NationStates Jolt Archive

SAY NO! To the privatization of Social Security. Do not give in to scare tactics of the Bush Administration. Social Security privatization will kill social security alltogether and leave our children in the dust. Same old, same old, don't let the president off track. This plan will take away 40% of benefits, it would take the debt of Soc. Sec. and add up to three trillion dollars of debt. Soc. Sec. cannot be left up to corporate evil. Lobbyists should not run this nation, America must keep social security under control, but privatization is most definatly not the answer! Call you representative or senator and if they are republican, protest their stance, and if they are democrat, embrace their stance. (Since all 45 democratic senators are against this plan.) Don't let our kids pay our price and our debts!.

i doubt there are any 8 year olds here.

i doubt there are any 8 year olds here.
Real age.... mental age perhaps a few

Only people who ACT like 8 year olds. ;)

i doubt there are any 8 year olds here.
He didn't say 8, he said !8, meaning 8x7x6x5x4x3x2x1, or people who are 40,320 years old.

Maybe it was shift+18! ;)

He didn't say 8, he said !8, meaning 8x7x6x5x4x3x2x1, or people who are 40,320 years old.
we don't have many of those either :D

LP: you? ;)

Seo: nah, too obvious :P

Zot: :D

If you meant eight factorial, then the exclaimation point should come after the number.
(ie 8!)

Eitehr way nobody would have got it.

So the government should just support the deadweight of Social Security and be forced to spend untold billions on an archaic and poorly executed system? You know if the government didnt screw up by spending the social security money in the first place for the past 60 years we wouldnt of had this problem so now we have to fix it.

Im just glad I know some tax loopholes so I wont be forced to pay into the system and can save my money the way I want it to be saved.

I say yes. It is you that is using scare tactics.

and why should the current generation of young workers (20-35 ish) be forced to pay into a decaying (its not dead or obsolete yet) system that will be unable to support us when we reach pension age? all told, privatization may not be the best or right answer, but something will need to be done eventually, you cant put a bandage on a broken femur and expect it to heal....

and why should the current generation of young workers (20-35 ish) be forced to pay into a decaying (its not dead or obsolete yet) system that will be unable to support us when we reach pension age? all told, privatization may not be the best or right answer, but something will need to be done eventually, you cant put a bandage on a broken femur and expect it to heal....

Yeah Social Security would of worked better if they saved the money like it was intended to be saved. i.e. over 40 years of working say you contributed 200 thousand dollars to the fund then for the rest of your life you would be given a check subtracting from that 200 grand. Of course though when the system was founded no one wouldnt of lived long enough to collect all their money so the government would pocket the rest.

But instead of saving the money the government spent it as it came in so when people retired the people currently working had to support them.

i wont say anything about whether i like Bush as a president, but i will say this, at least he has the gumption to tackle the problem rather than just pass it off like most of the former administrations

and if properly researched and implemented with care, it could lead to a better system than is currently in place

G W's plan sounds crazy. Correct me if I dont have the facts straight. But anyone will be able to invest der SS funds through mutal funds and the stock market?

Ummm, what happens if the market crashes? Yikes, the average Joe Blow would be bloody dead meat...

I refuse to believe you have no vested interest in what you post-

Original Poster of the thread, how soon will you be cashing out on the hard work of Adam Smith's invisible hand?

Oh noes not the corporate evil!!!11! :rolleyes:

Seriously, why can't people invest their money EARLIER instead of waiting for the government to pay for them?

This is my position on it...

Why doesnt the Govt. take the funds they get and invest it in these conservative low risk accounts that they trust so much and if the market goes bust then that is the govt.s fault and they still owe us the money we deserve when we retire. If these personal accounts are such a great idea then it shouldnt be a problem for the govt to make the decision for them and cover it if theres a problem. And then what we are owed can still get passed down to our kin if we die or whatever.

That way you don't leave it up to people who have no idea what they are doing.

SAY NO! To the privatization of Social Security. Do not give in to scare tactics of the Bush Administration. Social Security privatization will kill social security alltogether and

Amen! Only I want to kill it IMMEDIATELY. Meaning not a single SS check from now on. Genuinely poor old people should then apply for welfare. To begin with, Social Security is illegal. The US government has no constitutional authority whatsoever to run a Ponzi scheme disguised as a pension plan. If anyone wants to argue this assertion, just show me such authority in Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution (this section provides an EXHAUSTIVE list of government powers - i.e. if something's not listed, the Congress is BANNED from touching it).

G W's plan sounds crazy. Correct me if I dont have the facts straight. But anyone will be able to invest der SS funds through mutal funds and the stock market?

Ummm, what happens if the market crashes? Yikes, the average Joe Blow would be bloody dead meat...

only 4% or up to 1000 dollars I believe can be invested in the market initially.

Social Security has been a pet peeve of mine for several years. The system is archaic and undergoing slow collapse. While total privatization may not be the best solution, extreme reform is needed if it has any hope of subsisting for more than 20 more years.

I personally do not wish to pay into a system that will not be able to return my investment when I am eligible.

SAY NO! To the privatization of Social Security. Do not give in to scare tactics of the Bush Administration. Social Security privatization will kill social security alltogether and leave our children in the dust. Same old, same old, don't let the president off track. This plan will take away 40% of benefits, it would take the debt of Soc. Sec. and add up to three trillion dollars of debt. Soc. Sec. cannot be left up to corporate evil. Lobbyists should not run this nation, America must keep social security under control, but privatization is most definatly not the answer! Call you representative or senator and if they are republican, protest their stance, and if they are democrat, embrace their stance. (Since all 45 democratic senators are against this plan.) Don't let our kids pay our price and our debts!.

That was the least persuasively written thing I've seen on the forums in at least twenty minutes...

I find it ironic that people are focusing on one plan, privatization where there are also several plans out there that have been batted around. Bush mentioned them in his speech and is willing to work with Congress on this issue.

Social Security has been a pet peeve of mine for several years. The system is archaic and undergoing slow collapse. While total privatization may not be the best solution, extreme reform is needed if it has any hope of subsisting for more than 20 more years.

I personally do not wish to pay into a system that will not be able to return my investment when I am eligible.

Me either and I'm 22 years old!

I find it ironic that people are focusing on one plan, privatization where there are also several plans out there that have been batted around. Bush mentioned them in his speech and is willing to work with Congress on this issue.


I think it is because that is the one he keeps mentioning with the most zeal while he only breifly mentions the other ideas ont eh table.

What did you think of what I wrote above regarding the market investment accounts?

I do agree that taxes shouldnt be raised.

I do agree that there needs to be reform.

I don't think it shoudl be left up to individuals, but even if it is I still think that it shoudl be insured by the govt. 100% because they are the ones making the decision that that is what we are goig to do with our money.

sorry souldn't resist:
der SS funds
Ja, der SS funds.

Whos funding the SS? Those damn nazis, back again!

This is my position on it...

Why doesnt the Govt. take the funds they get and invest it in these conservative low risk accounts that they trust so much and if the market goes bust then that is the govt.s fault and they still owe us the money we deserve when we retire. If these personal accounts are such a great idea then it shouldnt be a problem for the govt to make the decision for them and cover it if theres a problem. And then what we are owed can still get passed down to our kin if we die or whatever.

That way you don't leave it up to people who have no idea what they are doing.

Only over my dead body! I'm totally serious - they do that, and I start an armed rebellion. I lived in a totalitarian country for a quarter of a century and I'm pretty determined to die a free man. What you propose is Communism, i.e. nationalization of "means of production". It would kill the economy as a minimum and enslave us all as a maximum. I really, really prefer the current system where the government immediately wastes all money collected from Social Security taxes. If the government invests the money instead, then
1) It effectively amounts to nationalization, i.e. forced taking of property (with that small difference that the government does not take companies from owners without compensation but rather forcibly collects taxes from others in order to pay compensation, however the end result is the same - in the beginning the government owns nothing, but through the use or threat of force it acquires a lot of commercial property).
2) It immediately creates tremendous pressures from various interests not to invest in numerous sectors for PC reasons - e.g. in tobacco companies, firearm companies, companies which don't have any (or "enough") women (or blacks or handicapped lesbian Martians or whoever) on their corporate board etc. That would lead to huge distortions in the market (i.e. the stock value would depend not so much on performance as on political correctness), destroying its effectiveness.
3) Ownership of stocks comes with control, and the government would end up with huge voting power on corporate boards. And just as in 2), the agency costs (i.e. the fact that there's actually nobody personally interested in profits) would result in utter devastation (since companies would be managed according to political rather than economic considerations).

