Social Security reform

[Crazy Cooter]

Lots of boos during that one.  I will put this forward though:

1- Don't we already have our own retirement plans? 401k, 403b, IRA, Roth...
2- If these mystery accounts would grow at a pace greater than "standard" investments, why are the "standard" investments still around?
3- Who gets to choose which companies are selected to be eligible?  Tell me now so I can buy them before demand goes through the roof.  Then I can sell them to you guys at a much higher price.
4- What happens if the stocks crap out?
5- If the current SS system is a deflating balloon, why would we cut a gash into it by allowing funds to be diverted out now?  Wouldn't that bring the dreaded date of bankruptcy closer?

To me, it seems like robbing Peter to pay Paul.  If the accounts crap out, which is absolutely possible, then we would have to make up the gap from those funds being diverted in the first place AND have to subsidize people later.  We can't let them starve even if they gamble away their retirement.

Is this just a "sneaky" method of stimulating the economy?

[Mameotron]

Cooter, I don't know what you're referring to, but I'll just give my opinion on what you posted.

1.  Yes.  Because I know that social security isn't going to be around when I need it.  Or it won't be enough.  Johnny Carson's 1st wife was awarded alimony of $13,500 a year.  At the time, I'm sure that sounded like a lot.  But you can't live on that today!

2.  A standard investment, as I understand it, is something with no risk.  A savings account or a CD.  Low returns for no risk.  A portfolio has higher risk, and consequently, higher returns.

3.  You are dead right on this one.  I can't see any way for the government to pick companies to do the investing.  There's no way this can happen without major corruption.  Look at the stakes involved!

4.  Never, never, never put all your money in one investment.

5.  I see it as the government saying, look, your ss account won't be worth crap when you retire, if you want to try and boost it up now, go for it.

[jbox]

There's only one way to "fix" any county's social security problems: stop getting old.

Look, you can't have an arbitrary number of people in the same market economy *not* working. This stuff about stocks and investments is all make-believe, because you can't 'make' money from the stock market unless lots of other (working) people 'lose' it to you!

Any social security "reform" that involves people giving their money to anyone but the people who are currently old, is either an attempt to hide the fact the economy is floundering, or an attempt to swindle people out of their money. Assuming there is a fixed amount of value you can 'waste' from an economy I leave it up to the reader to decide how equitably they wish to divide that amongst the people who helped build that economy.

Savings stimulate inflation. More savings means more inflation, which means the money you saved doesn't buy as much as it used to. If you want to help the old people out then start buying more junk you don't need so the stuff people really need isn't so expensive.

Now, anyone for more soylent green?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

http://www.thereisnocrisis.com/

'nuf said.


mrC

[shmokes]

There's only one way to "fix" any county's social security problems: stop getting old.

Look, you can't have an arbitrary number of people in the same market economy *not* working. This stuff about stocks and investments is all make-believe, because you can't 'make' money from the stock market unless lots of other (working) people 'lose' it to you!

Any social security "reform" that involves people giving their money to anyone but the people who are currently old, is either an attempt to hide the fact the economy is floundering, or an attempt to swindle people out of their money. Assuming there is a fixed amount of value you can 'waste' from an economy I leave it up to the reader to decide how equitably they wish to divide that amongst the people who helped build that economy.

Savings stimulate inflation. More savings means more inflation, which means the money you saved doesn't buy as much as it used to. If you want to help the old people out then start buying more junk you don't need so the stuff people really need isn't so expensive.

Now, anyone for more soylent green?

Damn....that's a good post. 

[jbox]

Now, anyone for more soylent green?

Damn....that's a good post. 

WARNING: The surgeon general advises against listening to anything I have to say.

[Ravant]

Why not just dump SS in the first place? It was never set up to be a retirement plan, just a rainy-day situation for when people required it. Politicians have inflated it towards being something it's not. Why not stop FORCING me to pay into something, investment, social security, what have you, and give me the money to do with as I wish? You mean to tell me the government, and whatever individual investment firms they pick know about me and know what's best for me even more so than I do?

Who the hell is the government to tell ME where I put my money? Why can't I just take 10% of every one of my paychecks (without the SS being taken out, so I can afford to pay my bills while still putting cash away.), and start putting them in a savings account. When that one reaches $100,000, open another, etc. That way, even if stocks crash, and the bank goes under, I'm still FDIC insured, so my money is safe from the greedy hands of politicians and corrupt investment firms.

Again, who is the government to tell me what to do with my funds? This is a government by the people, for the people, of the people. I, like the rest of the citizens of this country, should be telling the government what to do with OUR money, not the other way around.

[Dexter]

Social Insecurity would fit better. You work hard and contribute with no guarantee of a reasonable standard of living at retirement? Privatising a national welfare system, its an oxymoron.

What happens in the event of another 9/11 if the companies your nest egg is invested in collapse?

Congratulations on your second four year journey to bankruptsville. BUSH WON, GET OVER POVERTY if you can. Don't say you weren't warned.

http://garnet.acns.fsu.edu/~mjl02c/skyNotFalling.pdf

[fredster]

Dexter,

You aren't even involved in SS.  I'm sure you don't even know how it's funded.  Where did you say you lived?  Ireland? Scotland? Come on.

[Dexter]

Dexter,

You aren't even involved in SS.

[locash]

I'm with Ravant on this one.  I'm for doing away with SS entirely and letting people be responsible for their own lives. 

[Crazy Cooter]

You can take 10% and put it into a savings account right now.  Start an Individual Retirement Account.  The reason you pay Social Security is so you are guaranteed money when you do retire.  So if your IRA craps out, you can still survive on bread & water with Social Security.  That's where Bush wants to make the change.  Rather than guarantee $X, he wants to let you put $Y of that into mystery investments.  Sounds good, but if your mystery fund goes tits up, your stuck with $X-$Y for your retirement.

Now consider what jbox said, which is completely true.
You can't make money without someone else losing it in the stock market.
Unless you're the broker of course, then you have all your fees.  The easiest way to explain is with a simplified example:

I think (or get insider info) that Microsoft is about to announce the release the next versions of Windows.  That means their sales will increase and their profits will increase.  So I buy 10 shares at $100 each.  Then Billy makes the announcement.  Now people want to buy that stock.  Demand goes up, the price goes up.  I tell my Broker to sell when prices reach $120.  They do, and your Mom buys my 10 shares at $120 each.  I made $200 total.  That's a 20% return.

Now suppose the windows version is crap .  Nobody is buying it.  The stocks start to drop in price.  Your Mom is STUCK with those shares unless she can find someone willing to buy them.  The prices drop to $110, $100, $90.. finally they reach $80 a share and my broker buys them for me.  Your Mom lost  33% of her money.

That's how the game is played.  If you know the market trends, you can make a few bucks.  If you don't, you will lose every dollar you put in.  In an attempt to avoid people having to know all this, we invented "Funds" which buy and sell multiple stocks and hopefully make money.  But they are still "controlled" by the same principles.  You have to take your money from someone else.  Now is this what we want to do with money we NEED for retirement?  I don't think we should.  I think we should keep this risk-taking stuff where it belongs.  In our 401k's, 403b's, IRA's, Roth Accounts, etc.

Otherwise it's like putting your rent money in a slot machine on the 31st of the month (IMO).

[fredster]

Cooter,

Exactly what are you getting at?  It was the whole reason I supported Bush in 2000, was his plan to move part of Social Security to a private account.

There is no SS fund, nadda, no where, just a big IOU NOW. 

You don't seem to be so upset about your 401K evaporating.

I think it's a great idea for several reasons.  1) At least my children will get SOMETHING from my work if I don't use it.  2) If the stock market crashes, the government won't have money either! 3) Less input for more output.  The market returns more over time than any other investment.

Having said that, I still have to see the details.  We have no idea what they are proposing.  I won't be able to draw SS until I'm 67 anyway.  If the system isn't changed, then likely the age will go up to 72 or better just to keep the system online.  The money has to come from somewhere.

I don't see any problem with stimulating the economy with cash.  We did it several times in our history.  We did it in 2002 with the tax cuts, and I think it worked didn't it? Are you working? I am. 

Your 401K is subject to the exact same risk.  I lost money in mine in 2000, but it's made it back up now, and it's plus 14% so far this year to Date. Not bad, thank you again Mr. Bush.  (He's da man)

So what I see here is somebody knocking something that you haven't seen or tasted because the Dems say so.  Me, I'm for it if I think it will work.  I will say, that if it looks like it cannot work and comebody convinces me with facts and figures, I'm with them.  But to do a hatchet job just because the Republicans whip it out is, well, not so bright.

If the Dems have a good plan and it jives with reality, I'm with them.

[locash]

Ok, so I'm not entirely with Ravant on this.  I would probably think of a more sophisticated way to save for my future.

That being said I have a couple of issues with your post Cooter.

First of all you said:

The reason you pay Social Security is so you are guaranteed money when you do retire.

That's not true, the reason I pay SS is because my government forces me to.  There is no guarantee that there will be any money to give me when I retire.

Secondly, you notion of the way the stock market works is wrong.  The market does not depend on people losing money for others to make it.  It only requires that the value of companies increase.  Granted there is a good probability that someone will lose money and that's why smart investors (like my Mom) diversify.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Looks like Bush is shifting rationales on SS as much as he did with his War in Iraq:

"In a significant shift in his rationale for the accounts, Bush dropped his claim that they would help solve Social Security's fiscal problems -- a link he sometimes made during last year's presidential campaign. Instead, he said the individual accounts were desirable because they would be "a better deal," providing workers what he said would be a higher rate of return and "greater security in retirement."

A Bush aide, briefing reporters on the condition of anonymity, was more explicit, saying that the individual accounts would do nothing to solve the system's long-term financial problems.

That candid analysis, although widely shared by economists, distressed some Republicans.

"Oh, my God," one GOP political strategist said when he learned of the shift in rhetoric. "The White House has made a lot of Republicans walk the plank on this. Now it sounds as if they are sawing off the board."



mrC

[Dartful Dodger]

I'm with Ravant on this one.

[GameOver]

Uncle Sam can't make everyone happy.  No matter what is done someone will complain.  Everyone has their own idea of what the best solution is (just read back in this post).  Whether it's Bush or someone else, I believe something must be done.  Privatization?  Maybe.  Pull in the reigns on gov spending?  It would help.  Does anyone have all the answers?  No.  Can you help yourself?  YES.

[Crazy Cooter]

That's not true, the reason I pay SS is because my government forces me to.  There is no guarantee that there will be any money to give me when I retire.

Social Security is a "promise" by the government.  Whether or not that's a guarantee...   But you are "entitled" to that money.

Secondly, you notion of the way the stock market works is wrong.  The market does not depend on people losing money for others to make it.  It only requires that the value of companies increase.  Granted there is a good probability that someone will lose money and that's why smart investors (like my Mom) diversify.

That is exactly how the stock market works.  Nowhere, nohow is money ever "created".  An increase in a companies value increases the demand for the stock.  Therefore people pay more.  Money only changes hands when it is bought or sold.  So I buy low and sell to you at a high price.  I take your money.  You hope you can sell to someone else later for a higher price and take their money.  Sooner or later the demand exceeds the "realistic" price for the stock and it's price drops.  It's all a hot potato game.  The stocks can't continue to rise forever, they just cycle up & down.  Hence "buy low, sell high".  The wilder the swing, the greater the risk, the greater the payoff if you time it all right.  Meanwhile, wallstreet takes their cut.

My point is this:  We can already do what Bush is promising but with other funds (401k's IRA's etc).  Why do we need to risk part of social security?  Instead of buying catfood, we might be stealing cat food.  And this is without considering the effect it would have on the payments we currently make.  The US would accumulate more debt by allowing people to gamble with money they didn't have before.

It all comes down to the only rule in the stock market:  "Don't invest money into stocks you can't afford to lose."

[Mameotron]

Good timing, my company released its 4th quater (2004) earnings report last week.

[jbox]

You are confusing dividends with stock value, and profit with money. Either you are doing this deliberately to cloud the economic argument you use to defend your moral opinion, or you really don't have any idea what a zero-sum game is. 

If you want to talk about the "value of a company", then that deals exactly with the people who "make" and "lose" money in the stock market (like this topic originally was). The "value" of the stock market is calculated by share price, not "the last dividend this company paid was X", and no matter how much you yourself do or do not understand about the share market Wall Street isn't going to change that just so you can win an argument. Nobody ever claimed that dividends were not a factor of that price, but they don't in and of themselves make up the 'value' of the share market (expectation of future competitiveness does). 

Secondly, your company made a *PROFIT*, not *MONEY*. Only the mint (and counter-feiters) can make money, the rest of us make a profit by getting people to give us $X+Y for a widget that we purchased for $X. In this case the customer is the one who 'lost' that $X+Y, you 'made' $Y and the widget maker 'made' $X. In a nice balanced economy that money will eventually change back to the customer when they grow wheat (say) to feed the widget maker's family. Capitalists deliberately try to confuse this point, saying "money" instead of "profit", to try and get people to forget that your $1.90 dividend came to you from the *customers of the company*, not the company itself.

People (and nature) create value, governments make money, and companies do neither. A good government is one which releases currency at a rate which matches the relative increase in *value* added each year by its worker ants (obviously impossible, so most tend to err for inflation (less) instead of deflation (more)). Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is probably selling Amway. 

Clearly, you don't have a problem with the *capital*ist market, which is your opinion and I wont begrudge you your right to have it. But the tone of your comments seem to imply that 'everyone can make money together' (ie. poor people are simply too stupid to make money), which is contrary to the founding principle of capitalism itself. I don't care which one you pick, but you can't get both. 

And sadly the Australian government is also half-way through the privatisation of our pension system. I've yet to see a herd of pensioners driving cadillacs...

[Ravant]

Social Security was NEVER designed as a retirement plan. It just became as such over time. As for me taking my cash and just banking it, it's just a statement proving guaranteed cash can exist. Not saying that's how I'm doing it. I'm not exactly sure yet how I'd do it, but I've got a couple of years to think it out.

[DrewKaree]

First off, the social security system set up in the U.S. isn't a pension.

Look at the name of the system, and do some basic investigation on the program.  The name of the program is Social Security INSURANCE.  When originally set up, it was to pay out (statistically) 2 years after the average death rate of Americans.  Over time, it has never been updated or amended to keep pace with that.  Americans used to save for their older years, and S.S. was set up to help the widows left after that time, and as a "medical" aid to help pay for those bills one would most likely be incurring at that time in their life. 

