Al Gore's "lockbox" idea wasn't so bad, really, when you look at it from today's perspective.

It's quite hypocritical of GWB to first raid the Social Security fund to finance part of the tax cuts, and then scream that the fund is going bankrupt. And then propose a scheme that will choke it off further.

Al Gore's "lockbox" idea wasn't so bad, really, when you look at it from today's perspective.

It's quite hypocritical of GWB to first raid the Social Security fund to finance part of the tax cuts, and then scream that the fund is going bankrupt. And then propose a scheme that will choke it off further.

:rolleyes: details! ;)

Much as I hate defending the shrub, SS has been the personal slush fund for both parties.

6 to 12% return on their investment and its stable, death benefits, disability payments and annuity payments for their retirement?

Errr...Which county was that in again?

Respectfully

AAhhzz
*Making preliminary plans to move as soon as I get an answer*
Gwinnett County, Georgia and Galveston City, Texas.

Al Gore's "lockbox" idea wasn't so bad, really, when you look at it from today's perspective.

It's quite hypocritical of GWB to first raid the Social Security fund to finance part of the tax cuts, and then scream that the fund is going bankrupt. And then propose a scheme that will choke it off further.

As was mentioned before, LBJ started raiding SSI funds to prop up his giant welfare mess.

Yes, individuals may go bankrupt, or run out of money, but not the system as a whole.
so just as long as the system is fine, the individual does matter.... hmm?

And this is completely off-topic, but did you know the Mayans predicted the end of the world to be December 23rd, 2012? Intriguing...sorry. I'll shut up now. :rolleyes:
wooo.... the world has ended so many times already.... if anything this is more likely that a huge number of people will die (which utterly sucks, but is not actually the end of the world) which would probably be nearly as many people in the mayan world... so would be the same as the end of the world to them.... things like this have to be taken in context you know.


and back to social security... why would it not be a better idea to have people simply put less into social security and have the option to put more in their own private savings?

and back to social security... why would it not be a better idea to have people simply put less into social security and have the option to put more in their own private savings?
That would be great! Sit down and write letters to you Senators, Congressman, and President right now!

The government is a little reluctant to give anyone's money back to them, however. Allowing a small portion of our Social Security tax to be invested by the government on our behalf is about as much as we can get now.