I think it is because that is the one he keeps mentioning with the most zeal while he only breifly mentions the other ideas ont eh table.

Yea because it is his plan. LOL!

What did you think of what I wrote above regarding the market investment accounts?

Personal retirement accounts should be familiar to federal employees, because you already have something similar, called the Thrift Savings Plan., which lets workers deposit a portion of their paychecks into any of five different broadly based investment funds.

If its good enough for the government then maybe there is something to it.

I do agree that taxes shouldnt be raised.

seconded

I do agree that there needs to be reform.

Agreed. it does

I don't think it shoudl be left up to individuals, but even if it is I still think that it shoudl be insured by the govt. 100% because they are the ones making the decision that that is what we are goig to do with our money.

We'll have to see what is done in Congress. I think this has to originate in the House because money is involved and only the House can introduce money bills. Bush is willing to work with Congress on this issue and that is a start. We'll have to see what comes from it.

Privatizing social security is about the worst idea possible. Something DOES need to be done about SS, but not privatizing it Bush's way.
I'm a bit more than 18, been working for quite a while, and I've 2 401k's that I've had to roll over. The first one had nearly $6000 in the mid 90s (a decent start for a 20something getting crappy pay). When laid off in 2000, it had barely $2000 in it because of crappy market. Because of leaving the company, I had to roll that over into an even less preforming account. The best to be said- it hasn't lost anymore.
So, there's my private savings. Neither account does well and I don't expect to collect anything worthwhile when I'm old and need it because of inflation. Privatize my ass.
Come up with something else that at least pays me back the amount I put in and isn't profiting cooperate interests (which would garentee some dodgy doings).

Only over my dead body! I'm totally serious - they do that, and I start an armed rebellion. I lived in a totalitarian country for a quarter of a century and I'm pretty determined to die a free man. What you propose is Communism, i.e. nationalization of "means of production". It would kill the economy as a minimum and enslave us all as a maximum. I really, really prefer the current system where the government immediately wastes all money collected from Social Security taxes. If the government invests the money instead, then
1) It effectively amounts to nationalization, i.e. forced taking of property (with that small difference that the government does not take companies from owners without compensation but rather forcibly collects taxes from others in order to pay compensation, however the end result is the same - in the beginning the government owns nothing, but through the use or threat of force it acquires a lot of commercial property).
2) It immediately creates tremendous pressures from various interests not to invest in numerous sectors for PC reasons - e.g. in tobacco companies, firearm companies, companies which don't have any (or "enough") women (or blacks or handicapped lesbian Martians or whoever) on their corporate board etc. That would lead to huge distortions in the market (i.e. the stock value would depend not so much on performance as on political correctness), destroying its effectiveness.
3) Ownership of stocks comes with control, and the government would end up with huge voting power on corporate boards. And just as in 2), the agency costs (i.e. the fact that there's actually nobody personally interested in profits) would result in utter devastation (since companies would be managed according to political rather than economic considerations).

I see your points on 2 and 3 but on 1 it's the same thing in my eyes. Unless I'm missing somethign which is entirely possible since I think you are taking this a bit too far.

on 2 - I think that the market should determine their investments rahter than what is considered right or worng. Just what is most profitable but has the least risk

on 3 - very good point. the govt should give up its right of control and only make it's decisions on investment. Perhaps they could buy stock in things they know they are going to be spending a lot of money on like weapons when there is goign to be a war and then move it to another account later. Plus the govt doesnt get any of this money an all of the stock dividends go to the investers (contributing citizens)

Privatizing social security is about the worst idea possible. Something DOES need to be done about SS, but not privatizing it Bush's way.
I'm a bit more than 18, been working for quite a while, and I've 2 401k's that I've had to roll over. The first one had nearly $6000 in the mid 90s (a decent start for a 20something getting crappy pay). When laid off in 2000, it had barely $2000 in it because of crappy market. Because of leaving the company, I had to roll that over into an even less preforming account. The best to be said- it hasn't lost anymore.
So, there's my private savings. Neither account does well and I don't expect to collect anything worthwhile when I'm old and need it because of inflation. Privatize my ass.
Come up with something else that at least pays me back the amount I put in and isn't profiting cooperate interests (which would garentee some dodgy doings).
Are you sure you're 18?

I don't think it shoudl be left up to individuals

Why?! Do you think I'm an idiot? In that case, could you please care to list what other important decisions should not be left to me? Decisions what to think and which books to read?! I still remember how I first read "Doctor Zhivago" (a photo copy of a smuggled foreign edition) at a time when mere possession of the book was punishable by imprisonment up to three years.

Are you sure you're 18?

I was just wondering that!

Lobbyists should not run this nation
There's an interesting concept. You say that like it's a new idea.

Glad I live in Canada. All our projections indicate Canada pension will exist so long as the nation does. But there are millions of people who are living in such poverty, that can't afford any new taxes.

Glad I live in Canada. All our projections indicate Canada pension will exist so long as the nation does. But there are millions of people who are living in such poverty, that can't afford any new taxes.

Maybe you should find a way to rectify that?

I kNow l3ts privat1ze the whitehouse :p

social secrurity privatisation, thats getting out of hand

You know, I almost feel sorry for you silly americans, almost.
Here in Canada we truly are free, we have a government that works for us rather than against us, and we don't make issues of non-issues.

Social Security is not nearly as screwed up here as it is in your silly messed up place you like to call a 'country'.
I definatly see your point that GW is screwing up everything for you, and the rest of the world.
But unfortunatly as one of your presidents once said,"Never will there pass a day when the American people don't realize that their politics affects the whole globe"Teddy Roosevelt

You people I am sure all voted, but you still didn't get enough of you out there to defeat him," ... you should know better than to trust the american people to do the right thing" President Wilson

It serves you right if your social services are going to pot, you had a chance, but what did you do? you screwed it up

I'm a bit more than 18, been working for quite a while, and I've 2 401k's that I've had to roll over. The first one had nearly $6000 in the mid 90s (a decent start for a 20something getting crappy pay). When laid off in 2000, it had barely $2000 in it because of crappy market.

No, it's because of your own crappy brain. The broad market in 2000 was at about the same level (or may be just a few per cent lower) than in 1999 and definitely MUCH HIGHER than in the mid 90s (both DJIA and S&P 500 were at least TWICE higher in 2000 than in 1995). If you somehow managed to lose two thirds of your investments, it can only mean that you made some EXTREMELY bad investment decisions. Maybe you were just stupid and/or ignorant or maybe you took a deliberate huge risk in an attempt to get rich fast, but those were YOUR decision, and YOU should live with the consequences - that's what freedom is all about. What right do you have to demand that *I* must give you some of my money?!

Why?! Do you think I'm an idiot? In that case, could you please care to list what other important decisions should not be left to me? Decisions what to think and which books to read?! I still remember how I first read "Doctor Zhivago" (a photo copy of a smuggled foreign edition) at a time when mere possession of the book was punishable by imprisonment up to three years.


You personally no - and my my aren't you hostile? I'm just throwing out ideas mister guy.

I am not an idiot either but I know nothing about the stock market and I am sure that MILLIONS of other people don't either.

I think it shoudl be left up to those that are proposing this plan. At least I would feel more comfortable this way plus it gives us a greater chance of having these accounts be insured by the Govt.

You know, I almost feel sorry for you silly americans, almost.
Here in Canada we truly are free, we have a government that works for us rather than against us, and we don't make issues of non-issues.

Social Security is not nearly as screwed up here as it is in your silly messed up place you like to call a 'country'.
I definatly see your point that GW is screwing up everything for you, and the rest of the world.
But unfortunatly as one of your presidents once said,"Never will there pass a day when the American people don't realize that their politics affects the whole globe"Teddy Roosevelt

You people I am sure all voted, but you still didn't get enough of you out there to defeat him," ... you should know better than to trust the american people to do the right thing" President Wilson

It serves you right if your social services are going to pot, you had a chance, but what did you do? you screwed it up

Thank you Canada! Here's another reason why President Bush won re-election.