It has been perverted by BOTH political parties to keep themselves in power, and is so widely misunderstood as to be ridiculous.  For a simple economic lesson, look at your paystub next time you get paid.  DO IT!  If you have one handy, look at it NOW.  I have 5 relatives currently recieving S.S.  The payout they recieve ranges between $800 and $1000 per month.  I'm sure you folks know someone who recieves S.S.  Ask them if they get more than $500 a month, if you're uncomfortable asking them exactly how much they get.  Without fail, they'll get at least that amount.

Now - figure out how much you'll pay into S.S. per YEAR and try to figure out how the hell S.S. can pay out the figure I just told you per MONTH.  The program wasn't set up to be a "retirement plan" or a "pension" or any such crap.  It's been perverted to become what it is today.

Cooter, to answer your questions:

1- Don't we already have our own retirement plans? 401k, 403b, IRA, Roth...

Yes.  Just as they had pensions and retirement plans when S.S. was set up.  S.S. wasn't set up to be a retirement plan, it was set up as insurance, should you reach the age to be able to collect the INSURANCE.  It was the same premise as your car insurance, life insurance, house insurance.  You pay into it, hoping you never have to collect, but if you do, it's there as a safety net.  It's not something you get a measured payout from after the policy is up.

2- If these mystery accounts would grow at a pace greater than "standard" investments, why are the "standard" investments still around?

These "mystery" accounts will be of your choosing from several options, are not a complete replacement of S.S. (contrary to what seems to be popular belief), but merely the ability to set aside a PORTION of the money you pay in towards something of your choosing.

3- Who gets to choose which companies are selected to be eligible?  Tell me now so I can buy them before demand goes through the roof.  Then I can sell them to you guys at a much higher price.

The plan is to have several options to choose from, and more than likely will be, if investing in the market, set up similar to current index funds.  There also will be other options such as bonds and whatnot.  This isn't going to be a "What if I buy Titanic stock", unless they set up that as an option.

4- What happens if the stocks crap out?

Although it appears that straight stocks may not even be an option, if it is an option, the same thing that happens to your "retirement plan" you spoke of earlier will be the result.  Are you choosing to ignore that your "retirement plan" can crap out as well?  Why would you ignore money you are setting aside for your old age?  This is the cold-hearted bastard in me, but if you could care less what happens to your money, then you deserve the straits it puts you in.  It's not the government's job to protect you from yourself, although more and more people seem to think it is.  It IS the government's job to take care of those who can't take care of themselves (even if it galls people that there are abusers of that system out there), but if you are paying S.S. taxes already, then you can take care of yourself.  Stupidity SHOULD hurt.

5- If the current SS system is a deflating balloon, why would we cut a gash into it by allowing funds to be diverted out now?  Wouldn't that bring the dreaded date of bankruptcy closer?

It's not a "gash", as you put it.  It's a pinhole, to allow the current system to achieve equilibrium by slowly taking people off the system, while still paying for those in the system.  In this fashion, when people reach the "age" of retirement, less and less money will be required to fund those people until the system reaches the balance it was originally set up under.

To me, it seems like robbing Peter to pay Paul.  If the accounts crap out, which is absolutely possible, then we would have to make up the gap from those funds being diverted in the first place AND have to subsidize people later.  We can't let them starve even if they gamble away their retirement.

Is this just a "sneaky" method of stimulating the economy?

It wasn't a "sneaky" method of taking care of the aged in America when it was set up.  It was a tax disguised as "aid" and set up so that the government would be the chief beneficiary of this system.  On the one hand, it was originally a fairly brilliant plan which would fund government AND take care of those most in need - a government plan that actually worked.  On the other hand, it turned out to be just like every other government program - eventually destined to bloat and to be perverted to wrestle power away from the "other side" by the side not IN power.

No matter WHAT your feeling on the situation is, it's better to tackle the problem NOW, rather than wait "just a few more years" just because "it really won't affect us right now...we still have some time".  That's like saying you're not going to plug the hole in the dikes because they're so tiny right now, and they don't let that much water through - it doesn't hurt anyone yet. 

[fredster]

No matter what Social Security was supposed to be, it is the source of a lot of retirment now. 

It's not going to be much better than a supplement to a retirement for most people, but there are lots of people that need it. When it was created, there were old people and children in poverty out of the grapes of wrath.

It's been a problem for a while.  Clinton made mention of it in his first term, but it is such a hot button issue, most legislators don't want to touch it.  It's just not a politically sound thing to go messing with.

But it's going to break down. Confidence of young people is breaking down, look at what Locash wrote:

Quote
The reason you pay Social Security is so you are guaranteed money when you do retire.

That's not true, the reason I pay SS is because my government forces me to.  There is no guarantee that there will be any money to give me when I retire.

So he doesn't think it's going to be there.  Lots of people want to pull out now.  I'm not sure what the details are of Bush's plan, but it's like a government 401K on index mutual funds. The basic difference is that you can treat it as property. 

Like anything else that's drempt up by Politicians, it sounds simple on the surface, but who knows what the long term effects are.  But I Liked the idea, I could pass on at least some estate to my kids if the wall falls around me.  I like that idea a lot.

I think we should see the plan.  All of the people condemming it haven't seen the plan.  They don't have a Plan either, oh, wait, yes they do. They plan on sitting on it until they can retire on government pensions and let the next group try and deal with it.

That's the way it's been for about, what, 80 years?

Great Plan. At least the President wants to open up the discussion.  Otherwise, Locash is going to pay for my retirement, one that he won't see.

[DrewKaree]

Oh no, a foreigner making observations on american affairs, when america tries SO hard to mind its own business on world affairs? OH NO, call in the spooks  You make the world your business, the world will do the same back, hard cheese.

By the way, I worked for 7 years for the Department of Social Welfare here in Ireland, so I know my stuff in relation to benefits and pensions.

I noticed the government agency that you worked for here taught you to spell "AMERICA" incorrectly.  Either that, or you're trying to equate your experience working for the government of Ireland to you being knowledgeable about the American system of Social Security.  No matter what way you slice it, you're wrong.

BTW, the rolling of eyes employed by you speaks to sarcasm.  Wasn't it you who long ago spoke of that being a hallmark of those with lower intelligence?  I TOLD fredster we'd eventually drag you kicking and screaming down to our level and beat you about the head and shoulders until you conformed to our standard.  Welcome to the club.   

[drunkatuw]

I don't usually get involved in political threads, but SS really started to interest me after the state of the union.

I'm 25 years old and am investing in two ROTH IRAs and a 401k through my employers.  I do this, because I don't expect to see SS in 30-40 years when I retire.  Does anyone else find it funny that all the Democrats on the SotU address booed when Bush mentioned SS going bankrupt, yet none of those senators contribute to SS themselves?  All govt. employees and postal works, firemen, policemen and even teachers don't contribute to SS, they all have a private system.  After 12 years as a teachers assistant, my mom had over $35,000 in her 403b.  That money is guaranteed hers, an that's $35,000 more than I expect to get out of SS when I retire.

If I could have the 6.5% that I pay, plus the 6.5% my employer matches to SS every paycheck and put that in a mutual fund, then I'd feel much better than I do now not expecting any return on my investment towards SS. 

My dad who is 52 said that he would opt out of SS right now, even though he only has 3-5 years left before retirement.  13% is a lot more than the average worker puts in their 401k, I currently put in 15% of my paycheck towards a 401k, if I could put 28% (tax free), then I'd be ready to retire by age 50!  But the democrats will hold this up in senate for so long that nothing will be accomplished anytime soon.

[locash]

No matter what Social Security was supposed to be, it is the source of a lot of retirment now. 

It's not going to be much better than a supplement to a retirement for most people, but there are lots of people that need it. When it was created, there were old people and children in poverty out of the grapes of wrath.

It's been a problem for a while.  Clinton made mention of it in his first term, but it is such a hot button issue, most legislators don't want to touch it.  It's just not a politically sound thing to go messing with.

But it's going to break down. Confidence of young people is breaking down, look at what Locash wrote:

Quote
The reason you pay Social Security is so you are guaranteed money when you do retire.

That's not true, the reason I pay SS is because my government forces me to.  There is no guarantee that there will be any money to give me when I retire.

So he doesn't think it's going to be there.  Lots of people want to pull out now.  I'm not sure what the details are of Bush's plan, but it's like a government 401K on index mutual funds. The basic difference is that you can treat it as property. 

Like anything else that's drempt up by Politicians, it sounds simple on the surface, but who knows what the long term effects are.  But I Liked the idea, I could pass on at least some estate to my kids if the wall falls around me.  I like that idea a lot.

I think we should see the plan.  All of the people condemming it haven't seen the plan.  They don't have a Plan either, oh, wait, yes they do. They plan on sitting on it until they can retire on government pensions and let the next group try and deal with it.

That's the way it's been for about, what, 80 years?

Great Plan. At least the President wants to open up the discussion.  Otherwise, Locash is going to pay for my retirement, one that he won't see.

Haven't we seen the plan?  If not a fully detailed version, we have a good idea of what he is talking about right?

Don't get me wrong, I applaud the President for having the guts to try and fix something that's pretty clearly broken, but what he is offering is not enough.  I think you misinterpreted the point of my statement; my primary concern is not that the money won't be there, it's that I am forced to participate against my will.  As far as I am concerned any solution that doesn't offer me the option to opt out is insufficient.

By the way fredster, just how old are you?  I want to know how long you plan on freeloading off of me. 

[DrewKaree]

D at Udub, the percentage is 7.5% paid by you, and an equal amount by your employer, and you pay all 15% if you're self-employed.

locash, he's almost as old as dirt, so he's about to start siphoning some profits off of you....and the jag hasn't even properly thanked you yet!  Tell 'im to send you a game or two for future payment 

Even though I agree with your "if I can't opt out, it sucks" sentiment, please tell me you can see it won't happen anytime soon, if ever.  It's the government, after all, and you're talking about tryingn to take money away from it!

P.S. if any of you are reading this and are of a certain income, there IS a tax break that can *edit* give you up to a $1,000 additional break on your current IRA contribution.  Depending on your income and family size, it goes down by dollar amount earned, and is slated to sunset (go away) after 2006.  Do some looking into it - I'll see if I can find where I read the information and repost it, but you SHOULD be investing, and if you haven't started yet, now's as good a time as any to start. 

Check out The Motley Fool if you don't know where to start.

[locash]

locash, he's almost as old as dirt, so he's about to start siphoning some profits off of you....and the jag hasn't even properly thanked you yet! Tell 'im to send you a game or two for future payment

I wonder if he'd be willing to kick some back to me if I let him live in my basement?

Even though I agree with your "if I can't opt out, it sucks" sentiment, please tell me you can see it won't happen anytime soon, if ever. It's the government, after all, and you're talking about tryingn to take money away from it!

But if it's right why should I not expect it?  Eventually, the people will tire of their oppression and cast off their shackles.  And I want to be there when it happens.

[GameOver]

Even though I agree with your "if I can't opt out, it sucks" sentiment, please tell me you can see it won't happen anytime soon, if ever. It's the government, after all, and you're talking about tryingn to take money away from it!

But if it's right why should I not expect it?

Right according to who?

Uncle Sam can't make everyone happy. No matter what is done someone will complain. Everyone has their own idea of what the best solution is

Eventually, the people will tire of their oppression and cast off their shackles.

Oppression?  Who's wearing shackles?  Do you live in America or a 3rd world country?    Don't count on SS.  Save/invest your money.  Take care of #1.  If SS is still around when you retire, consider it a bonus.  You can do it.

[Crazy Cooter]

Drunk @ UW, I don't know about Senators/House Reps, but in general Govmt employees pay into Social Security.  Teachers do & City employees do.  That I know because I see the stubs first hand (brother & girlfriend).  The 403b for teachers is their interpretation of a 401k.  It does not replace Social Security.  Also, unless you are holding two Roth accounts for tax purposes, there isn't really a point to it.  You are still limited in your overall Roth contributions.  If you are tucking away over the maximum amount, the taxman will have something to talk to you about when he finds out.  Your approach is solid though.  This is my point as to why we don't need to privitize anything.  You can already put money away for retirement.  I have the same number as you do in my portfolio for Social Security when I retire.  Zero.

Good post jbox.  That hits the nail on the head.

Mameotron, remember it's all a potato game.  If your dividends continue to increase, your stock may increase in price.  That's because people want to collect those "higher" dividends.  If the dividends plunge, the stock price will too because people will see they can have less total money invested somewhere else for better dividends.  If you wait too long to sell, you're stuck with the hot potato.  No buyers = you can't sell.  This is why it is usually not a good idea to have too much of your portfolio in the company you work for.  If it goes south, you loose your job AND you loose your stock value.  Double whammy.  I'm not saying buy/sell or anything  .

Drew, "couldn't care less", could not.   It's not that I don't care, it's that we need some type of insurance for people that can't plan ahead.  It's either SS or welfare.  Either way it walks like a duck.  Think of your other insurances you carry.  You have fire insurance incase the unthinkable happens, you have auto insurance, you have life insurance, possibly flood insurance blah, blah, blah.  It's all there to protect you from living in the streets.  That's what SS is supposed to do.  I don't see an uprising to skim everyones fire insurance to invest because we see it as it is... a safety net.  And 10+% isn't a pinhole, I'd jump up and down for a 10% raise.
------------

Anyhow, I think it's stupid to put SS into the market at all.  If my house burned down and the insurance company said they would only give me 50% of the insured value because the market was down, I'd be pissed.  It's the same thing with SS.  I actually have a better idea too.  Start a Social Security Credit Agency.  Give out home loans for people that have at least 33% equity at 5%.  The chances of a default on that type of loan is virtually nil, and profitable (to the Credit Agency) if it did happen.  And it's a rate that traditionally exceeds inflation, therefore gaining purchasing power as it gets older.

[fredster]

I don't understand why people are taking potshots at a plan they haven't seen.

FDR supported some type of other supplimentary program.

Even investing part of the SS into a CD would yeild more that the 2% it's earning now, so what exactly is everybody getting excited about?

I made money in the last 15 years on my 401K, in 2000 it took a hit until 2003, but it recovered the money and has increased nicely, even better in the last couple of months.  So what's the big deal with a 401 type account over time?