Ok now with that out of the way! Our social Security has been screwed up from the start. Not to mention it never counted on people living longer and healthier lives. They didn't take into account inflation either. This has going on long before Bush my learned Canadian colleague.

It serves you right if your social services are going to pot, you had a chance, but what did you do? you screwed it up
Bite me. You're blaming me for things that happened before I was born.

You people I am sure all voted, but you still didn't get enough of you out there to defeat him," ... you should know better than to trust the american people to do the right thing" President Wilson

I knew Wilson was a piece of shit but damn...

Privitization of ss defeats the whole purpose, which is to insure some sort of funds to people in their old age. If you're going to totatlly privitize it, then you might as well get rid of it all together. I personally believe the privitization is not the way to go because it means that if for one reason or another, if i loose all my money by the time im 65, i wouldn't have any source of income whatsoever. The Bush plan baically allows people who make lots of money to keep lots of money. Privitization takes the "sercure" out of social security.

I knew Wilson was a piece of shit but damn...

No wonder that the League of Nations was rejected as well as his 14 points by the US Congress!

I see your points on 2 and 3 but on 1 it's the same thing in my eyes. Unless I'm missing somethign which is entirely possible since I think you are taking this a bit too far.

on 2 - I think that the market should determine their investments rahter than what is considered right or worng. Just what is most profitable but has the least risk

on 3 - very good point. the govt should give up its right of control and only make it's decisions on investment. Perhaps they could buy stock in things they know they are going to be spending a lot of money on like weapons when there is goign to be a war and then move it to another account later. Plus the govt doesnt get any of this money an all of the stock dividends go to the investers (contributing citizens)

OK, more on 1). The government is only justified to collect as much taxes as needed for the operation of government. However the government should not tax people (= take some of their money by force) in order to acquire commercial property. This is nationalization pure and simple.

2) The market only determines investments when people make them out of their own pockets. Interestingly, most people only care about risk/return combination, and so called "socially responsible" funds are not particularly popular. However if the government is allowed to invest, investment decisions are made by politicians who 1) do not invest their OWN money, 2) probably will not even be around in the long term when the results of the investment will become clear, 3) in the short term are very susceptible to political pressures and absolutely don't want campaign ads saying "He invested public funds in corporations which <insert your favorite PC horror>!" So on one hand, investments will be skewed and on the other hand, in order not to be cut off from a huge source of capital, corporations will voluntarily start to make changes to please various PC pieties (they already do this to some degree with the so called "affirmative action", same-sex partner benefits etc.) and to the detriment of the actual efficiency.

3) It is totally unrealistic to expect the government NOT to meddle. As soon as Clinton was sworn in, his PC supporters pressured him into pushing their homosexualist and feminist agenda on the US military (to the great detriment of the latter). It would be extremely naive to believe in the restraint should the government come in possession of a large stake in American corporations.

Maybe you should find a way to rectify that?

Opps sorry I mean in America, there is no poverty in Canada, well there is some but those are people who refuse to be helped.

Privitization of ss defeats the whole purpose, which is to insure some sort of funds to people in their old age. If you're going to totatlly privitize it, then you might as well get rid of it all together. I personally believe the privitization is not the way to go because it means that if for one reason or another, if i loose all my money by the time im 65, i wouldn't have any source of income whatsoever. The Bush plan baically allows people who make lots of money to keep lots of money. Privitization takes the "sercure" out of social security.


you make a good point here:

Simply that we started social security because people didnt save on their own (and it became a huge burden on the country) so we sorta made them do it. If I didnt have social security I wouldnt have a damn thing saved. Yes... I suck. So that is why I suggested that it's fine if the govt. wants to invest the money - a return on what we invest sounds quite nice - but we can't just expect that people will make the right decisions. Also, like I said I think it is very important that these accounts be insured by the govt. since they think investing in teh market is such a great foolproof idea. Because it's true that you cant count on people to always do teh right thing.

Here in Canada we truly are free

Yeah, right. Like that man who was CRIMINALLY prosecuted for buying a newspaper ad entirely consisting of a Bible quote.

Opps sorry I mean in America, there is no poverty in Canada, well there is some but those are people who refuse to be helped.

Are you sure about that? Somehow, I am refusing to believe that!

Are you sure about that? Somehow, I am refusing to believe that!
As you should be.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/general/poverty/comparison.html

Certainly less than the US, but more than "none."

He didn't say 8, he said !8, meaning 8x7x6x5x4x3x2x1, or people who are 40,320 years old.
No, !8 would be "not 8".
Like n=>p, !p, therefore !n.

So yes, we have plenty of people who are !8 years old.
:D

As you should be.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/general/poverty/comparison.html

Certainly less than the US, but more than "none."

Of course less than the US. We have more people than Canada.

Of course less than the US. We have more people than Canada.
Those are percentages.

Those are percentages.

oh my bad! LOL! Didn't click the link yet! :D

You personally no - and my my aren't you hostile? I'm just throwing out ideas mister guy.

I am not an idiot either but I know nothing about the stock market and I am sure that MILLIONS of other people don't either.

OK, you and millions of others KNOW that sooner or later y'all be old, right? So I humbly suggest that you give it some thought and make some arrangements with respect to your future income. You can do it in various ways and one of them is investing in the market. If you choose to go that way, then perhaps you might consider actually learning something about stock market (you DO learn road rules before you start driving don't you? - and let me remind you that nobody actually forces you to drive). It's amazingly little how much you really need to know - basically just the idea that risk and return are connected, that diversification is a must and that just picking a broad index fund (like S&P 500) is fine as long as you remember that as you age you need to start shifting your assets into bonds. And whatever you choose, I just respectfully ask that you leave ME completely out of your plans - I make arrangements for myself, and you make arrangements for yourself, OK? What I really don't see, is why your unwillingnes to learn anything about stock market should justify confiscation of some of MY property and its transfer to you.

If I didnt have social security I wouldnt have a damn thing saved. Yes... I suck.

That's fine with me. You won't save anything and you'll suffer as a result. So, what's the problem? Maybe you actually will - and then serve as a lesson to others - or maybe you won't but rather take it all much more seriously if you KNOW that nobody else (including the govt) will bail you out. Even if you are really very irresponsible, why do you insist that the govt forces responsibility on OTHERS?! By the same logic the gummint should also make sure that you it regularly, carry an umbrella when it's raining etc. But I vehemently object when our beloved government in its infinite wisdom tells me how to run my own damn life (I think I already mentioned that I lived in the USSR, so I've had enough govt "care" for a lifetime).

Because it's true that you cant count on people to always do teh right thing.

This is EXTREMELY arrogant and it nicely encapsulates the very essence of totalitarianism.

Privitization of ss defeats the whole purpose, which is to insure some sort of funds to people in their old age.

So? Who says that it is a legitimate purpose of the government in the first place?! Please quote the article and section of the US Constitution.

only 4% or up to 1000 dollars I believe can be invested in the market initially.
Isn't 4% the upper limit overall for the plan, not just initially?

As a 19 year old, and I feel that it is perfectly appropriate to be alarmist about Social Security. As such I am supporting Social Security reform. You see, the the system will no longer be able to pay full benefits in the year 2042, contrary to Paul Krugman's claims. And in 2042 I will be 67. Doesn't seem very appetizing to me, does it now?

Where's the money to fund this change coming from is also a question. Simple, a government loan, that would range between 1-2 Trillion dollars. Now this may seem like a lot of money right now. But down the road something will have to be done to save social security, and current estimates show that in ten years, it could cost as much as ten trillion dollars. That 2 trillion dollar figure seems very nice right now.

Now, there's fears about what would happen if there were a market crash. Once one realizes that these are far more than just investments in the stock market. These invest in savings bonds, T-Bills, commodities, currency. A very, very diverse portfolio. A pre-approved fund not chosen by the individual, but something set. And besides that, what's being invested is a very small portion of the money, so if something dreadful were to happen, you can still be safe.

Beyond that, we must admit that there is a crisis looming. And that the solution is far more complex and painful than just privatizing. As the President said during the speech, no option was off of the table now. We must consider raising the retirement age, indexing it to prices, raising taxes, temporary benefit cuts, etc. This is the painful truth.

But looking into this, you can get a rough estimate of the payout you'll get under a privatization plan here:
http://www.socialsecurity.org/reformandyou/sscalc/sscalc.php

As a 19 year old, and I feel that it is perfectly appropriate to be alarmist about Social Security. As such I am supporting Social Security reform. You see, the the system will no longer be able to pay full benefits in the year 2042, contrary to Paul Krugman's claims. And in 2042 I will be 67. Doesn't seem very appetizing to me, does it now?

Hmmm! I'm not going to nit pik but I doh have a question. I'm going to be 60 in 2042. you say your 19! If I may ask, what year were you born?

G W's plan sounds crazy. Correct me if I dont have the facts straight. But anyone will be able to invest der SS funds through mutal funds and the stock market?

Ummm, what happens if the market crashes? Yikes, the average Joe Blow would be bloody dead meat...
You can't just throw it in the market, it has to be low-mid risk in the market. In other words, established mutual funds and blue chip stocks. Even if the market crashes, over 30 years you will make more than you would in interest that it would get under the current system. Even if we were to repeat the 1929 crash you'd be ahead and fairly well off over all after the 30 year period.

Hmmm! I'm not going to nit pik but I doh have a question. I'm going to be 60 in 2042. you say your 19! If I may ask, what year were you born?
Oops, did my math wrong. 57 in 2042. Sorry about that. (I'm a social sciences major, what do you want?)

(Oh yeah, born in 1985)

As you should be.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/general/poverty/comparison.html

Certainly less than the US, but more than "none."

Please, whos fault is that the parents for not working of the government ? Do these stats have ANY indication of the government assistance granted in lue of the poverty ?

As much as social security needs reformation, privatization seems like a bad idea. If people screw up with the investment of their money they could end up with nothing when retirement time comes. Additionally SS wasn't meant to support you once you retired it was meant to be a supplement to other retirement funds. Personally I think the government should have to do something to keep it a government program and keep it functioning such as pay back the billions they stole from it over the years.

and why should the current generation of young workers (20-35 ish) be forced to pay into a decaying (its not dead or obsolete yet) system that will be unable to support us when we reach pension age? all told, privatization may not be the best or right answer, but something will need to be done eventually, you cant put a bandage on a broken femur and expect it to heal....

No, but you can't hit it with a sledgehammer for the same effect either.
The obvious answer would be to just raise the cap like Reagan did. Then it will have all the money it will need until inflation catches up. Then just raise the cap again.

Privatizing Social Security, could be better than the fed's version. We never get to see our social security back anyways, so we might as well not pay it at all, keep our money ourselves, and save it for ourselves later.

No, but you can't hit it with a sledgehammer for the same effect either.
The obvious answer would be to just raise the cap like Reagan did. Then it will have all the money it will need until inflation catches up. Then just raise the cap again.

But on the flipside of that, you can't just continue to raise the cap indefinitely

So the government should just support the deadweight of Social Security and be forced to spend untold billions on an archaic and poorly executed system? You know if the government didnt screw up by spending the social security money in the first place for the past 60 years we wouldnt of had this problem so now we have to fix it.

Im just glad I know some tax loopholes so I wont be forced to pay into the system and can save my money the way I want it to be saved.
Yah, why didn't they maybe put it in an off limits account and then we could feed any budget surpluses into it. May we could call it a safe...no, waita lockbox! Thats it. Why didn't we put it into a lockbox?

Privatize it.

Most things do better under private control than under the government, so let's give SS a try.

SAY NO! To the privatization of Social Security. Do not give in to scare tactics of the Bush Administration. Social Security privatization will kill social security alltogether and leave our children in the dust. Same old, same old, don't let the president off track. This plan will take away 40% of benefits, it would take the debt of Soc. Sec. and add up to three trillion dollars of debt. Soc. Sec. cannot be left up to corporate evil. Lobbyists should not run this nation, America must keep social security under control, but privatization is most definatly not the answer! Call you representative or senator and if they are republican, protest their stance, and if they are democrat, embrace their stance. (Since all 45 democratic senators are against this plan.) Don't let our kids pay our price and our debts!.

how is it this plan takes away 40% benifits.. if your young.. this plan garantees youll have benfits.. right now without bushes plan we are faced with 30% cut in benifits as an inevitiablity... and the cost of the restructuring is estimated at 2 Trillion dolllars not 3... and the cost of not restructuring SS is 10 trillion when the program goes broke.

all 45 democrats... how many were against the tax cut before that got passed ? Privatization is the answer, its the government 401k plan we've needed and FDR himself said was a necessity in terms of SS

so what is the democratic answer for SS ? they have yet to some up with a good alternative

Privatize it.

Most things do better under private control than under the government, so let's give SS a try.
We did that it's called the US prior to the Great Depression.

so what is the democratic answer for SS ? they have yet to some up with a good alternative
We offered one in 2000, but the conservatives decided it would be better to give money to the rich.

We offered one in 2000, but the conservatives decided it would be better to give money to the rich.

In other words.... they dont have a plan now, they'd rather see SS simply collapse ?

the money from SS was used in a time of crisis to deal with Afganistan, but if ur refering to the Tax cut.. economists like greenspan now agree it was essential in getting us out of recession..

In other words.... they dont have a plan now, they'd rather see SS simply collapse ?

the money from SS was used in a time of crisis to deal with Afganistan, but if ur refering to the Tax cut.. economists like greenspan now agree it was essential in getting us out of recession..
Which is the problem, the damn gov. keeps taking money out of the SS, so of course it faces trouble. What they need to do is to stop taking money from it, though by now it is probably to late.

Which is the problem, the damn gov. keeps taking money out of the SS, so of course it faces trouble. What they need to do is to stop taking money from it, though by now it is probably to late.

Though again, no one anticipated people living longer and healthier.

FDR wanted private accounts too don't forget.

Which is the problem, the damn gov. keeps taking money out of the SS, so of course it faces trouble. What they need to do is to stop taking money from it, though by now it is probably to late.

no.. that isn't the problem.. the money the government takes out of social security is garanteeded by treasury notes held by Social Security.. it is these Treasury notes which will keep Social SEcuirty afloat until 2042 when it atlast exhausts all the suplus the government has been using and will then be on its own facing massive deficits because demographics are now working against the system

please try to LEARN about the issue rather then making conjecture

As much as social security needs reformation, privatization seems like a bad idea. If people screw up with the investment of their money they could end up with nothing when retirement time comes.

And what EXACTLY is bad about that?! When people screw up, there are SUPPOSED to be consequences. That's the essence of a free society. There can be no freedom without responsibility.

And what EXACTLY is bad about that?! When people screw up, there are SUPPOSED to be consequences. That's the essence of a free society. There can be no freedom without responsibility.
Unless your rich, in which case you have powerful freinds to fallback on.

What they need to do is to stop taking money from it, though by now it is probably to late.

What are you smoking?! OF COURSE the government spends all the taxes it collects - what else do you think it collects them for?! The so called Social Security tax has absolutely nothing to do with Social Security - it's just another tax. All the tax money the gummint collects go into the same pile in Washington (no Virginia, there's no such thing Social Security Trust Fund - I'd rather bet on the existence of Santa Claus). And then the money from that pile is immediately spent on numerous items, the biggest of which just happens to be Social Security. The fact the we have to borrow a lot to send SS checks out means that Social Security is BANKRUPT right now.

no.. that isn't the problem.. the money the government takes out of social security is garanteeded by treasury notes held by Social Security.. it is these Treasury notes which will keep Social SEcuirty afloat until 2042 when it atlast exhausts all the suplus the government has been using and will then be on its own facing massive deficits because demographics are now working against the system

please try to LEARN about the issue rather then making conjecture
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but arn't those just IOU issued by the gov. or is that Treasury notes.