If I had started a 401K in 1979 (the beginning of my working carrer and the birth of asteroids) I could probably not worry about social security now too.

But the fact is we don't know the details and we all seem to agree that SS is going down hill so what's the beef?  We just want it to fail our way?

How we just wait and look at all the facts before we start tearing Bush apart this time? Or is that just out of the question because of prejudice and ideology?

If this is such a terrible Idea then why is it being adopted by governments around the world? Huh? 

[GameOver]

If this is such a terrible Idea then why is it being adopted by governments around the world? Huh?

Yes, several other governments around the world have adopted some variation of this proposal.  Is it working?  Depends who you listen to. 

And yes, I contribute to a 401k & an IRA too.  Why spend trillions of dollars to create a forced SS 401k?  That will require HUGE oversight & EVEN MORE gov spending.  This administration has taken a record surplus from the Clinton years and turned it into a record deficit.  Well done!

I think it's a good idea if it's executed properly.  That's the problem.  IMO Bush is pushing this now & quickly for the wrong reasons.  See the quote below from Bill Gross, PIMCO bond fund money manager.  I agree with Mr. Gross' perspective.  Bush wants to be remembered for something important.  That's fine, but done rush into this just because.  Too much is at stake.

***  Start of Quote ****

The president's argument for individual Social Security accounts is meant "to promote an agenda that has little to do with seniors and more to do with Bush, his ownership society, and ultimately his domestic legacy alongside the likes of Ronald Reagan and FDR," Gross wrote in comments posted on Pimco's Web site.

"Without a blockbuster of a program in his second term it is unlikely that Bush can go very far in the history books on the back of a paltry 3 or 4 percentage point tax cut for the rich," Gross wrote.

"Presto!" he continued. "We now have partial privatization of Social Security heading the agenda upon which the president intends to spend his well-advertised political capital."

***  End of quote  ***

[Crazy Cooter]

Why spend trillions of dollars to create a forced SS 401k?

[DrewKaree]

Drew, "couldn't care less", could not.

Correct.  /me turns red-faced

It's not that I don't care, it's that we need some type of insurance for people that can't plan ahead.

I'm thinking you are meaning something you aren't saying.  The "people that can't plan ahead" ARE taken care of.  They are those who currently recieve some form of government aid, be it welfare or SSI.  Those people are the people who CAN'T plan ahead.  Anyone else IS NOT incapable of planning ahead, it's that they would be CHOOSING not to plan ahead.  I simply have absolutely no pity for someone who chooses not to plan to take care of themselves.  I am still willing to help them out, but it's simply no one's fault except their own, and they SHOULD have to live with the mistake they've made.

Who do you mean when you speak of "people who can't plan ahead"?  "Can't" doesn't sound like a subjective thing to me, but it sounds as if you have certain people in mind.  Who are they, so I can know if I agree, agree partially, disagree, or vehemently disagree. 

Think of your other insurances you carry.  You have fire insurance incase the unthinkable happens, you have auto insurance, you have life insurance, possibly flood insurance blah, blah, blah.  It's all there to protect you from living in the streets.  That's what SS is supposed to do. 

That's what S.S. does now because that's what it's been perverted to become.  Originally, as I stated before, the age which someone would start drawing it was EITHER 2 years past the actuary table and their average age of death (again, which was never amended, as it was supposed to be....dunno what the current average death age is, but IIRC, let's use 72.  S.S. would currently then pay out at 74) or upon becoming widowed under certain circumstances. 

S.S. was NEVER designed to protect someone from living in the streets, it was Social Security Insurance (which is DIFFERENT from SSI today) which was supposed to help those who "beat the odds" and made it past the statistical average age of death to either allow them to enjoy those final few years they were likely to live, or to assist a widow upon the death of their spouse and the subsequent loss of income.

People at that time (which SHOULD be the same as today) KNEW that they needed to save, set aside money, for when they became older.  It's also why things such as "credit" and "debt" were used more carefully and people lived in smaller houses than we currently do.  People KNEW they had to set aside money for old age, and thus didn't live unreasonably beyond their means.  There weren't homeless people clogging the streets then, and if/when people learn once again to live within their means because the government isn't going to bail them out, there STILL won't be this excess of homeless people clogging the streets.  That's simply an emotional argument. 

My in-laws raised 5 kids in a one-bedroom house.  They turned the garage into another room (and simply parked in the driveway), and took the attic and turned it into 3 bedrooms (really 2, with the other walk-through room as someone's not-so-private room) so that they had a house for the family.  It's stuff like that, turning a 700 sq ft house into a liveable place for all those people, that people did.  Nothing wrong with how we live today, and I'm not saying you're evil if you live in one, but I do work for 2 families (mom, dad, and one kid) who each live in 10,000 sq ft houses.  I also see people who live with the same amount of people in the family in 2,000 sq ft houses.  We, as Americans, have used the promise of the government to bail us out in our old age to live more "luxuriously" (and my cabs are one of very few "luxuries" I own, so I'm not ragging on you if you live better than I do) than that older generation would have thought prudent. 

The government simply HAS to stop bailing out the people who WON'T, and start using that money to truly help those who CAN'T. 

There's a BIG difference between those two types of people, though, and we need to do a damn lot better in differentiating between the two types, punish severely those who want to abuse the programs - essentially stealing from those who truly need it.  Social Security has quite simply been turned into the program you think it's supposed to be now.  It worked back when it was implemented, so it's ridiculous to think that it won't work if it goes back to the Insurance program it once was.

[DrewKaree]

Drunk @ UW, I don't know about Senators/House Reps, but in general Govmt employees pay into Social Security.  Teachers do & City employees do.  That I know because I see the stubs first hand (brother & girlfriend).  The 403b for teachers is their interpretation of a 401k.  It does not replace Social Security. 

But in addition to the money they get for retirement, they ALSO get Social Security.  It's not something that's taken away, it's in addition to their retirement plan.  The public school teachers in WI get a pension.  Not an IRA, which they can ALSO pay into, a pension.  When they retire at a certain age (which is far below the retirement age of 62), they draw a pension for the exact same amount they earned at the time of retirement.  Then the IRA also pays.  AND they get Social Security.  Clearly there are people collecting Social Security who AREN'T the people Social Security Insurance was set up for, and I'm not simply referring to the teachers (not bagging on 'em), I mean the millionaire dude who CLEARLY shouldn't get it, still gets it. 

Think about that.  Let's just use someone who makes a fistful of money.  Bill Gates, at the age of 62, is eligible to recieve, from the federal government, a MINIMUM check monthly of $800.  If he chooses to skip it and wait for his (currently) "official" federal age of retirement of 65, he'll recieve $950 each month.   If THAT alone doesn't testify to how screwed up the Social Securty Insurance system is, then there's nothing that will clear it up.

I don't see an uprising to skim everyones fire insurance to invest because we see it as it is... a safety net.

And you also haven't EVER heard of a fire insurance policy that pays you a monthly amount after the policy expires and you no longer have to pay to maintain it.  Social Security Insurance (I've GOT to call it what it was set up as) was set up to take care of the same problem fire insurance covers...a possible problem that probably won't arise, but will pay you if it does, NOT as a "saving's plan".  Oh, and if someone out there has a life insurance policy that they were told can be used as a "savings" or "investment" plan, go and READ your policy to find out if you died today, how much your beneficiary would get....you'll be surprised to know your "savings" are subtracted from what the insurance company actually has to pay out!  (100,000 policy - 50,000 "savings" = 50,000 payout by the insurance company, IF they don't use your "savings" to keep the policy current)

If my house burned down and the insurance company said they would only give me 50% of the insured value because the market was down, I'd be pissed.  It's the same thing with SS.

No, it's not.  They AREN'T going to remove the requirement that you PAY Social Security Insurance taxes, and you WILL still be recieving Social Securtiy Insurance payments monthly from the government upon the age of retirement.  I'm guessing that the age of retirement is going to be raised, if not now, shortly...as it should be.  Remember the "2 years beyond the average age of death"? 

The "privatization" is simply going to become an OPTION, and there will be additional benefits for choosing that OPTION, in order to wean people off the unreasonable payment schedule the program has people are currently living under, while continuing to take care of those currently in the program who would be unreasonably penalized if their current payments were cut.

If you try to lose weight, do you just STOP eating food (payments CUT)?  While it may work in the short term (a few weeks or less), it does not work in the long term without being detrimental.  SLOWLY eating less and less food (payments) gives you the result (less weight/lower gov't payments) you desire, while adding in exercise gives you better results (more stable weight loss/lower avg gov't payments over time), and adding weight training completes the program (replacing fat with muscle/replacing gov't payments with personal payments)

Whew....I need a lard sammitch now

[GameOver]

Damn Drew.  You earned your custom title with those posts.  Anything else to say?   

[DrewKaree]

Yep.  I have numerous relatives who will be affected by this, and we've discussed this at length.  It's why I have FAR more than a little to say about this issue. 

This administration has taken a record surplus from the Clinton years and turned it into a record deficit.  Well done!

Go to the IRS and get the Instruction booklets for as far back as you can.  Start looking at the deduction records.

The figures are there if you want to look.  If you wish, you can either read what someone says and how they look at the figures, or you can go find out how you were personally affected across the years and make your own judgement.

Clinton taxed the snot out of you, me, and all the other "middle class" folks he claimed to be helping in order to have something to claim "victory" for.  You and I paid for that "deficit" reduction. 

Bush returned our money to us.  Magically the deficit returned.

Why was that? 

Government doesn't feel it's their job to reduce THEIR spending (spend the tax money COLLECTED), they set up their budget based on guaranteed increases (regardless of how much money is COLLECTED, they increase the spending), instead of waiting to see how much money is paid in taxes, and using that ACTUAL figure to set their budget.

Clinton raised our taxes to pay to keep the level of government spending the same.  Bush has given us tax cuts to give back that which SHOULDN'T be spent by government, and has stated he is going to cut government spending, which he's currently doing a pretty piss-poor job at doing.

When we are taxed at the same level each year, then it can be called a "deficit reduction".  Until that point, there's simply a redistribution of the American people's money to enable government to continue their spending unchecked, and the figures demonstrate that Joe Average paid a pretty nice chunk of Clinton's "lookit my card trick".

Seriously, go get the tax forms to see how much more you were taxed under Clinton.  You'll also see that those "rich" folks have had an increasing tax rate under this administration. 

[GameOver]

I guess you can say Clinton raised taxes if you look at Regans tax record for his last 2 years in office.  But then look at Regan's first 6 years.  Clinton DEFINATELY didn't raise taxes relative to THAT record.  It's all relative.

Looking at the income brackets/marginal tax rate figures, I'd say Clinton's admin raised taxes on the upper income classes.  Makes sense to me.  But tax law is MUCH too complicated to simply look at historical deduction/income bracket statistics.  I don't and never will claim to understand all the ins & outs related to tax code.  Much too complicated.  I've got better things to do (hang out with my family, play with the kids, build cabs.  You know, important stuff).

What's gonna happen to SS?  Time will tell.  Besides, I'm looking out for myself, and not waiting for the gov to tell me how much I'll get every month once I retire.  All this jabber doesn't help my individual situation out any.  What does matter is my committment to myself & my family to provide for us the best I can now and in retirement.  I'm not counting on Uncle Sam.  Mostly a bunch of crooked politicians IMO.  My point is to take care of yourself as best you can and don't depend on the government.

[fredster]

IMO Bush is pushing this now & quickly for the wrong reasons.

Wrong.  Bush put this in his 2000 campaign. That's the reason I voted for him over Gore then. I thought it was a helluva an idea. But he didn't pursue it in his first term because of the terror war. 

I'd say Clinton's admin raised taxes on the upper income classes.

No, I hated the tax increases every year that man was in office. I don't know if it's fair to say it was his fault (I'd like to, really I like to blame Clinton for a lot of things) But when Bush came in I got more money in my home budget by far.  I believe in keeping the goverment small, and they only way to do that is to strangle their monetary supply, and even that's hard when they can just make more.

I'm not counting on Uncle Sam.  Mostly a bunch of crooked politicians IMO.  My point is to take care of yourself as best you can and don't depend on the government.

Sage advice.  No matter if SS stays solvent into the year 3000, it will still be less and less every year you are retired. If you don't fend for yourself, then nobody will do it for you, including the government.

Clearly there are people collecting Social Security who AREN'T the people Social Security Insurance was set up for, and I'm not simply referring to the teachers (not bagging on 'em), I mean the millionaire dude who CLEARLY shouldn't get it, still gets it. 

  If they pay into it, they should get back out of it. If the millionaire dude didn't pay for it, then he shouldn't get it. But if he did, then you just stole his money.  It is after all, his money. Just because he has a lot of it doesn't mean he should just give it up.  That's like saying Walmart has lots of candybars, why not just take a few?

Bush returned our money to us.  Magically the deficit returned

The deficit did return. We keep talking about that "deficit", but it's the National debt that's the big problem. It was shrinking under Clinton, but it has almost doubled under Bush since then.  It's like 6 or 7 trillion dollars now. That was the big story Clinton's admistration was discussing, along with ways to modify SS, Bill would have done what Bush is doing if he could have.

Haven't we seen the plan?  If not a fully detailed version, we have a good idea of what he is talking about right?

No, we have the concept. The concept is "we are going to build a building over here and it will have windows and elevators".
What we need to understand now is how is it going to work, the blueprints.  At that point we can make a decision if it's strong enough and has enough bathrooms, and what does it cost exactly?

Chile has a system like this that seems to be doing pretty well. Jbox mentioned that the Aussies are moving to a system like this.  FDR talked about this apparently back in the 30's.  So we just have to see how it can be built.

We can also expect that we aren't going to be able to cash in on SS as people retiring now have.  If you were born after 1960, the formulas have changed.  Soon, you won't be able to draw it until you are 85 the way the government has it set up.

SS does a lot more than people think right now.  It's supporting kids when their parents have died for years.  It pays disablity on lots of people, more than you may realize, and makes payments to kids off of that until they are 18.  20% of the rolls are NON retirees. (somebody back me up on that stat, it's my recollection only).

[DrewKaree]

I guess you can say Clinton raised taxes if you look at Regans tax record for his last 2 years in office.  But then look at Regan's first 6 years.  Clinton DEFINATELY didn't raise taxes relative to THAT record.  It's all relative

It sounds as if you are telling me about what you read or someone else told you.

Go get the forms.  They're freely available for download.  You'll be able to see in black and white with your own eyes.  It's anything BUT relative.