What are you smoking?! OF COURSE the government spends all the taxes it collects - what else do you think it collects them for?! The so called Social Security tax has absolutely nothing to do with Social Security - it's just another tax. All the tax money the gummint collects go into the same pile in Washington (no Virginia, there's no such thing Social Security Trust Fund - I'd rather bet on the existence of Santa Claus). And then the money from that pile is immediately spent on numerous items, the biggest of which just happens to be Social Security. The fact the we have to borrow a lot to send SS checks out means that Social Security is BANKRUPT right now.
Which is why they should have been putting it aside instead of spending it. I never said they didn't spend it I said they shouldn't have spent it.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but arn't those just IOU issued by the gov. or is that Treasury notes.

sure u can look at them as IOU's but with interest.. so they are treasury notes.. Social SEcurity gets all the money the Government took out of it back with interest

sure u can look at them as IOU's but with interest.. so they are treasury notes.. Social SEcurity gets all the money the Government took out of it back with interest
Yes, but with the gov. in as much debt as it is could that have any effect on those notes?

no.. that isn't the problem.. the money the government takes out of social security is garanteeded by treasury notes held by Social Security.. it is these Treasury notes which will keep Social SEcuirty afloat until 2042

No, it won't! The government does not send those special non-negotiable Treasury notes to SS recipients - it sends cash (or rather cashable checks). Those Treasury notes are definitely not cash and they are simply worthless since the Treasury does not actually have a big pile of cash in the basement and therefore is incapable of redeeming them. By that I mean that there's absolutely no way the govt can convert those Treasury notes into cold cash without either borrowing money on the market or raising taxes. Social Security is a pure pay as you go system - checks are paid out of CURRENT government revenues and taxes are spent immediately. The whole "Social Security Trust Fund" is just a fraud, compared to which Enron was a benchmark of honesty and integrity.

Which is why they should have been putting it aside instead of spending it. I never said they didn't spend it I said they shouldn't have spent it.

actually that other kid Midlands is wrong.. Social Security is seporate from the Government.. its a private organization.. when the government takes the surpluses from Social SEcurity it issues Treasury notes in which the Social SEcurity then collects interest on.. all the money does not just go into one pile.. the funds from Social security is seporated and paid out.. and the surplus is invested into the government so we can earn interest on the treasury notes issued..

DAMNIT you people need to learn something about the way these taxes work before you make outragous accusations

No, it won't! The government does not send those special non-negotiable Treasury notes to SS recipients - it sends cash (or rather cashable checks). Those Treasury notes are definitely not cash and they are simply worthless since the Treasury does not actually have a big pile of cash in the basement and therefore is incapable of redeeming them. By that I mean that there's absolutely no way the govt can convert those Treasury notes into cold cash without either borrowing money on the market or raising taxes. Social Security is a pure pay as you go system - checks are paid out of CURRENT government revenues and taxes are spent immediately. The whole "Social Security Trust Fund" is just a fraud, compared to which Enron was a benchmark of honesty and integrity.

Treasury notes have the full faith and confidence of the American government behind them.. just like bonds.. Social Security gets its money with interest no matter what... it is only after 2042 that its surplus which is now invested in the government is expended.. please stop talking cause u really dont have any clue about social security..

actually that other kid is wrong.. Social Security is seporate from the Government.. its a private organization.. when the government takes the surpluses from Social SEcurity it issues Treasury notes in which the Social SEcurity then collects interest on.. all the money does not just go into one pile.. the funds from Social security is seporated and paid out.. and the surplus is invested into the government so we can earn interest on the treasury notes issued..

DAMNIT you people need to learn something about the way these taxes work before you make outragous accusations
Thats why I have been asking questions, I'm always willing to learn more. My main worry is the effect that either a major depression would have or what might happen if the money gets caught up in any corporate scandales, ala Enron.

so what is the democratic answer for SS ? they have yet to some up with a good alternative

And there's nearly 40 years in which to find an answer. Instead of being like Bush and pretending it's going to run out next month, how about we put our heads together and find something that preserves the original purpose of SS: a safety net in case private investments fail?

Unless your rich, in which case you have powerful freinds to fallback on.


Don't give me this red fascist crap. I happen to belong to the top several per cent of Americans incomewise, but I don't have ANY powerful friends (and although it may surprise you, I live under the same laws as anybody else and pay for parking and traffic tickets just like anybody else - I know because just a few years ago I was one of "anybody else" and a few years before that I was a really poor grad student for whom a postage stamp was a serious expense).

Your argument is really arrogant and the same as basic fascist/monarchist argument. I.e. there are two classes of people. Most people are stupid and/or irresponsible, they don't know what's best for them and need to be taken care of (like sheep). But other people are really smart and know better, and they (the elites) should govern the masses for their own good. Not a really new idea, it was known for centuries as "divine rights of kings", then was regurgitated by Marx, then regurgitated again by Hitler and Mussolini and now is being regurgitated yet again by all sorts of socialists, environmentalists, anti-globalists and what have you (the only difference is how exactly the elite is defined and where it draws its rights to govern from - from aristocratic birth or from mastering "the objective laws of history" or from being a "superior race" or whatever).

And there's nearly 40 years in which to find an answer. Instead of being like Bush and pretending it's going to run out next month, how about we put our heads together and find something that preserves the original purpose of SS: a safety net in case private investments fail?

Bush never said that it was running out next month!

THats what I have been aasking questions, I'm always willing to learn more. My main worry is the effect that either a major depression would have or what might happen if the money gets caught up in any corporate scandales, ala Enron.

that can't happen, because in the enron scandel 401k plans collapsed because they were reliant on essentially the stocks of ENRON.. one company... the money in the privitized accounts are invested in diversified mutual funds in otherwords on a broad spectrum of different companies... inaddition to this Bush as proposed safguards to protect the investments from dramatic swings in the stockmarket..

Which is why they should have been putting it aside instead of spending it. I never said they didn't spend it I said they shouldn't have spent it.

Putting it aside exactly HOW? As a pile of cash constantly devalued by inflation?! By investing it in private securities? But that would amount to forcible nationalization of the economy and would ruin the US economy (besides running afoul of the Bill of Rights). I already wrote about it at length a few hours ago - just scroll back a coupla pages.

sure u can look at them as IOU's but with interest.. so they are treasury notes.. Social SEcurity gets all the money the Government took out of it back with interest

Oh, puh-lease! And where exactly is the government supposed to get all that money plus interest?!

And there's nearly 40 years in which to find an answer. Instead of being like Bush and pretending it's going to run out next month, how about we put our heads together and find something that preserves the original purpose of SS: a safety net in case private investments fail?

in another 40 years it wont be a problem.. it will be the gravest crisis the nation has ever faced.. the Social security surplus will be spent, the babyboomers will be in the middle of their retirement and will have to endure a 30% cut in their benfits something most retirees coudln't survive.. we will be faced with a bankrupt system (in that it will not have the assets to pay off its liablities) possibly costing the nation 10 trillion dollars, not the 2 trillion which is estimated in Bush's plan

SAY NO! To the privatization of Social Security. Do not give in to scare tactics of the Bush Administration. Social Security privatization will kill social security alltogether and leave our children in the dust. Same old, same old, don't let the president off track. This plan will take away 40% of benefits, it would take the debt of Soc. Sec. and add up to three trillion dollars of debt. Soc. Sec. cannot be left up to corporate evil. Lobbyists should not run this nation, America must keep social security under control, but privatization is most definatly not the answer! Call you representative or senator and if they are republican, protest their stance, and if they are democrat, embrace their stance. (Since all 45 democratic senators are against this plan.) Don't let our kids pay our price and our debts!.
You can opt completely out of SocSec, you know. But then you never get benefits from it if you're injured and whatnot.

Don't give me this red fascist crap. I happen to belong to the top several per cent of Americans incomewise, but I don't have ANY powerful friends (and although it may surprise you, I live under the same laws as anybody else and pay for parking and traffic tickets just like anybody else - I know because just a few years ago I was one of "anybody else" and a few years before that I was a really poor grad student for whom a postage stamp was a serious expense).

Your argument is really arrogant and the same as basic fascist/monarchist argument. I.e. there are two classes of people. Most people are stupid and/or irresponsible, they don't know what's best for them and need to be taken care of (like sheep). But other people are really smart and know better, and they (the elites) should govern the masses for their own good. Not a really new idea, it was known for centuries as "divine rights of kings", then was regurgitated by Marx, then regurgitated again by Hitler and Mussolini and now is being regurgitated yet again by all sorts of socialists, environmentalists, anti-globalists and what have you (the only difference is how exactly the elite is defined and where it draws its rights to govern from - from aristocratic birth or from mastering "the objective laws of history" or from being a "superior race" or whatever).
No my argument is based on my belief in Democracy and that it is the only proper way for power to be distributed. I don't see how there is a differrence between economic power and political power both can be abused and need to be carefuly regulated and wached by the people. Sure not every person who is rich is currupt, though I doubt you would realy meet the criteria for what I would consider rich basicly in one that is the head of one or more international corrporation, same as every politician is not currupt. Yet some are and I say better safe than sorry.

I wonder if the Republicons who are suckin' Bush's dick dry over his "personal accounts" social security plan would be so quick to support it if they realized that it is the *exact* (and I do mean ... exact) same plan Clinton proposed and these same Republicons said, "Fuck you, no" to 10 years ago.

Crazy ass neocons.

You can opt completely out of SocSec, you know. But then you never get benefits from it if you're injured and whatnot.

... you can't opt out of Social Security.. otherwise half the people in it now would be out... there are many people who dont want to pay into social security just for the fact that they can invest it better then the government interest offers.. but the fact is we dont have a choice.. just try to "opt out of social security" they will laugh you out of the office

in another 40 years it wont be a problem.. it will be the gravest crisis the nation has ever faced.. the Social security surplus will be spent, the babyboomers will be in the middle of their retirement and will have to endure a 30% cut in their benfits something most retirees coudln't survive.. we will be faced with a bankrupt system (in that it will not have the assets to pay off its liablities) possibly costing the nation 10 trillion dollars, not the 2 trillion which is estimated in Bush's plan

Notice I never said we should wait 40 years and then start thinking about it? I merely said we should use the time we have to find a good plan to fix it instead of going with the knee-jerk reaction of a man who, for all intents and purposes, has been in big business' pocket since he was born? Not to mention that Bush's purposed plan completely destroys the original point of SS in the first place.

Notice I never said we should wait 40 years and then start thinking about it? I merely said we should use the time we have to find a good plan to fix it instead of going with the knee-jerk reaction of a man who, for all intents and purposes, has been in big business' pocket since he was born? Not to mention that Bush's purposed plan completely destroys the original point of SS in the first place.

when FDR formed Social SEcurity he had every intention for it to be privitized ... Bush is only finally realizing what FDR had in mind for the system.. the whole point of Social security was to act as a safe guard so that people would always have benifits.. i dont see how Bush's plan is really so different... and atleast he is offering a solution.. democrats only know how to critize instead of formulate.. no wonder the party is falling apart, The party of no ideas...

actually that other kid Midlands is wrong.. Social Security is seporate from the Government.. its a private organization..

ROFL

Once again, a tax is a tax is a tax. Social Securty is not separate - it does not really exist. It's just one of numerous government programs, which the government decides to renew ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. I.e. each year during the budget process the government decides FOR PURELY POLITICAL REASONS to continue sending old folks the so called Social Security checks for another year. However the Congress can stop those checks tomorrow it wishes so! The feddle gummint has ABSOLUTELY NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to send any Social Security checks to anybody (unlike interest on the US debt which the govt is legally obliged to pay). No, seriously. It is even constitutionally impossible for the government to make any firm spending commitment longer than two years except for issuing debt (and no, not of the kind given to SoSec - those are just brightly colored papers with no legal bearing), so unless you happen to hold negotiable securities issued by US government (like Treasury bonds) you can't legally have any guarantee that the gummint will ever pay you anything. SoSec is a purely political commitment, and folks against the reform better understand that politics changes constantly, up to the point where at some time in the future most members of Congress may come to a conclusion that it is the lesser of two (or whatever number) of political evils for them to end or cut Social Security.

That's right! There's no problem with Social Security! The Liberals are correct! The economy is in shambles, there are soup lines everywhere, but Social Security is strong! Don't give in! Don't let those nasty Republicans allow industrious people to make some money! Don't vote to ease the stress on a failing system! Because it's not failing!

Treasury notes have the full faith and confidence of the American government behind them.. just like bonds.. Social Security gets its money with interest no matter what... it is only after 2042 that its surplus which is now invested in the government is expended.. please stop talking cause u really dont have any clue about social security..

No, once again, Social Security does not have ANY securities that have the full faith and confidence of the American government behind them. It is simply not legally possible. The Congress actually specifically establishes the so called debt ceiling, i.e. the maximum allowable amount of securities that have the full faith and confidence of the American government behind them. IOUs held by SoSec are most definitely not included in that debt ceiling, there the US government most certainly does not put its full faith and confidence behind them. Had it ever wished to do so, it would have put actual government bonds in the SoSec Trust Fund, and then those bonds would be sellable on the market (i.e. the Trust Fund could actually raise money without ever receiving anything else from the govt) AND count as part of US national debt. The fact the government has for 70 years steadily refused to do so clearly demonstrates that the government absolutely does not consider its SoSec "obligations" on par with its debt obligations. I.e. it's a purely political promise.

SAY NO! To the privatization of Social Security. Do not give in to scare tactics of the Bush Administration. Social Security privatization will kill social security alltogether and leave our children in the dust. Same old, same old, don't let the president off track. This plan will take away 40% of benefits, it would take the debt of Soc. Sec. and add up to three trillion dollars of debt. Soc. Sec. cannot be left up to corporate evil. If you calmed down and considered the situation, you might also see that if Social Security is left as it is, no one will get any benefits and we'll bankrupt the country trying to salvage it. Like the president said, this is a couragous and necessary act.

when FDR formed Social SEcurity he had every intention for it to be privitized ... Bush is only finally realizing what FDR had in mind for the system.. the whole point of Social security was to act as a safe guard so that people would always have benifits.. i dont see how Bush's plan is really so different... and atleast he is offering a solution.. democrats only know how to critize instead of formulate.. no wonder the party is falling apart, The party of no ideas...

Thanks for showing your partisan hackery with this one.

As far as the original original purpose of SS...it was actually not meant to last past the Great Depression. The problem was that people became too dependent on it, thus forming the ideal of a safety net, not through legislative changes, just different uses of prior legislation. Changing from a safety net leaves nothing whatsoever for helping those who's investments fail or those who plan their retirement bad or any number of other problems that result in the loss of all or even just half of one's planned retirement money.

If you calmed down and considered the situation, you might also see that if Social Security is left as it is, no one will get any benefits and we'll bankrupt the country trying to salvage it. Like the president said, this is a couragous and necessary act.

This kind of thinking is logically fallicious. There are not only two options for dealing with the social security problem (NOT A CRISIS).

Actually, I am one of those that would be affected by a cut in benefits. I became totaly disabled 4 years ago, and without that benefit, I would have wound up homeless on the streets.

However, even with the benefit, it has been a rather close thing. How many of you out there could survive on $600US a month? Considering most apartment rents are at least that, not many could. Public housing assistance has waiting lists so long that they might as well not even exist for those looking at losing their homes.

We could have fixed the problem. We had record surpluses that Bush turned into record deficits. Tax cuts that don't have any real effect until you make at least $200,000US a year didn't help either. Some tax cut when I would have gotten money back normally, but had to pay in last year.

Yes, I made $600 a month on social security disability, and STILL had to pay in. Some tax cut, huh?

Thats why I have been asking questions, I'm always willing to learn more. My main worry is the effect that either a major depression would have or what might happen if the money gets caught up in any corporate scandales, ala Enron.

Don't worry. I have tables with information since 1/1/1926 till 12/31/1994. Please note that the period includes the crash of 1929 and the subsequent Great Depression. Guess what? Over that period a portfolio of large corporate stocks (e.g. S&P 500) appreciated more than 840 times - i.e. a $1 investment in 1926 turned into $840+ in 1994. In the entire US history (yes, including the Civil War, Great Depression etc.) there has not been any period longer than 15 years when such a portfolio would not appreciate. As for corporate scandals, they are really a drop in the ocean - just compare what Enron investors lost with the overall volume traded on NYSE in just one day. For any diversified investor (and if you don't diversify, you are really-really stuipd) that's simply not even a minor concern. Of course, you should always remember that thing about 15 years, and as you approach retirement, you should shift more and more of your assets into safer securities. But even Treasury bonds provide much better yields than what you can reasonably expect from SoSec.