Looking at the income brackets/marginal tax rate figures, I'd say Clinton's admin raised taxes on the upper income classes.  Makes sense to me.  But tax law is MUCH too complicated to simply look at historical deduction/income bracket statistics. 

If you can read, you CAN simply look at the records, and you can see it quite clearly.  They don't put the information on the same page each and every year, but the info is there, it's measureable, and shows quite a different picture than was told to the American people.  I'm not going to quote it for you, because looking it up and seeing the figures with your own eyes will teach you far more than reading my quotes and you either accepting my figures or blowing them off.  The figures DO paint a picture that is easily able to be read. 

I've got better things to do (hang out with my family, play with the kids, build cabs.  You know, important stuff).

What's gonna happen to SS?  Time will tell.  Besides, I'm looking out for myself, and not waiting for the gov to tell me how much I'll get every month once I retire.

Looking out for your retirement is one of those important things too, but at least you're acknowledging that you have a responsibility to make sure you're doing what you feel necessary to deal with retirement, and doing something about it.

Kudos to you, ma brutha! 

 My point is to take care of yourself as best you can and don't depend on the government.

Excellent point, well spoken, and agreed with.  But also one of the reasons this topic is now on the table and why debate about it is starting in earnest all over the place....even on arcade control boards 

[GameOver]

I really tried to resist responding to your response to my response to your response to my response but can't help myself.  I guess I'm as anal about this as you are.  It appears you are very well informed about this, and for that you get a cookie.  But - you better save that cookie, cuz you might need it when you retire if Bush gets his way.

I did look up the rates as you suggested.  It was a good exercise.  It showed me that the highest marginal tax rate from 80-88 was 50% (Regan).  The highest rate during the Clinton admin was 39.6%.  Bush, now at 35%.  Really, tho, what does this tell you?  Nothing.  How did the other 2,000 volumes of tax code that each respective admin introuduced during their respective terms impact these brackets?  Damned if I know or care since I probably won't be able to change any of it even if I reaaaaally tried.   Just too complicated anyway.  Like I said - better things to do than to try & save the world from Uncle Sam's tax code.  As long as the gov is within my range of tolerance I accept it.  We got a good thing in the US and a little more here or a little less there isn't gonna break me.

The gov doesn't want to mess with SS cuz it's a sensitve hot button topic.  Bush is messing w/it cuz he wants it to be part of his legacy.  Has he even laid out the details of his proposal?

Come on...post another one.  You know you're dying to.  I think we're the only ones reading this post anymore anyway!

[Crazy Cooter]

I'm still reading, took a day off though.

One thing that I keep hearing is:  "It's my money".  No, it's not.  It's the governments money.  If it was "yours", then SS would be passing out checks to next of kin when you and your spouse croaks.  That doesn't happen.

I agree with Drew (what?  ) regarding SS being spent in areas that it wasn't really wasn't meant for on inception of the plan.  But I still say that if SS doesn't disperse that money, than welfare will.  We need to address who is getting this money.  THAT should be the first step in reforming the system.  I'm all for cutting people out of all programs that help "less fortunate" people have a standard of living above people that actually attempt to work and make a living.  I have a relative driving around in a new car and dropping her kids off at daycare each day when she doesn't even have a job.  Doesn't make any sense to me.  She gets child care $$ from SS because the Dad of one of her kids was run over by a car when he was passed out drunk laying on the freeway.  Cut her out.  Make her get a job.  Give her kids to my Aunt.  She's been trying to get them for 8 years anyhow.  This is why SS is failing.  I'm even for upping the age for receiving benefits.  My life expectancy is 74, girlfriends is 80.  Sign me up for 76-78 or so.  Fine with me.  THIS is the reform I'd like to see.  Cut the bloat.

Don't start taking money out of the program though.  That's putting the cart in front of the horse and creating more debt.  Just like the tax cuts that Bush made.  He took money away from the gvmt in anticipation of reducing spending.  Now he isn't reducing the spending.  If we take $$ out of SS, are we going to reduce it's spending?  Doubtful.  My cousin will still get money out of it for child care expenses.  That whole approach is stupid IMO.  All it will do is create a pile of debt now, that we will have to pay back later (probably through some tax on the new accounts created).

Simpler is better:  If output exceeds input, restrict output or increase input.  Anything else doesn't address the problem.

[Crazy Cooter]

Drunk @ UW, I don't know about Senators/House Reps, but in general Govmt employees pay into Social Security.

[MnMCaputo]

This is my first time stepping into the politcal drama of this message board.  For the record, i'm a registered Republican that did not vote for G dub this election.  But on this topic of SS I love the idea that me and my employer ( oddly enough the US govt )  would contribute the same amount as currently going to SS and put in a private account.  i'm 28 and have no doubt that things going in the current direction, i will not get SS, or the $$ amount will be insignificant.  My only issue is, I'm sure i'll have to sign something or "opt in" to a situation where I dont contribute to SS and it goes to private company.  And so will "joe schmo"  and i know that i will use the money as it is intended for ,saving for retirement.  But i cant help think that joe schmo will not, then in 30 years, i'm gonna have to pay for his dumbass in some other social program created.  And all the bleeding hearts will go on with the..... "oh hes had a tough life and the man was keeping him down"  This my first post on politics here, so all the ted kennedy lovers and rush righties, be gentle   lol

[DrewKaree]

I'm still reading, took a day off though.

Can't help it.  I figured I'd underwhelm you with a deluge of information    GameOver, I'm working on something for you...trying to condense it for you, in case you wanna print it out, so you don't run out of ink

One thing that I keep hearing is:  "It's my money".  No, it's not.  It's the governments money.

It's a tax that is removed from the money you earn.  If someone doesn't work for their entire life for some reason, and are able to receive Social Security Insurance for some reason, the government pays them from money obtained from you, me, and a working fencepost.  Indeed, it's not THAT person's money, as they would have never paid into the system.  To remove from my paycheck, however, IS taking my money.

If I call in dead, the government no longer gets money from me, it's taken from elsewhere.  The government doesn't keep paying in for me, just as they don't keep paying OUT for me.

If you view the money the government recieves due to taxation as "the government's", that's a difference in opinions for another thread, but the government doesn't produce enough money to cover the USPS, we pay for THAT, they use money from you and I to handle the obligations they set for themselve due to various programs they've enacted.  If they did MAKE money, you could tell me that it's the government's money.  Obtain revenue has to come from you, me, and every other Joe Taxpayer.  That means they are taking my money, your money, and every other Joe Taxpayer's money.  They even passed laws making it a requirement to do so.  Go ahead, try keeping all of the money you earn each week.  The government simply takes what they wish from your check to do with what THEY wish, from you and I...our money.

Cut the bloat.  Just like the tax cuts that Bush made.  He took money away from the gvmt in anticipation of reducing spending.  Now he isn't reducing the spending.

The reduction in spending is related to Bush like John Kerry voting against sending supplies to our troops.  When the line-item veto was taken away, pinning the "spending" on a President has become a lot harder, although he's introduced some programs that make me question if he really means to cut spending.  Take your pick whatever side you're on - the No Child Left Behind, or the similar Billions promised to another country for their social problem called AIDS.  Now, spending on one at the exclusion of the other will bring cries of "hearless" from one crowd or the other, or further arguments about how we're spending the money incorrectly.

The only way that friggen bloat is EVER gonna be cut is to force the government to spend the money that is COLLECTED each year, rather than have some mythical COLA (cost of living adjustment) increase or an automatic % increase.

Simpler is better:  If output exceeds input, restrict output or increase input.  Anything else doesn't address the problem.

On this point we agree wholeheartedly

[Buddabing]

Seems to me that reforming SS is pretty simple and doesn't need the whole "retirement account".

1. Eliminate the fiction of a "trust fund". There is none. Once this is done people will realize that something has to be done to save SS. SS should transition to a pay-as-you-go system (income equals outgo) once the baby boomers die off.

2. Raise the age of full benefits, currently 67, to 70 or so, and offer reduced benefits at 65 and 67 similar to the current option of reduced benefits at 62.

3. Cap COLAs (cost of living adjustments) to one percent below the official inflation rate, or 5% per year, whichever is lower.

4. Encourage people to smoke. It's harmless!

Done. 

[Dexter]

How about instead of giving trillion dollar tax breaks to people who don't need it, you use that money to support the elderly people who worked hard all of their lives and paid their contributions in the mistaken belief that there may be some security in the term 'social security'.

Is that such an off the wall idea??

Dexter

[Dartful Dodger]

How about instead of giving trillion dollar tax breaks to people who don't need it, you use that money to support the elderly people who worked hard all of their lives and paid their contributions in the mistaken belief that there may be some security in the term 'social security'.

Who decides who doesn't need the tax break?

You may think the guy who owns McD's doesn't need a tax break, so you take it away from him.

[Dexter]

Who decides who doesn't need the tax break?

Just having a wild stab in the dark that MAYBE the top 1% of earners in your country could live without additional tax breaks at a time when you're allegedly at war and have such crappy unemployment figures. But those who need it the most are obviously doing great, I suppose elderly folk freezing to death is 'gawds way of tellin us to throw more terraists on the bonfire' 

[Grasshopper]

How about instead of giving trillion dollar tax breaks to people who don't need it, you use that money to support the elderly people who worked hard all of their lives and paid their contributions in the mistaken belief that there may be some security in the term 'social security'.

Who decides who doesn't need the tax break?

You may think the guy who owns McD's doesn't need a tax break, so you take it away from him.  He thinks he deserves that money, so instead of giving all the fry guys raises, he uses that money to give himself a bigger raise and/or he raises the price of fries to make up for the pay cut he's taking by losing the tax break.  If you don't give him a tax break, why should he support the McD house, or any other charity for that matter.

The guy you want to not get a tax break will find another way to get that money. The problem is the small business owner who needs and counts on that tax break will get screwed.  So the rich will still get richer, but now the guy working hard to make something for himself will get nowhere.

Give me a break.

McDonalds is not a charity.

The guy who owns McDonalds pays the fry guys as little as he can get away with, and charges for fries as much as he can get away with. He will do this regardless of whether he gets tax breaks or not. The only thing that keeps him in check is market forces.

Sorry but that's capitalism.

[Dartful Dodger]

and charges for fries as much as he can get away with.

They will be able to charge more, because they know the little guy is getting the tax break, so the little guy can afford to pay more.

The Burger King Guy, the Subway guy, and all the other fast food guys will all raise their prices to make up for losing thier tax break.  It won't just be the fast food guys, but the Pepsi guy, the Nike guy, the Shell guy....

[DrewKaree]

How about instead of giving trillion dollar tax breaks to people who don't need it, you use that money to support the elderly people who worked hard all of their lives and paid their contributions in the mistaken belief that there may be some security in the term 'social security'.

Is that such an off the wall idea??

It's an idea that assumes the system as it used to work didn't, and that the current American tax system, as it's set up, doesn't do just what you propose.  You also seem to be assuming that people who haven't taken steps to plan for their future in programs and tax shelters already available to the American public should be taken care of by those who did, instead of them assuming responsibility for their finances.

When America's systems don't work, which Social Security Insurance currently doesn't, then they need to be changed.  Currently, Social Security Insurance is set up exactly as you think it should, Dexter, and it isn't working.  It's nice to assume that your idea, while well intentioned, will work exactly as you have planned.  The facts, however, tell everyone in America that your well-intentioned ideas are simply the ruminations of someone unfamiliar with Social Security Insurance, and you simply haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Who decides who doesn't need the tax break?

Just having a wild stab in the dark that MAYBE the top 1% of earners in your country could live without additional tax breaks at a time when you're allegedly at war and have such crappy unemployment figures. But those who need it the most are obviously doing great, I suppose elderly folk freezing to death is 'gawds way of tellin us to throw more terraists on the bonfire' 

Somehow a problem that was happening before the war broke out, and would STILL be an issue if there wasn't a war that ever happened, is related to the war.  Evidently there isn't a thing in America that couldn't be fixed if we'd have never gone to war.  Unwed mothers, teen pregnancy, hangnails, flat tires, bad breath, and even body odor would somehow be fixed or not even be a problem if we'd have never gone to war.  If you keep grinding that axe, you'll eventually wear it away to nothingness, and you've got precious little material left as it is. 

When you have a better understanding of how the American Social Security Insurance program works, and aren't projecting your years of service to Ireland and your experiences with YOUR system as your hole card, you'll be able to stay on topic.  Right now, you just wish to say yet again how wrong the war was, regardless of how irrelevant to the topic it is.

[DrewKaree]

and have such crappy unemployment figures.

I have no idea where you keep coming up with the spirit to rail against something that each and every day is being shown to be false beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt, but you keep up the good fight, tiger.  Eventually (and it'll probably take more years than you can keep people interested in that lie) you'll be right again.  Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. 

Call us (make it collect, if you wish) when you get your facts on this area straight.  We've already given up holding our breath that you can differentiate between actual unemployment figures in America and your view of the truth.  Unless an unemployment rate that equals the rate in your country is just as "crap", in which case I'll have to believe you think that 0% unemployment is attainable.....then I'll just sit back, point and laugh with the rest of the sane world.

Your ignorance in the area of American unemployment rates is staggering, but your willingness to display your ignorance for all to see is beyond belief.  I'd tell you to get your facts straight, but obviously, it hasn't stopped you thus far, so I'd be just as foolish to expect you to change your wailing on this if you had the facts in front of you.

[Grasshopper]

and charges for fries as much as he can get away with.

They will be able to charge more, because they know the little guy is getting the tax break, so the little guy can afford to pay more.

The Burger King Guy, the Subway guy, and all the other fast food guys will all raise their prices to make up for losing thier tax break.  It won't just be the fast food guys, but the Pepsi guy, the Nike guy, the Shell guy....

I'm not sure that's true. The amount that McDonalds charges is not based primarily on what the 'little guy' can afford to pay. It's based mainly on what other fast food outlets charge for similar items i.e. market forces.

Most people could afford to pay more for burgers if they had to and McDonalds would certainly put their prices up if they didn't face any competition from other fast food outlets.

But the point you're making is irrelevant anyway as Dexter was referring to tax breaks for high earners i.e. the sort of people who tend not to eat at McDonalds.

'Trickle down' economics (which I think is what you're referring to) sounds superficially attractive at first glance. But time and time again it has been shown not to work in practice.

[shmokes]

Can someone explain to me the part about baby boomers being the problem?  Like because there's so many of them or something?  That don't make no sense to me.  The time period they use to designate baby boomers is twice as big as the time periods they use to designate gen x and gen y.  If you put gen X and gen Y together they are a significantly larger group than the baby boomers, over an equivelent time period.  Gen Y is much much larger per year than baby boomers.  I'd guess that this has a lot to do with the way population grows exponentially (my grandparents have 2.5 kids and they each have 2.5 kids and then I and each of my 1.5 siblings have 2.5 kids, etc.). 

Do I just not understand the math of why baby boomers present such a problem?

[DrewKaree]

When Social Security was started, the average number of taxpayers paying into the system vs the number of people drawing on the program was ~16.  Currently the number is ~3.  It has nothing to do with the Baby Boomers, per se, rather that they'll be the first ones going through a program ill-suited to stand up to the needs of the program as it's currently set up.

[Crazy Cooter]

The issue is that the baby boomers will live longer and draw more from SS than the oldies did before.  More people sucking more money for more years.  If we started raising the age to receive benefits, the problem would go away.  It's like this (assuming no changes):

* ~13 years from now, SS will spend more than it gets.  It will have to draw on it's "savings".
* At some point (arguable exactly when ~2050??), the system goes bankrupt.

Start raising the age to receive benefits and the ability for SS to "payout" is increased.  I'm 30 now and my life expectancy is ~74.  I'm eligible under the current system to start getting benefits when I'm like 55/58.5 or some crap.  I think this should be raised to at least 70.  If I want to retire before then, I should do so on my own dime unless I'm completely senile or disabled.  Then SS should step in.

Bush wants to let you take money out now, invest it, and hopefully get enough of a return that you won't need SS later.  The problem is that we have to start fronting money sooner, because SS will go broke sooner (less $ coming in).  MY point is that we can already invest money through IRA's etc.  I'd like to see less people collecting SS and keep it for those it was intended for.  That would reduce the "drag" on the system and extend it's life.  It's supposed to be a social program, not a retirement fund.  That's why I consider paying it each week as a tax.  A tax that should support the real old/frail/disabled/etc.  Not the dude vacationing in Cancun.  If you're able to work, but have no money, go to work.  I don't care if you're 17 or 70.  Keep SS for those that need it.

I just see this (and gvmnt spending/tax cuts in general) as backwards.  Cut the spending and THEN cut the intake.  I wouldn't quit my job today because I *think* I'll cut back my spending next year...  I'll quit when I do the math and see I don't need to work anymore.

[DrewKaree]

Cut the spending and THEN cut the intake.  I wouldn't quit my job today because I *think* I'll cut back my spending next year...  I'll quit when I do the math and see I don't need to work anymore.

Cooter, you and I agree EXACTLY on the cut the spending part.  The difference is that you view Social Security Insurance as what it's been perverted to, rather than a spending program set up by the government that's run amok! 

Seriously, Social Security Insurance was NEVER intended to be the program it currently is, and it worked THEN.  There is absolutely NO reason to think it won't work again, it's already been PROVEN to work, and work well.  Weaning the American public off of a perverted program is the only way it will get back to the way it was before, and even then, government has screwed up the program so badly that it won't be identical, but at least there's hope that it will return to serve the purpose it was set up for.

The problem is the gradual change over the decades it's been in existence and the unwillingness for the American public to look back to how well Social Security Insurance worked in the beginning, and our inability to realize each person has a responsibility to plan for their own future and not rely on the government to take care of us.  It's SO ingrained into the minds of many that "I/we/they paid into the program, and now it's being taken away", that hysterical visions of the elderly sleeping under freeway overpasses and lining up at soup kitchens all over America cloud the fact that this ISN'T going to be an instantaneous change, and that the elderly STILL will be taken care of in America, with a GRADUAL change back to taking care of ourselves. 

It's simply not true, and the American public is already at least telling themselves that they aren't going to count on Social Security Insurance to be there for them as they age.  NO ONE - NO ONE - will stand for the immediate end to Social Security and subsequent financial, physical, and emotional burden that would bring to the families of those currently relying on it, yet overreaction to the solution proposed (PROPOSED!  NOT EVEN FULLY DISCUSSED OR FINALIZED YET!) is working hard to make it seem as if we're planning widespread euthanasia of the elderly in America, instead of working to help the elderly, ourselves, and relieve the burden on generations to come.

[Crazy Cooter]

FYI: (from the SS site itself)
"If you were born before 1938, your "full retirement age" is 65. Because of longer life expectancies, the full retirement age is increasing for people born after 1938. You can start your Social Security benefits as early as age 62, but the amount you receive each month will be less than if you start at full retirement age."

Rather than make it more complex, wouldn't a better solution be to just raise the age required for benefits?

If you're 55+,  No change.  (Age: 62/65)
If you're 52-55, bump up your stuff one year.       (Age: 63/66)
If you're 50-52, bump up your stuff two years.     (Age: 64/67)
If you're 48-50, bump up your stuff three years.  (Age: 65/68)
If you're 46-48, bump up your stuff four years.     (Age: 66/69)
If you're 44-46, bump up your stuff five years.     (Age: 67/70)
If you're 42-44, bump up your stuff six years.      (Age: 68/71)
If you're 40-42, bump up your stuff seven years.  (Age: 69/72)
If you're 38-40, bump up your stuff eight years.   (Age: 70/73)
If you're 36-38, bump up your stuff nine years.    (Age: 71/74)
If you're 34-36, bump up your stuff ten years.     (Age: 72/75)
If you're 32-34, bump up your stuff eleven years.  (Age: 73/76)
If you're 30-32, bump up your stuff twelve years.  (Age: 74/77)

The SS office has a chart at http://www.ssa.gov/retirechartred.htm

This correction for life expectancy would be the only thing needed.  If you look at the 13-year mark, you'd have a 6-year lag for people entering the system.  This should keep input > output.  Problem solved.  Now just keep it updated.

[DrewKaree]

This should keep input > output.  Problem solved.  Now just keep it updated.

If the age at which you could collect had been updated from the inception of the program to maintain the original parameters, this wouldn't even BE a problem today, and it wouldn't be viewed as if we were talking about stealing money people "had coming to them".

Not only would proper updates that kept the age in line with the original parameters have kept input greater than output, but the program would be working EXACTLY as it was intended to work.

There is NO way to fix this problem without pissing off someone, and no matter WHAT the solution, it will be painted as being harsh and punitive to those who were "looking forward to enjoying their retirement years, but instead are forced to work longer and longer".  And I'm betting WHATEVER the solution, there will be someone who says that Oma and Bumpa can't enjoy their grandchildren as much, this will hurt families, blabety blah.

Social Security - the government-mandated pyramid scheme!   

[DrewKaree]

BILL BENNETT GIVEN CONTROL OF SOCIAL SECURITY FUNDS
A Safe Bet, Bush Reassures Nation

In a bold move to privatize Social Security, President George W. Bush today put all of the program

[fredster]

Can someone explain to me the part about baby boomers being the problem?  Like because there's so many of them or something? 

Good question.

Here's the Social Security Administation's view - http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/solvency/

[SirPeale]

Give me a break.

McDonalds is not a charity.

Actually, the Ronald McDonald House IS a charity.

[fredster]

But time and time again it has been shown not to work in practice.

Really? When?

[jbox]

But time and time again it has been shown not to work in practice.

Really? When?

Usually it depends upon whether you are preaching the "strong" (economic & technological) or "weak" (technological only) version of trickle-down economics. Both of them are about building up the pyramid to be as tall as possible, which we have known is generally good for a society as a whole for several thousand years. However many (rich) people essentially try to sell the idea that not only do the middle layers of the pyramid get thicker (ie. more middle-class) but the bottom of the pyramid magically shrinks as well.

The rationale for this typically relies on market forces to encourage a supplier to develop the cheapest way to produce a widget in order to maximise their profit. However, what then happens is that after some time *everyone* will be building widgets in the 'cheap' way, which should theoretically force the market price of widgets down and thus more people can now afford them. The ideal scenario is that this happens for all commodities, so that over time everyone can now afford more stuff.

However, this theory can fail under several counter-scenarios:
- scarce resources (ie. land never gets cheaper)
- supply chain (ie. feeding the miner, truck driver, factory worker, sales assistant...)
- removal of market forces (ie. inheritance, patents, microsoft)
- removal of capital from the market (ie. foreign money)
(all of which impede this process instead of encouraging it)

If you have access to any kind of running water (even if it is only a public toilet) you are already way up there in terms of standard of living. Nobody with any sense can claim that the trickle-down effect is not a proven and positive thing from the technology point of view. However, there is still plenty of argument as to whether this process would in fact go *faster* if we got rid of that tiny fraction of mega-rich loafers sitting at the top spending most of their time trying to keep the rest of the pyramid down at the bottom.

[fredster]

Ok, nice theory.

When did it fail when it was actually tried?

[jbox]

Ok, nice theory.

When did it fail when it was actually tried?

Are you serious? Go look at the long history of Europe for plenty of examples of civilisations that became more 'advanced' then their neighbouring cultures whilst still repressing a staggering percentage of their population in various levels of abject misery. I personally suggest you read about one nice example called the "Industrial Revolution", which featured people being worked in mines until they died of "industrial disease".

I am more than happy to agree that the system works 'in theory' when there is no impediment to the flow of accumulated wealth back into the working class in the form of fair wages and safe working conditions.    But history shows us that this is not a by-product of capitalism, but of democracy. Many would-be capitalists living in democratic countries confuse these two theologies far too often (either accidentily or deliberately).

The conditions that most of us enjoy today are a by-product of the work of unions in educating people that they aren't powerless. But feel free to contradict me (since I haven't been to the USA for a while), maybe you have completely eliminated underemployment and poverty in the mean time. 

[Crazy Cooter]

Can someone explain to me the part about baby boomers being the problem?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Saw this quote from Bush yesterday, and just thought I'd share it here.
Even though there is a general sense of the direction Bush wants to go with his SS privitization plan, we have yet to see specifics. Those that 'support' Bush feel this makes all criticism of the plan/direction unwarranted, yet they find no irony at all in 'supporting' the "plan" at the same time.

Anyhow, when asked why he continues to refuse to show America the plan he is so aggressively pushing, Bush said this, "The tendency in Washington is,

[Otraotaku]

I hate our country, Nuff said... >,<

[DrewKaree]

....but too cowardly to actually act on your "hatred" and do something about it, like move.

Either that, or you don't actually know how to say what you really mean, and "I hate my country" is the best, closest approximation of what you really want to say.

You'll find moving to someplace you claim to like won't solve your "hatred" of your country, but at least you'd be being honest with yourself and ACTING to solve the problem you find with living in it, otherwise you're just a whiner who is too lazy to think out what he really means.

But that's just me....I could be looking at it wrong

BTW, what country, exactly, is it that you hate?

[fredster]

What did you guys think about what Alan Greenspan had to say about Social Security these last couple of days?

He likes part of the the proposals.  He didn't like the price tag, but he said SS needed fixed, because it was actually broken.

I like the idea of the personal accounts too.  Bush ran on that platform in 2000.  It was the main reason I voted for him then.   

I'd sure like to see the details so I could make up my mind if this was a good thing or bad. I don't know just yet, because nobody has anything more than the concept in the public yet.

Any proposals that you guys (Cooter & C) actually like? Or do you think we should just wait for some future democratic president to raise the taxes to cover the bets?  Or do you think we have absolutely no problem and we should just go about our business?

[Crazy Cooter]

I like my solution (see above somewhere).  It's plain & simple.  Scale up the age to collect bennies.  Don't pussyfoot around the issue with 5000 pages of taxcode-like confusion.

btw, you do understand that the diversion of funds into a different account will create a shortfall faster... right?  That's the ~trillion dollars (or  however much) of debt the dems are talking about.

If you and Drew are each paying $5/year to support me, then decide to put your money elsewhere, who pays me now?  The gvmnt borrows the money.  It's all NEW debt.  Sooner or later someone WILL have to raise taxes to either:
1- Pay SS because the program was never changed.

-or-

2- Pay the NEW debt accrued because people stopped paying into SS to start their "own" fund and the gvmnt had to borrow money to cover the difference.

Nothing the repubs have presented will put more money into SS.  Somewhere they have to cut bennies.  Right now the idea is to confuse it enough that nobody notices.  That's why the dems are still quiet, they're letting the repubs set themselves up because THERE IS NO WAY TO SAVE SS EXCEPT TO CUT BENNIES.  PERIOD.

[DrewKaree]

btw, you do understand that the diversion of funds into a different account will create a shortfall faster... right?  That's the ~trillion dollars (or  however much) of debt the dems are talking about.

If you and Drew are each paying $5/year to support me, then decide to put your money elsewhere, who pays me now?  The gvmnt borrows the money.  It's all NEW debt. 

 

Do you not understand that there's money in the system right now?  That's where you will be getting paid from.  I don't walk into a store and borrow $100 from you to buy something when I have the cash sitting in my own pocket.  The government doesn't have to borrow money to cover payouts from money that's already there. 

You also are CONTINUALLY painting this as a complete and total removal of an individual's payment.  First, any talk of a plan has made it clear that won't be the case, merely a percentage, thereby continuing payments into the system.  Second, nothing has even been specified, yet you're acting as if the proposal is to let people keep all their money and put it into a bucket with a slow leak in order to save for their retirement. 

Prior to Social Security Insurance being implemented, people not only saved for retirement, if they were smart, they diversified their money into several different areas in order to ensure they wouldn't be hosed.  Your argument that "we already HAVE IRA's and the like" is saying that adding another area to invest in is a bad thing.

...because people stopped paying into SS to start their "own" fund and the gvmnt had to borrow money to cover the difference.

An example of the hyperbole I'm speaking of.  It simply won't happen that people will "stop paying into Social Security Insurance".  At best (for me and fredster, anyways) there will be a larger percentage allowed to be put into my own fund, rather than what is being bandied about presently. 

Nothing the repubs have presented will put more money into SS.

...because they don't HAVE to put more money into Social Security Insurance.   The money I divert into a personal account is money the government won't have to pay me, thereby lessening the burden on the government towards me, meaning money that would have gone to me will now be going to you.  They won't have to borrow the money to pay you, it will come from money they DON'T have to pay ME.

Somewhere they have to cut bennies.