So the government should just support the deadweight of Social Security and be forced to spend untold billions on an archaic and poorly executed system? You know if the government didnt screw up by spending the social security money in the first place for the past 60 years we wouldnt of had this problem so now we have to fix it.

Im just glad I know some tax loopholes so I wont be forced to pay into the system and can save my money the way I want it to be saved.

This is just for the confused like Belem. (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/36702_socseced.shtml)

ROFL

Once again, a tax is a tax is a tax. Social Securty is not separate - it does not really exist. It's just one of numerous government programs, which the government decides to renew ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. I.e. each year during the budget process the government decides FOR PURELY POLITICAL REASONS to continue sending old folks the so called Social Security checks for another year. However the Congress can stop those checks tomorrow it wishes so! The feddle gummint has ABSOLUTELY NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to send any Social Security checks to anybody (unlike interest on the US debt which the govt is legally obliged to pay). No, seriously. It is even constitutionally impossible for the government to make any firm spending commitment longer than two years except for issuing debt (and no, not of the kind given to SoSec - those are just brightly colored papers with no legal bearing), so unless you happen to hold negotiable securities issued by US government (like Treasury bonds) you can't legally have any guarantee that the gummint will ever pay you anything. SoSec is a purely political commitment, and folks against the reform better understand that politics changes constantly, up to the point where at some time in the future most members of Congress may come to a conclusion that it is the lesser of two (or whatever number) of political evils for them to end or cut Social Security.

http://www.livejournal.com/users/sengelha/36410.html

now tell me where in the Social Security act it says the government isn't obligated to pay out checks ? or that it is renewed yearly

No my argument is based on my belief in Democracy and that it is the only proper way for power to be distributed. I don't see how there is a differrence between economic power and political power both can be abused and need to be carefuly regulated and wached by the people. Sure not every person who is rich is currupt, though I doubt you would realy meet the criteria for what I would consider rich basicly in one that is the head of one or more international corrporation, same as every politician is not currupt. Yet some are and I say better safe than sorry.
I believe in a Republic (never been big on Democracy). And there's no way around the choice that I mentioned. Either you believe in human freedom and therefore believe that people know best what's better for themselves (even if you think their choices are wrong) and thus should be free to pursue happiness as they see it. In this case you need to realize that people will be making mistakes, big and small, and sometimes will have to suffer the consequences of their decisions. Or you believe that some people are more equal than others and should therefore carefully watch (as you put it) over others. I.e. either you believe in freedom for everybody or you don't. That's the main content of history and that's the main difference between Republicans and Democrats. The former was originally formed as anti-slavery party and the latter always supported slavery - even until now. If you just listen carefully to Kerry, Kennedy et al., it looks like they sincerely believe that I belong to the state, that they own everything I earn and whatever I have is what they graciously give me. Seriously, just listen to their choice of words about recent tax cuts - they sound as if the government actually gave me money (not like I simply started paying slightly less of my own money to the govt). I totally reject such political philosophy (I lived in the Soviet Union and saw where it leads when taken to its logical conclusion).

Tax cuts that don't have any real effect until you make at least $200,000US a year didn't help either.

They did. I personally started working more and earning more - before I just took more vacations. And no, I don't make $200K. Although it is actually mostly people who earn more than $200K who make the economy grow.

I believe in a Republic (never been big on Democracy). And there's no way around the choice that I mentioned. Either you believe in human freedom and therefore believe that people know best what's better for themselves (even if you think their choices are wrong) and thus should be free to pursue happiness as they see it. In this case you need to realize that people will be making mistakes, big and small, and sometimes will have to suffer the consequences of their decisions. Or you believe that some people are more equal than others and should therefore carefully watch (as you put it) over others. I.e. either you believe in freedom for everybody or you don't. That's the main content of history and that's the main difference between Republicans and Democrats. The former was originally formed as anti-slavery party and the latter always supported slavery - even until now. If you just listen carefully to Kerry, Kennedy et al., it looks like they sincerely believe that I belong to the state, that they own everything I earn and whatever I have is what they graciously give me. Seriously, just listen to their choice of words about recent tax cuts - they sound as if the government actually gave me money (not like I simply started paying slightly less of my own money to the govt). I totally reject such political philosophy (I lived in the Soviet Union and saw where it leads when taken to its logical conclusion).
And what does that have to do with trusting corrporations and those that run them? They have power over other as surely as the goverment, which we elect, does. You can look at history and see that pure capitilism works no beter than pure marxist/lenninist communism. Neither can exist, because the people in power currupt it, be it the communists creating a dictatorship (CCCP) or major corporations manipulating the goverment into passing laws that strengthen them and eleminate their competitors (Robber Barrons). No one has any right to wield power unless the have been chosen by the people to do so. Democracy or a Democratic Republic system, where pure democracy won't work, are the only way a person can have any true authority and if someone has no authority they don't realy deserve power.

BUSH IS AWESOME!!!!!!


Presidential Action

* President Bush on January 11, 2005, discussed the importance of Social Security and the need to fix the Social Security system for future generations of Americans. The President is committed to keeping the promise of Social Security for today's retirees and those nearing retirement and strengthening Social Security for our children and grandchildren.

o Social Security provides a critical foundation of income for retired and disabled workers.
o For one-third of Americans over 65, Social Security benefits constitute 90% of their total income.
o Hispanics, African-Americans, and unmarried elderly women are even more reliant on Social Security.

* Doing nothing to fix our Social Security system will cost us, as well as our children and grandchildren, an estimated $10.4 trillion, according to the Social Security Trustees. The longer we wait to take action, the more difficult and expensive the changes will be.

o $10.4 trillion is almost twice the combined wages and salaries of every working American in 2004.
o In 2018, the government will begin to pay out more in Social Security benefits than it takes in in revenue - and shortfalls then will grow larger with each passing year.
o By 2042, when workers in their mid-20s begin to retire, the system will be bankrupt - unless we act now to save it.

* Social Security is sound for today's seniors and for those nearing retirement, but it needs to be fixed for younger workers - our children and grandchildren. In 1950, there were 16 workers to support every one beneficiary of Social Security. Today, there are only 3.3 workers supporting every Social Security beneficiary. By the time our youngest workers - those just entering the workforce today - turn 65, there will only be 2 workers supporting each beneficiary. And, under the current system, today's 30-year-old worker will face a 27% benefit cut when he or she reaches normal retirement age.
* As a result of these demographic changes, the current system will not be able to afford to pay the benefits scheduled for our children and grandchildren without enormous payroll tax increases or huge benefit cuts. The Social Security payroll tax, which was once 2%, is now more than 12%. Economists calculate that under the current system, the payroll tax would have to rise to more than 18% if our children and grandchildren are to receive their scheduled benefits.
* One of the tests of leadership is to confront problems before they become a crisis. President Bush came to Washington to solve problems, not pass them on to future Presidents and future generations.
* To ensure its long-term future, Social Security needs to be fixed soon. Any fix will require choices, bipartisanship, and public discussion.

The President's Vision for Social Security

The President will work with Congress to determine the best elements of the proposals that have been put forward, according to these principles:

o President Bush will not change benefits for today's retirees or near-retirees.
o The President wants to see Social Security permanently strengthened for our children and grandchildren, without raising payroll taxes.
o The President favors voluntary personal accounts as part of a comprehensive solution to give younger workers the option to save some of these payroll taxes. Personal accounts give younger workers the opportunity to receive higher benefits than the current system can afford to pay, and provide ownership, choice, and the opportunity for workers to build a nest egg for their retirement and to pass it on to their spouse or their children.
o Those who do not choose to have a personal account would continue to draw benefits as Americans have long done from the Social Security program.
o Personal accounts will provide Americans who choose to participate with an opportunity to share in the benefits of economic growth by participating in markets through sound investments. Any proposal will include limitations on the risk of investments permitted in personal accounts and will include low-risk, low-cost options like broad index funds similar to those currently available to Federal employees.