My guess is that you consider giving someone a smaller check because their personal account will pay the other portion the government USED to pay as a cut in benefits.  I can't help you there, you've got to do the math yourself.  The person will get the same amount of money, but the government will be footing less of the burden, as it should be done.  Statements like that are simply used to instill fear and confusion of the proposals being considered.

As it is set up right now, the government pays that amount of money EVEN IF THAT PERSON DOESN'T WARRANT PAYMENT.  Bill Gates will get his benefits cut, if that's how you want to look at this, because the government will have to pay less of his monthly amount due to his personal account making up the difference.

Joe Average, who doesn't want to pay into a personal account whatsoever because he feels the safe plan is to keep paying all of his money into Social Security Insurance as he has done ever since he started getting a paycheck will get paid his entire monthly amount due from the government each month.

Since the government has to pay Bill Gates LESS from its coffers, it can still offer the SAME payment to Joe Average because they'll pay less to Bill Gates in order to keep Joe Average's payment the same.  It's the only way they WON'T have to raise taxes in order to keep up with the payouts. 

The only confusion going on right now is by people like yourself claiming that the first year a plan goes into effect, everyone will take all their money out, thereby screwing the people in the system already, which is simply lying about every proposal brought up thus far, both liberal and conservative, and relying on hysterics to cloud the issue instead of working to clear up any of these proposals.

Your plan of scaling up the age is in essence a cut in benefits too, even though it's the right thing to do.  Right now, you start collecting benefits at x, you're proposing collecting at y.  I just got a certain number of years of collecting benefits taken away from me, i.e. I got my benefits cut.  Right now, they'd have to raise the age so high to make up for the perversion the program has gone through, you'd have to be dead and in the ground a few years before you could start to collect!  Try explaining how this train started going off the tracks and can't find its way back onto 'em!  Talk about misconfusiation! 

[fredster]

btw, you do understand that the diversion of funds into a different account will create a shortfall faster... right?  That's the ~trillion dollars (or  however much) of debt the dems are talking about.

Maybe, maybe not. The key was the interest rates. The idea was to invest it in these accounts using the 401K model from what I get out it now. The details is what we are lacking.

I don't think I'll live long enough to collect benifits now. It's going up all the time. Check when you will be able to collect cooter.  I think as young as you are it could be 69 or 70.  Do you want to work that long? Think about that. Man. I wanna retire now, and I'm only 43. I have to wait to 67.

I like the idea.  I like the idea better than paying into the system that will pay me 70 cents on the dollar instead of $4 for every dollar I put in.

Have you added up the taxes you are paying into this mess now?

Drew is right, SS taxes are used for cash flow, there is no big "piggy bank" somewhere. We are on a pay as you go system. The "lock box" has the tumblers drilled out of it over and over. 

I heard where Chile has done this, and the system is working pretty well.  Is there any country that is doing this now?  I don't think it's a "new" idea.  Is this being done anywhere successfully now?

[fredster]

I have to add this. I have a very old friend that I don't see much anymore. He works at Ford as an engineer. He is an militant anti-tax guy.

He told me that he has removed himself from the Social Security roles completely and has had Ford stop making his social security payments.

The system was created originally as a voluntary system.  He said that he found the forms to remove himself from the roles and no longer even has a social security number.

He voted Ross Perot and was even an usher for him during the '92 years, so I think he's out there just a little.  Anybody ever hear of somebody doing this?

He swears he doesn't pay in and could care less about this whole situation. He quoted numbers from a Roth IRA that will pay him more by far than any social security benifit.

[Crazy Cooter]

I linked to this above:
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/solvency/SJohnson_20050215.pdf
"This memorandum presents long-range estimates of the financial effects of the plan you have developed for individual investment accounts that would provide retirement income under the Social Security program. This memorandum includes a description of the plan, reflecting the intent of and specifications for the plan, as provided by Kathleen Black of your staff."

...Individuals born in years 1950 through 1982... stay with same or choose new way.
...All individuals born in 1983 and later (those 21 or younger as of January 1, 2005) would participate in the IA program, with contributions of 6.2 percent of OASDI taxable earnings starting in 2005.

That's the full 6.2%.  Read the link and look at the Tables.  This isn't an "investment".  Post back once you read through it (to see if you take it the same way).

RE: $ in SS.
 Is it there or isn't it?  We're talking two different time frames.  If nothing changes, it's good for like 13 years before it has to "withdraw from it's bank".  If we no longer feed money into this "bank" (by whatever %) it will need to "withdraw from it's bank" sooner.  Let's assume 50% is diverted.  Now THAT time frame is down to 7.5 years.  Bush says that the current system will be bankrupt in like 50 years.  With 50% not being put in, the system is bankrupt in 25 years.  That's ignoring interest.  If Bush's numbers are right, the system would go tits up in about 20 years if we divert funds.  Now where does the money come from to cover the retired?  Looks like about a decade worth of payments will be missing...

Let me know if you read that link differently.

SS does have a "bank".  They have collected more than they have dispersed over the past howevermany years.  This banked money gets very very poor interest because it is invested in GUARANTEED funds.  The object of the individual/private account is to move it into a higher interest area (and introduce a measure of risk).  Reading the above link, it appears that the gmnt is willing to say: "if it craps out, we'll support you at poverty level".  It DOES NOT say: "if it rockets upward, we'll give the citizens gold and jewels."  That's why I say it is not an investment.  It is a gamble.  From the Table of benefits on that link, it shows that we will get less money under this system than the old.  THE SYSTEM will get richer if the funds do well, but you and I will not.

For the record, I honestly don't think that I should get SS until I'm at least 70.  If I want to retire before than, I should do it on my own.  If we don't keep raising the age of benefits, we'll run into this same problem when we start living to be 120-years old.

Ford can't stop making payments on his behalf to SS.  It is required by law (AFAIK).  Businesses even match the 6.2% of your income (up to 90k) contribution to SS.  If there's some form out there that gets us out of this, fax me a copy

[fredster]

It suggests a change from 6.2% to a 9.7% tax increase on the individual an the employer.  There are also a butt load of assumptions.  It would take a while to verify the data there. 
It looks like just one proposal out of many. I'll read into it further.

The best report is from the managers of social security, here - http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/pr/trustee04-pr.htm

The SSA itself says the money runs out in 2018.  The whole system collapses into nothing by 2042.

I was planning to retire in 2001, but I guess I'll have to wait until 2029.  What year are you going to homeless Cooter?

[DrewKaree]

I haven't read the entire thing yet, Cooter, but right now, the % to pay in is 7.5% by the employee, 7.5% by the employer.  If you are self-employed, you pay the entire 15%. 

I'll finish the reading over breakfast.

* DrewKaree chokes            All TWENTY SIX PAGES 

*edit*
Something I noticed, you reference the % (the % is irrelevant, as long as the context remains the same so far, agreed?) which is only half of the amount.  The other half (equal to the % you reference) is still going to be paid into the system, according to that link.

*edit*
Through page six of your link, Cooter, this appears to be a plan to dissolve Social Security Insurance as we know it, with the likely effect being to spin off Supplemental Disability Insurance into its own program.

*edit*
In fact, on page 9, final paragraph, it actually states "The proposal would replace OASDI retiremant and aged survivor benefits with an individual account that would be financed with one half of the payroll tax rate."

[Crazy Cooter]

Yeah, the percentages aren't that important, it's the "idea" of the proposal that's important.  Whatever gets diverted out of the old and into the new system has to made up somehow unless we can "time" it right so the old goes belly up just as the new starts rolling.

Did you guys get the the same feeling as I do about this proposal?  It looks like we get less money individually and the "system" gets to collect any additional interest.  It's all hocus pocus to me.  What's the expression?  A "nutshell game" or something?  Why don't they just up the ages for bennies?  Drop all this extra paperwork garbage.

lol at Fredster.  I just sent in my taxes.  I'm already homeless.

So if we update the numbers with Fredsters info:
http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/pr/trustee04-pr.htm

-- No Change --
SS taps its bank account in 2018.
SS is bankrupt in 2042.

-- Divert 50% --
(for ease of calculations)
SS taps its bank account in 2011-2012.
SS is bankrupt in 2023-2024.

FOR THE OLD SS:
Now if I'm 55 now, my expected age is 70 before I die, = 15 years = year 2020.  So 50% of the people age 55 will still be withdrawing from a nearly bankrupt system.  That's ignoring people who opt to stay with the old system and withdraw even more money.

FOR THE NEW SS:
Assuming that most people switch to the new system, it will operate just like the old one did when if was first introduced.  Lots of income, little expenses.  It should "bank" a bunch of money.  (If things go sour on the investments, it's all ruined)  If things go well, can we expect to get MORE $ than we could under the old system?  NO.  If we did, it would just be the same program with a different name but the same problem 50 years from now.

Somewhere, somehow, they have to cut what they give to us.  From what I got out of the 26 page thing there, it looks like that's what they're doing.  (Table b-2 or whatever).

[fredster]

NO.  If we did, it would just be the same program with a different name but the same problem 50 years from now.

Maybe. Fact is it will die. So there is a like problem right?  I believe that answer was to raise taxes in this proposal.  We live on less now so we can live on less then.

Bush said it was all on the table, so I'll give him the benifit of the doubt.  He even suggested that raising the cap for "wealthy" people might help. 

(If things go sour on the investments, it's all ruined)

Well, so is everything if the stock market closes. It was the great depression that inspired the system.  Remember, WE are the government. We are paying for this.  It's not THE goverment, it's US, you and me.

My question is, with all of the wonderful scholars here, has this private account program EVER been tried in any country and how did it fare?  Is it being proposed anywhere else?

[Crazy Cooter]

Raising the cap would help, but not solve the problem.  Everything I've heard doesn't address the problem that SS is paying out too much.  Everything is trying to put more into SS.  I think that is looking at this issue from the wrong angle.

[Crazy Cooter]

Since I just found this (5-day old) article:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2113883/?GT1=6190

Looks like other people think that raising the age of retirement is the way to go.

[fredster]

Raising the retirement age? Again?

Man, I have to be like 67 now.  I don't want to work till I'm 67.

It's clear to a 5 year old that we are paying out more than what we are taking in.

But the problem is where the money is comming from.  The government is taking an annuity and using it as cash flow.

I don't know if what Bush and the republicans are cooking up is the best way to do this, I haven't seen the plan.  But it is a fact something will have to change. Otherwise, we'll be getting back .60 on the 1.00 for our SS.

Social security covers a lot more than old people too. It covers disablity and dependent support too. I don't know how to find the exact figure, but I believe it's 20% of the toll.

We can't do without that.  We don't need blind people and children doing without, because there would be nothing if that were to happen.

But if the problem is that the money isn't being accured and drawing interest, we can change that by putting some of it in the bank so it multiplies instead of divides. That makes sense.

I have no reservations about knocking the cap off the $90K limit, except that those people will have to get MORE money because the PAID more money in. That's the way the system is set up.

To me it's stupid to keep raising the 6.2% pay in to a higher figure. It doesn't do anything when you think about it. The more you pay in the more you get later.  I'm not sure how it would help out.

The basic problem is that the money is not in a "lock box", it's in the till, being used as capital.

I like the account idea because it is then in some kind of account. I don't think that any long term investment in the stockmarket for 15+ years lost money.  It doesn't show that in any of my 401K funds. If we can get double interest of the present system, then we have gone far and done many things.

But I have to see the plan to fully support it. 

[DrewKaree]

Social security covers a lot more than old people too. It covers disablity and dependent support too. I don't know how to find the exact figure, but I believe it's 20% of the toll.

It covers partial as well as permanent disability of a person, and the system is set up to make payments to the children of these people, if they are "disabled", until they reach the age of 18.  The figure is ~23%.

Think about what I just said. 

The children, who haven't paid into the system at all, get money from the Social Security program.  The person who is considered disabled, either pays very little or nothing into the system.  That person also gets money from the program. 

We have two people taking money out of the system, while paying little to nothing into it.  Also, when the children reach the age of retirement, they still get "theirs"

When I say they are paying "little" into the program, I mean LITTLE.  I mean under $200 a year, while getting ~$500/month, and the children get ~$200/month. 

I'm not for dropping people who are disabled, and their children, I'm against the abuse of the system.  I'm against the disabling of a person by themself from alcoholism/drug abuse, and we the people end up paying the cost.  There IS no personal responsibility in these situations, and everyone all around suffers due to a system designed not to help the needy, but to foster an attitude of "The government is my bank, I just need to fill out the right withdrawal slip". 

It's why the program needs more than an increase in the retirement age, it needs to offer me some control of where my money goes. 

 I don't think that any long term investment in the stockmarket for 15+ years lost money.

Historically, if you take any 30-year time period, which would be a little less than half of your working life if you couldn't retire 'til you reached 67, you will have not only made money, but fistfulls of it.  And yes, this includes the worst time in American history, the Great Depression.  Long-term investment, which is in essence what Social Security is now (but with a piss-poor return), is best left in the hands of the people to whom it matters most - you and I.


Mr. Johnson's system is NOT something that will be implemented.  We are talking about politicians.  The system that WILL be implemented will keep Social Security around for at least 50+ years....you know, just long enough for them to benefit from it, without having to accept blame for any problems   They ARE politicians, after all.

[jbox]

I'm against the disabling of a person by themself from alcoholism/drug abuse, and we the people end up paying the cost.

I believe I personally agree with the point you make, but I suspect there is no line you will ever find that shows you which people are "bludgers" and which are "legitimate". People involved in car accidents? Switch 'em off if it was their fault. People who marry smokers? No health care for them buddy. Brittle bones? That's your fault since you didn't eat right. Heat stroke? Let 'em melt... 

Different countries do exercise different levels of compassion based on what the current policy is. But while I agree there is no system in any area of society that wouldn't benefit from a 'tune-up', so long as there is no consistent metric for "worthiness" of a human being, there will never be a perfect system of welfare. 

I don't think that any long term investment in the stockmarket for 15+ years lost money.

Historically, if you take any 30-year time period, which would be a little less than half of your working life if you couldn't retire 'til you reached 67, you will have not only made money, but fistfulls of it.

First of all, people *do* lose money in the stock market, and the people who continue to claim otherwise make me worry for the state of your high school mathematics programs.  You know, you can guarentee a win at the lottery if you buy a ticket for every combination...

If you were able to put money into almost *any* investment for 30 years you will have most likely make money, and it shouldn't be surprising considering 30 years is a huge fraction of a human life span. But that money comes from somewhere, it doesn't exist in a vaccuum. While a small number of people play the shell game, it remains exciting because there are wins to be made from other people's losses.

If your entire country starts investing in the stock market the net gain will be substantially less because these things will happen:
(a) some people will get rich, some will be the same, and some will be worse off; or
(b) everybody gets safe stable investments, and ends up pretty much the same; or
(c) the stock market congeals, rich people get a bit less rich and the working class are better off, property prices sky-rocket and cancel out the difference

Imagine if all investment in the stock market was done through managed funds. Essentially you'd be turning the market into a flat landscape, which only grows over time because your whole economy is growing over time. Why not just pool your money and buy a tropical island somewhere? Or have each company start up a bank? I don't have to know the details of any plan to know that using the words "stock market" or "personal investment" is just a gimmick. Either make euthenasia compulsory or raise the age and get over it. 

And yes, there are probably a small fraction of "bludgers" that will fall out after the shake-out, but here in Australia there are several super-annuation funds that have already collapsed. Either you are all in it together or you aren't. I find your arguments disengenous to suggest that economic rationalisation makes you all better human beings. If you honestly believed that feel free to start a political party based on *everyone* not paying taxes, otherwise it sounds like you just want your kids to pay yours instead.

Countries are an advanced form of insurance. Governments even more so. The rule of insurance funds is that most people have to put in more than they take out. Anyone who says otherwise is either an anarchist or trying to rationalise insurance fraud...

[fredster]

Jbox,

that's a "utilitarian" government.

Besides, you are from Austrailia, not the US.  This is a US issue, internal not external. 

You make a alot of unsubstantiated claims like this one -

First of all, people *do* lose money in the stock market, and the people who continue to claim otherwise make me worry for the state of your high school mathematics programs.

Know anyone that has lost money in mutual funds over a 15 year period?  It's the single most trusted way to make money.

Do you have money in the stock market?  Take a course in it and see how it works.

I find your arguments disengenous to suggest that economic rationalisation makes you all better human beings.

  Who said that?  We were talking about what to do with retirement funds.  Stock market investment is one of the ways we do that privately NOW. 

Or have each company start up a bank?

We have those, they are called "credit unions".  Big companies have done that for years. I'm in one.  Great people, good service, low fees.

People who marry smokers? No health care for them buddy. Brittle bones? That's your fault since you didn't eat right. Heat stroke? Let 'em melt.

  They are seriously talking about that in Canada.

Different countries do exercise different levels of compassion based on what the current policy is.

  Depends on what "compassion" means. If that means paying for everybody's mistakes, most of the time. But we do take care of lots of people that can't take care of themselves, like the blind and disabled. 

We take care of our own through lots of programs.  You country doesn't have any homeless? 

[jbox]

that's a "utilitarian" government.

So you guys build your roads by co-op? What about water and sewage? Police? Emergcency services? People want to form governments to utilise economies-of-scale. The argument should then be whether or not you are getting bang for your buck, not whether you should give bucks at all. I am all for reforming systems so that they are more efficient, but when a government thinks it should drop the program almost completely it starts to worry me. 

Besides, you are from Austrailia, not the US.  This is a US issue, internal not external. 

Hey, no worries mate.   But in that case you should refrain from saying things like this:

My question is, with all of the wonderful scholars here, has this private account program EVER been tried in any country and how did it fare?  Is it being proposed anywhere else?

as it seems to imply otherwise.

Ansett, HiH, One.Tel, Enron, the list goes on forever. Balanced funds are just that, funds. To say that balanced funds = stock market trading is not truthful, since the vast majority of balanced funds have property, currency, full-time assessment advisors, etc...  Saying "smart investment over 30 years will make you money" is a tautology, since any investment that didn't make much over 30 years would not be considered smart... 

[jbox]

Qiuck calculations (not including bank fees or taxes):

10% of annual wage @ 6% interest:
30yrs => 7.9x principle and 47% retirement wage (or 12 years at 100%)
40yrs => 15.5x principle and 93% retirement wage (or 46 years at 100%)
50yrs => 29.0x principle and 174% retirement wage

15% of annual wage @ 6% interest:
30yrs => 11.8x principle and 71% retirement wage (or 22 years at 100%)
35yrs => 16.7x principle and 100% retirement wage
40yrs => 23.2x principle and 139% retirement wage
50yrs => 43.6x principle and 261% retirement wage

20% of annual wage @ 6% interest:
20yrs => 7.4x principle and 44% retirement wage (or 10 years at 100%)
30yrs => 15.8x principle and 95% retirement wage (or 51 years at 100%)
40yrs => 31x principle and 186% retirement wage

33% of annual wage @ 6% interest:
10yrs => 4.3x principle and 26% retirement wage (or 6 years at 100%)
20yrs => 12.1x principle and 73% retirement wage (or 23 years at 100%)
30yrs => 26.1x principle and 157% retirement wage

What do all these figures mean? That compound interest is powerful regardless of what market you get it from. But lets play a little game, where everyone saves 15% for 35 years and then retires. Basically only the people between 18 - 53 are working, which is what percentage of your population? Maybe 60% at the moment. Now fast forward to 2050, where people live to 80 but the birth rate is still stable, maybe 50%, maybe less? Cure for cancer? 85 years, 40%? Not to mention the mass-inflation that will result when 100 million people start getting those nest eggs once their parents start to die. This is what I mean when I say you were *always* going to be living off of your kids, which is fair enough since you raised the little stinkers. The irony is that putting off having kids until later in life just makes it worse in the short term!

This is the problem the "facists" are trying to point out. If people are going to live longer than on average they are going to have to work longer, or go back to havin' a lot more babies!

[fredster]

That's Jbox, that's the most convincing argument FOR private accounts I could come up with.

Who pays all that interest? The goverment does. Where does the government get the interest? From the taxpayers. But privatizing, we reduce the national debt.

[jbox]

I guess it can all be summed up as: most of us get the government we deserve, not the one we voted for. If you want to believe the story painted to you by a corporate shill, knock yourself out.

Clearly, many people here believe in the holy grail of "Privatisation", in which case so long as they pay any taxes there will be something for them to complain about. Barter with commodities instead of money. Avoid using the roads. Home-school your kids. Disconnect from all public utilities. Don't let the fire department save your house when you fall asleep with a cigarette in your mouth. Don't expect the police to care if someone shoots you in the back. Don't expect the rest of the world to care if Russia wants to base missiles in Cuba.

Here's my solution - write to your senator and tell them you want them to vote to change social security so that the government can invest the money in indexed funds. Seems like that would help balance your budget, provide you with more services, and eliminate national debt pretty damn quickly. Right?

Our 23 year old children don't see a dime of our work.  Hardly seems fair to me.

I'm glad I'm not one of your kids. By the time I was 23 I had moved out, my parents had put me through under-grad, bought me clothes, toys, furniture, took me to social functions, holidays, hobbies, parties. Boy am I glad they weren't hard-nosed capitalists like you who don't give their kids a "dime of our work".

[DrewKaree]

It's a translation/comprehension issue. 

Fredster is talking about something altogether different than what you are, jbox.  He's not saying he isn't going to help support his kids, he meant something altogether different.

[fredster]

Jbox, here on earth we don't believe this -

most of us get the government we deserve, not the one we voted for.

I'm not sure what this drivel means, but I'm sure I wouldn't agree with it if it did make sense.  Do the people in Rwanda deserve what they have? Did Saddam's people deserve that? what?

Obviously you didn't read the link, and you guess wrong.

I'm glad I'm not one of your kids.

You got that right.  And you missed the point, as you usually do. The point is that retirement assets are not transfered to your children. If you die, the money may or may not be used by the family as it should. Assets could be transfered from generation to generation and build wealth.  Now it's just used up in the system.

Cooter, the Dems actually had an idea I agreed with today. It may be the compromise that makes it to the floor.

Keep SS the same for now, maybe raise the $92K cap. Ok, that's okay I can live with that. But ADD the private accounts on top of it. Like 2.5% or something. Hey, I'd go for that. We could build the system, and if it worked out, we could move more to it at some time in the future.  That way we don't have to borrow.  I could live with that, what about you?

We could be bi-partisan. Wadda ya say?

[jbox]

It's a translation/comprehension issue. 

I doubt that very much. This topic was about whether or not your SS is broken and if so what is the best way to fix it. Pointing to Chile and saying "wow, look how rich they all are" seemed to me like fredster had only read the one article he linked to. 

I know my sense of humour is bad, and to be frank it's pretty damn funny those comments are the only ones you feel brave enough to go after. How about instead of picking on the times when I fail to be humourous (since I assume fredster doesn't feed his kids from the trash) let's stop beating about the bush and get a straight answer what you two think:

(1) If all the money you now contribute to SS was put into a balanced fund, would 35 years from now every single employed american be living above the poverty line with only a single full-time job?

(2) Would 70 years from now every single employed american be able to retire at 40 years old and live in the same standard of living?

(3) Would 105 years from now no american need to work at all?

Feel free to provide a reason for each answer if you wish, explaining how your economy will continue to support everyon being able to retire at 65, even as the population ages.

[fredster]

Jbox,
You are reaching for what? Your other comments are not worth going after.

I was pointing out the theory works where it has been applied. The model is being copied for the good of the people.

What's wrong with people being able to retire at 65 all over? Do you want to have to work until you are so old you can't enjoy your life? I only want a single full time job. I work to live, I don't live to work. 

Why do you care what the Americans do with their retirement? Where's your dog in this fight?

[DrewKaree]

It's a translation/comprehension issue. 

I doubt that very much. This topic was about whether or not your SS is broken and if so what is the best way to fix it. Pointing to Chile and saying "wow, look how rich they all are" seemed to me like fredster had only read the one article he linked to. 

I know my sense of humour is bad, and to be frank it's pretty damn funny those comments are the only ones you feel brave enough to go after. How about instead of picking on the times when I fail to be humourous (since I assume fredster doesn't feed his kids from the trash) let's stop beating about the bush

Now you've misunderstood me, although to be fair, it's completely my fault because I didn't quote your comment on "I'd hate to be your kid".  THAT was the part that didn't translate/comprehend well, not his entire point, and had I pointed to your words on that, you may have taken what I meant differently.  It has nothing to do with being "brave", I was pointing out (and fredtser's reply shows I was right) that fredster didn't define his point and that you were taking it the wrong way.

and get a straight answer what you two think:

(1) If all the money you now contribute to SS was put into a balanced fund, would 35 years from now every single employed american be living above the poverty line with only a single full-time job?

(2) Would 70 years from now every single employed american be able to retire at 40 years old and live in the same standard of living?

(3) Would 105 years from now no american need to work at all?

1-3)I have no idea what you are looking for, and all of these questions are answered with a no, with 3 being a "scratch your head and wonder what the heck you want to know" kind of question. 

It appears you think our proposing of changes to our Social Security Insurance system is to make people wealthy.  That's the only thing I can guess at through your line of questioning.

Does that work, me giving a "no" to each of those questions?  I really don't think I need to give a reason for each answer, as I'm not looking at Social Security for the solution to support everyone being able to retire at 65.

I'm truly at a loss to figure out where you're going with all of this, as to me, it seems as if your idea of what you think we want Social Security's end result is supposed to be is what our government has actually perverted it into, which is why we need it to be fixed/resolve/rearranged.

I haven't had anything to say about your economy/market views because they haven't seemed to have anything to do with the price of tea in china.  Perhaps I'm missing your point somewhere, I dunno

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I think it's safe to say the Bush's whole plan for privatization is DOA. It has "zero" support from just about everyone who matters.

Yet, the GOP refuses to acknowledge they are wrong...and instead picks a fight w/ the AARP. Not smart. You don't want to piss off 35 million old fogies. Btw, GOP attacks groups have already labeled the AARP as troop-hatin', gay-lovin' liberal commies. The AARP??? WTF??

Tom Delay, recently said:
"The AARP, which claims 35 million members age 50 and over, is "against a solution that hasn't been written yet," said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay after a closed-door meeting with the GOP rank and file."

HA! You have to wonder why these guys refuse to write it out then and share it with us, if we're in such dire straights?! Congressional officials have been briefed on the plan, Bush is screaming that the "sky is falling", yet here they are claiming the plan isn't even written yet. It's clear they want to dismantle to whole program, and open the door for more corporate raids on an already vulnerable system. They *know* if they show the plan, they'll be absolutely eviscerated in 2006 on the issue and Bush will continue to lose favorability ratings faster than a sinking stone.

This SS reform issue is a golden goose for the Dems, if they play it right.

mrC

[fredster]

The AARP??? WTF??

Yep, really leftie.  My sister read their proposals and dropped them a couple of years ago (she's 68, I was born way apart - like 25 years apart). Read the agenda yourself, and if you agree with it, remember that the rest of the mainstream people will not.

 Fox News has pointed this out, but I guess you haven't watched it. Orielly, da man, has sayth so   

Tom Delay, recently said:
"The AARP, which claims 35 million members age 50 and over, is "against a solution that hasn't been written yet," said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay after a closed-door meeting with the GOP rank and file."

Yeah. What is the plan? We are at the concept stage at this point. We are at the "we wanna build a house with 3 bedroom" stage.

This SS reform issue is a golden goose for the Dems, if they play it right.

That should worry you. We know it's going down.  More and more dems are admitting it.  Boxer (your girl) said it yesterday, along with the proposal I agree with about ADDING private accounts.

[Crazy Cooter]

You don't want to piss off 35 million old fogies. Btw, GOP attacks groups have already labeled the AARP as troop-hatin', gay-lovin' liberal commies. The AARP??? WTF??

Have you seen how they shake their fists?

Would that 2.5% be on top of what is already paid?  I wouldn't want that either...  unless there was no limitation on investment options... but then why have it... unless it was a tax shelter... but how long will it take before it gets taxed anyhow... ugh.  I say just raise the age in relation to the death rate.  It's easy, It's cool, All your friends are doing it. *passes hand in front of monitor*  Whats another 6 years Fredster?  Consider it an "Economic Stimulus AND Social Security Reform Plan".

[fredster]

Well, it really wouldn't be a tax would it? Not if you got it all back. It would be a definate shelter, and you could pass it on.  It would be a govenment run IRA in this case, I'd go for it. 

There are a lot of details they haven't even gotten to in the private accounts that transend the fiscal aspect of the social security system. Issues that are all dealbreakers when you get into the details.