* Establishing personal accounts does not add to the total costs that Social Security faces. The obligation to pay Social Security benefits is already there. While personal accounts affect the timing of these costs, they do not add to the total amount obligated through Social Security. In fact, every plan scored by the Social Security Administration (SSA) that contains personal accounts would reduce the costs of permanently fixing the system.

and if bush convicnes people to take their money out of social security, people right now will slowly lose benefits as money going into ss drops and the thing will be broke decades early affecting alot more people, plus people will not be paying money into steady accounts, they could possibly lose everything

and if bush convicnes people to take their money out of social security, people right now will slowly lose benefits as money going into ss drops and the thing will be broke decades early affecting alot more people, plus people will not be paying money into steady accounts, they could possibly lose everything

your suggesting 401k accounts are so volitile its a risk just to invest in them.. yet they are the most widely prescribed method in which to save for your retirement.. the fact is you can't simply lose all your money in the privitized acounts bush is suggesting.. dont just simplify it ... he proposed governmental protections in addition to the fact that the monies are invested in diversifed funds..

Besides only up to 1/3 of the money you pay in social security tax can be invested in these accounts, the only 2/3s are still treated as they were before..

Its not as simple as you make it sound...

And besides, perhaps Democrats should be comming up with alternatives instead of simply critizing the president for every idea he proposes..

http://www.livejournal.com/users/sengelha/36410.html

now tell me where in the Social Security act it says the government isn't obligated to pay out checks ? or that it is renewed yearly

It's not in the act but rather in the well established constitutional principle that (with the exception of debt issue specifically authorized by the Constitution and perhaps long-term contracts) no Congress (as in "109th Congress" - i.e. the legislative body elected for two years) can bind any future Congress to any spending. So no spending allocation can be for more than two years. In other words, no Congress can be legally obligated (with the aforementioned exceptions) to honor any spending promises made by a previous Congress. Also, the gummint can not give any money to anybody (without any exceptions whatsoever) unless specifically authorized to do so by the current Congress. So if next year we elect Congress in which the majority for whatever reason fails to authorize spending on Social Security (they may be against it or they may be just too drunk to vote - whatever!), that will be it. You won't get your Social Security checks and you'll have no legal remedy - only political ones. The Congress that passed SoSec Act had no more power to force future Congresses to pay under the program than any president has power to force future presidents to keep a particular armchair always in the same corner in the living room in the White House.

I want privatization to be a part of Social Security.

1) There are no benefit cuts in Bush's plan. This "40% cut" is a myth created by Democrats.

2) There are no "guaranteed benefits" anyways. Congress could decide tomorrow to take all your benefits away, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. Money in a privatized account is all yours.

3) Social Security is merely a vote-buying scheme by the Democrats. By making you dependent on the government for your retirment, they can say, "If you vote Republican, they will take your benefits away!"

You can look at history and see that pure capitilism works no beter than pure marxist/lenninist communism.

No kidding! And may I ask in how many Marxist countries have YOU lived?

As for the distribution of power, the (huge) difference is that in a market economy there's a greatnumber of competing corporations with millions od shareholders, so the power is widely distributed (moreover, many centers where it is concentrated are at odds with each other and pursue conflicting interests). In a Socialist economy ALL power is concentrated in the hands of a single well-disciplined hierarchical organization which always ends up horribly abusing that power.

No kidding! And may I ask in how many Marxist countries have YOU lived?

As for the distribution of power, the (huge) difference is that in a market economy there's a greatnumber of competing corporations with millions od shareholders, so the power is widely distributed (moreover, many centers where it is concentrated are at odds with each other and pursue conflicting interests). In a Socialist economy ALL power is concentrated in the hands of a single well-disciplined hierarchical organization which always ends up horribly abusing that power.

We've never had pure capitilism what we have now is capitalism with some socialistic controls. Look at the time of the Robber Barrons before these changes were emplimented, the living conditions for the lower class in the larger cities was horrible. Or look at the working conditions for people in some of the capitalistic countries in South Aisa.

And power dosen't necesarily have to wind up centered in the hands of a few so long as you keep democratic controls. Look at the Scandinavian countries they are the clossest to being actualy Socialistic of all the countries in the world. What is important is to retain democrac and reach a ballance of power. The reason companies are weaker now a days is they are faced with socialistic regulations.

That's right! There's no problem with Social Security! The Liberals are correct! The economy is in shambles, there are soup lines everywhere, but Social Security is strong! Don't give in! Don't let those nasty Republicans allow industrious people to make some money! Don't vote to ease the stress on a failing system! Because it's not failing!

Please tell me this was a joke post!

This kind of thinking is logically fallicious. There are not only two options for dealing with the social security problem (NOT A CRISIS).

Your right about one thing, there is not two options but MANY options. I hope that he pushes for what FDR wanted SS to be!

What I really want to happen is this....Bush said that people 55 and older have nothing to worry about. Well...I hope that yesterday was someone's 55th birthday...and I hope that person will live forever....just to spite him.

What I really want to happen is this....Bush said that people 55 and older have nothing to worry about. Well...I hope that yesterday was someone's 55th birthday...and I hope that person will live forever....just to spite him.

However, people at or near retirement age today will not be affected by this. They will remain under the old system.

Your right about one thing, there is not two options but MANY options. I hope that he pushes for what FDR wanted SS to be!
Sorry to get in on this so late. Didn't FDR originally propose a sort of private account for SSI? I heard something like that briefly on the radio and I've been trying to look it up for the last day or so.

Sorry to get in on this so late. Didn't FDR originally propose a sort of private account for SSI? I heard something like that briefly on the radio and I've been trying to look it up for the last day or so.

Yep and that is why I stated that I hope that Bush pushes for what FDR wanted SS to be!

SAY NO! To the privatization of Social Security. Do not give in to scare tactics of the Bush Administration. Social Security privatization will kill social security alltogether and leave our children in the dust. Same old, same old, don't let the president off track. This plan will take away 40% of benefits, it would take the debt of Soc. Sec. and add up to three trillion dollars of debt. Soc. Sec. cannot be left up to corporate evil. Lobbyists should not run this nation, America must keep social security under control, but privatization is most definatly not the answer! Call you representative or senator and if they are republican, protest their stance, and if they are democrat, embrace their stance. (Since all 45 democratic senators are against this plan.) Don't let our kids pay our price and our debts!.

I see another person has bought the socialist rhetoric. Have you considered that Congress has opted out of the program. Even the socialists who advocate for keeping it, don't participate themselves and haven't for years. What kind of endorsment is that?

I've been opted out for about 5 years myself as my employer opted chose this path as well, and we're a bunch of social workers, and even we figured out this was a better option. I have an investement portfolio that will more than double what I could ever have hoped to get from SSA, better disability insurance and additional life insurance policy and a portfolio that can be cashed out and benefit my family can have should I meet an early demise. Try getting that out of SSA.

This plea to stop people from having control of thier own benefits is just another attempt by the Left to keep you dependent on them so they can maintain whatever power they have left.

So how does anyone use facts to justify continuing SSI in it's present form?The only argument I've ever seen that was based on logic just states that investments are risky and the transition costs would be high.

Is that it?

Looks to me like the maintenance costs are pretty high, too. Not to mention the risk of the program just collapsing at some point in the future is pretty real.

Maybe privatization is a good idea. But I think it's funny it's being sold as a way to balance the long-term financial problems of Social Security, when in fact it does quite the opposite. In any case, it's funny how many times I've seen the word "socialist" in this thread. Apparently anything not a complete anarcho-capitalism is socialism. Whatever happened to a little moderation, aka liberalism?

This plea to stop people from having control of thier own benefits is just another attempt by the Left to keep you dependent on them so they can maintain whatever power they have left.

LMFAO!!!11one!!eleven!!!

that was the funnyest thing I read all day

Maybe privatization is a good idea. But I think it's funny it's being sold as a way to balance the long-term financial problems of Social Security, when in fact it does quite the opposite. In any case, it's funny how many times I've seen the word "socialist" in this thread. Apparently anything not a complete anarcho-capitalism is socialism. Whatever happened to a little moderation, aka liberalism?

How indeed, does it do "...quite the opposite."? And, supposing you can provide a convincing argument, what is the alternative? More taxes? Reduced benefits? Magic?