Think about this. Let's say that the US actually approves what the President has on the table.

What if the funds on the table had tobacco stocks in them? Who would go wild then? What about anybody that was connected to the companies in the stocks? How about military stocks? Think about the politcal implications of the funds themselves, it's dynamite for both sides.

If you have a 401K, there are other issues with it. On most 401k plans you can cash it in.  What about this one? What if you need the money NOW like a 401K.  I've personally cashed in 3 401K's (and I had a blast spending the money).

But what if you were going to lose your house? What if you really really needed it for a lifesaving operation, or what if you owed taxes, would the government just withdrawl the cash?

I have a friend who hasn't attended to his taxes since 1990. Good guy, really really bad with money. The IRS is all over him, but he has nothing (because he's really really bad with money)

What would the IRS do?  Ignore money? come on.

These were my resevations. Believe me Cooter, I know Social Security.  I won't go into detail, but I know about every program and what they pay. I have seen the IRS with it's claws out on family members and friends. That's an aspect I don't think has been well thought out.

On lots of 401K's (not my current one) you can borrow the money and pay it back. How would that work? Businesses all over loan people (or actually buy out) people for their life insurance before they are dead.  Would that happen?

Let's say you marry 5 times, have 5 kids with 5 mothers.  You die divorced. You have no will, because you are an idiot.  Who gets the money? Everybody or nobody. How about the guy that is 40, lived alone, had no brothers or sisters, orphan, etc. Dies in a horrible car crash. Who gets the money? The State or the Government? Or do they spread it out?

Wonder if an heir turns up unexpected. 

There are problems, but I'm not paid to sort that out. What I want to see is the actual plan. I want to see graphs and charts, and I want to see how it affects that. I want an independent accounting firm hired by both sides to show me where I'm wrong.

Cooter, Alan Greenspan says something has to be done or we are screwed. Everybody knows that Alan Greenspan is neutral.  He's been there for a lifetime. You can't say that we are ok and let it ride.

It irks me that just because Bush said it, the Dems have to attack. Clinton said the same things. It's obvious to my 10 year old.  We have to do something.  What is on the freaking table? Would one representative from each group make a presentation so I can figure out what's the right thing to do?

[Crazy Cooter]

There's a lot to sort out I agree, looks like the dems are playing it smart too.

"Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and other top Democrats are resisting Republican efforts to draw them into negotiations over Social Security before the GOP presents a comprehensive proposal of its own."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7067242/

It's funny (and sad) that nobody wants to put forth an actual proposal.  Too much "politics" in the politics...  Whoever says anything is going to loose support.  It would be best for the repubs to "just do it" sooner rather than later.  It was them that said something needed to be done right now, and the longer they wait the worse it looks for them.  Besides, the general public won't remember in 3-1/2 years unless they REALLY botch things up.

I never said this but... I'd rather see it government run than farmed out to a corporation somewhere.  I can already see the headlines:
"Fidelity Has Cut 10,000 US Jobs Today by Moving it's Management of the SS IRA to <3rd world country> and Takes Advantage of a Huge Corporate Tax Loop Hole."

[mr.Curmudgeon]

"Treasury Secretary John W. Snow indicated Wednesday that the White House would accept a Social Security overhaul that does not divert the program

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Yep, really leftie.  My sister read their proposals and dropped them a couple of years ago (she's 68, I was born way apart - like 25 years apart). Read the agenda yourself, and if you agree with it, remember that the rest of the mainstream people will not.

That's it??? That's the extent of your argument that the AARP is liberal?? Because I might agree w/ their agenda, and I'm liberal...thusly, they must be liberal? wtf....

I am not aware of the AARP's agenda. So I can't tell you whether or not I agree with it. All I know is that the beasts that funded the Swift Boat Liars, USANext, have now set their sights on the AARP. They have already been forced to withdrawal a horrible ad that depicts the AARP as an anti-troop/anti-american, homosexual organization. As far as I've seen those are unsubstantiated scare tactics that take advantage of "open season" on homosexuals...and they do *NOTHING* to address any problems with social security itself, or it's rumored "crisis!!!!!!!"

To me it appears as if this administration fully supports bullying seniors in order to get their way.

I wish that, if you're going to make a claim you'd try to support it with some sort of facts other than "my sister said." I spend a lot of time researching stuff before I post it here. It may not always be what you want to hear, it may not include the entirety of an issue, but at least I try.

If you are going to support seemingly wild claims about the AARP being a "really leftie" organization, I respectfully ask that you do us all the courtesy and show examples of how that is true. Not hearsay and/or regurgitated talking points from FOX. Obviously I don't think being a "lefty" is bad...it's just being made out to be by RW spin-doctors, but even so, I just can't believe an organization that's comprised of 35 million old-farts is really that cool to begin with.



mrC

[fredster]

I didn't think I had to argue the point, but if you like . Let's define "really leftie"

More taxes - More entitlements - Resistance to any change in current entitlements -
But we digress, Let's keep to topic.

Let's talk about the lefty dis-information from the site - "Social Security is a strong and healthy program - in its current state, it can meet 100% of all promised benefits into the early 2040s and more than 70% after that.  Yet there are organizations out there who would have you believe that Social Security is broke and not worth saving. "

So after 2040, the promised benifits drop to .70 on the dollar.  "Healthy and strong"  - Greenspan said this -
"Greenspan began to answer: "The crisis today is largely because..."

But a congressman interrupted to ask: "You agree with the president it is a crisis, today?"

Greenspan then rephrased his reply.

"The word crisis depends on in what terms. That we have a very serious problem with the existing structure is what I would stipulate. The terms of how you describe it are far less important than defining what it is," he said.
Greenspan began to answer: "The crisis today is largely because..."

But a congressman interrupted to ask: "You agree with the president it is a crisis, today?"

Greenspan then rephrased his reply.

"The word crisis depends on in what terms. That we have a very serious problem with the existing structure is what I would stipulate. The terms of how you describe it are far less important than defining what it is," he said."

So what are we disagreeing about ? That there is even a problem with Social Security?  When the system collapses to paying me 0.70 for every dollar they say they will now, to me that's a problem. 

We are left with a choice, do something or sit back and worry about it in 9 years and again in 37 years. 

I voted for Bush because of this in 2000.  I thought it was an excellent idea then.  I like the "concept" now.  What I don't like is one side saying there is no problem and the other side spitting out political jargon, I don't like it.

I want to see if Bush has a plan and argue on the actual plan. Not on the impression of the concept.

Hey, I'm into doing what it takes.  I like the idea. I don't like the idea that we as a nation can't see this thing comming.  There is more to come too.  If we are ever to get anywhere people in charge, like the President, has to point up the problem and propose a solution.  You have to give the guy credit for starting this discussion.

[DrewKaree]

"Treasury Secretary John W. Snow indicated Wednesday that the White House would accept a Social Security overhaul that does not divert the program

[mr.Curmudgeon]

He's willing to look at whatever solutions are offered.

Riiiiiiight.

[Dartful Dodger]

You look at this as "retreat", instead of PROGRESS for the American people.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

You look at this as "retreat", instead of PROGRESS for the American people.

Wrong, I agree w/ you. Forcing Bush to retreat on such a horrible plan *is* PROGRESS for the American people.

Like Drew says, you

[tommy]

I havent read any of this thread but i say if i dont get my social security when i normally would why am i paying it now   

[DrewKaree]

First:

.....is like what Drew MrC does to most everyone he disagrees with on this forum, he insults them indirectly by making snide comments about their "ignorance" and/or mental inferiority. I do it as well from time to time, although I'd like to think I've matured a bit lately, and as such, have toned it down a little. This behavior doesn't lead to reconciliation, or further understanding, nor does it illicit any desire to see his point of view. For my part, that's why I've tried to be less pointed by working to eliminate ad hominem attacks.

And then:

You guys just don't get it. Bush didn't start off with the idea of compromise. He screamed bloody murder. He tried to raid SS of a third of its funding to set up his private accounts. He claimed there *IS NO* trust fund, he's claimed any number of other falsehoods and made extremely exaggerated claims. You don't get to break into someone's house, try to rape them, then when you can't get it up, expect to be praised when you claim that your perfectly willing to "help them get dressed." It's bull$hit, from a guy that has never been straight with the public on anything. (WMD, Iraq nuclear programs, mission to Mars, cocaine use, marijuana use, getting to the bottom of the treasonous CIA agent outing, against/for 9-11 commission, # of trained Iraqi troops, and on, and on...)

SS needs to be fixed. But it isn't in "CRISIS!!!!"...Bush is pushing so hard for a "plan" he's so reluctant to share, because he knows if we're able to debate it, he'll be sunk. It's a scam. Pure and simple.

This is a retreat, because nobody bought into his bull$hit. He isn't "compromising", that's not what he does. <auto-censored>, this moron is renominating 20 failed judicial nominees back into the confirmation pool, 20 nutballs that have ALREADY been denied because they are frightfully extremist, just so he can pick a fight with the Dems. Nobody is buying his BS lines about SS, so he's had to come out and act like they'll play nice so suckers like yourselves can claim that he's the savior of mankind. All the while he's looking for the best place to stick the knife in the SS program's back.

He's a Snake Oil salesman, and he'll slither around until he finds a way to slip his plan into the mix and get what he wants, not for the greater good of our senior citizens, but for the greater good of corporate America. You have no idea how much money they stand to make from Bush's plan...well, *they* do, and they've got a *lot* of lobbying left in 'em.

So finally, all that's left to say regarding the former:

Riiiiiiight.

[Crazy Cooter]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

Bush Sets Up Social Security 'War Room'
http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid=34&in=US&cat=Social_Security

"(AP) - A new Social Security war room inside the Treasury Department (news - web sites) is pumping out information to sell President Bush's plan, much like any political campaign might do. It's part of a coordinated effort by the Bush administration. The internal, taxpayer-funded campaigning is backed up by television advertisements, grass-roots organizing and lobbying from business and other groups that support the Bush plan."

Shouldn't there be a plan to promote first?  Why is my tax money being wasted like this?

[daywane]

This thread is to long to read the hole thing so I admit up front I have only skimmed over it and if I missed something please show it to me.

I think the whole thing is very simple.
1) when Bill Clinton was in office ( George B and Al Gore

[btoddkelley]

As the resident economics professor here at BYOAC, I felt like I should offer what (hopefully) will be an educated opinion on this difficult topic. The only problem is I do not know where to begin. This thread contains some interesting economic reasoning to say the least!

Todd

[fredster]

Todd,

Please elaborate then. What was "interesting" and what do you think?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

First:

.....is like what Drew MrC does to most everyone he disagrees with on this forum, he insults them indirectly by making snide comments about their "ignorance" and/or mental inferiority.

...

You guys just don't get it.

Drew, You failed to show where I insulted you (or anyone else) personally with name-calling. If insulting BUSH is a personal insult to you, then there is nothing I can help you with there. I'm not going to stop attacking that Chimp-faced, Monkey-man, dip$hit Boy-King. Or, maybe you just consider differing opinions an insult?!

Saying, "You just don't get it" is entirely different than saying, "You stupid fool!! You are just too ignorant to get it." Not by much, but it's still more civil. That's my point. I fully expect us to continue to disagree, most spiritedly, in fact. However, I do imagine that we can refrain from direct personal insults and debased name-calling. You should see the things I delete out before I finally post!! 


EDIT: On review, I see I did call you "suckers"...lol....so I failed. I'll work harder, Drew. Really, I will.


mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Bush Sets Up Social Security 'War Room'
...
Shouldn't there be a plan to promote first?  Why is my tax money being wasted like this?

[fredster]

Great Mr.C.

Very convincing point.  Full of useful information.

Now what is the democratic plan to deal with social security? Nothing or something?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Now what is the democratic plan to deal with social security? Nothing or something?

Oh, trust me, it solves ALL the problems with Social Security. It just hasn't been released yet. Apparently, they don't have to, and you *can't* criticize it either! I like how this works!

All joking aside, you've failed to recognize that the DEMOCRATS aren't the ones claiming Social Security is in crisis and needs to be raided, IMMEDIATELY!!!! Your man is the one claiming that, the burden is ON HIM to prove it. Right now, the majority of Democrats are spending vast amounts of energy fighting the good fight against a blatantly dishonest agenda, an agenda that is just plain bad for all but the top-tier of our citizens, exactly like an opposition party is supposed to.  "It's hard work!", what, with the Rethugs in office, busily trying to raid the trust fund, that supposedly doesn't exist, abolishing the 40-hr work week, killing over-time pay, encouraging the bankruptcy of our troops and those with major health issues, and telling the fourth estate to "shove it!" The Dems pretty much have their work cut out for them.

Just like you, I yearn for the Dems to take Bush to the mat with a viable alternative plan. I'm confident they have one in the works, because Bush's plan is sinking fast, and it's time to throw him an anchor!




mrC

[fredster]

So their postion is "it's all good, nothing to worry about here, move along"

So when the system begins to fade in 2014 and goes down by our retirement age, we do what?

The SS website says it will happen. I wasn't aware that their figures for the last 10 years were "partisan".

So we just wait right?  No problem, no problem at all?

busily trying to raid the trust fund, that supposedly doesn't exist

What about what Allen Greenspan said last week?  He's not qualified to say such things?  Do I fundamentally mis-understand our "pay as you go" system?  Is there some huge untapped savings account I'm not aware of for Social security?

I'm confident they have one in the works, because Bush's plan is sinking fast, and it's time to throw him an anchor!

As far as a Dem plan, My guess (and it's only my guess) it involves tax increases with less benifits.
sorta like "More money for Less coverage". 

[Crazy Cooter]

Is there some huge untapped savings account I'm not aware of for Social security?

Yes.  Social Security has a savings account.  Right now, SS takes in more than it spends.  That money is set aside for later use.  In 2017 (or whatever year), SS will begin to spend more than it takes in.  It will draw from the savings account it has until it goes bankrupt in (arguably) 2050.  That's when the savings account of SS will have a zero balance.

[DrewKaree]

All joking aside, you've failed to recognize that the DEMOCRATS aren't the ones claiming Social Security is in crisis and needs to be raided, IMMEDIATELY!!!!

It's why this fight is so idiotic.  We've got politicians on both sides of the aisle claiming when they're not in charge that something needs to be fixed, and THEY hold the key to fixing it all, and THEY'D fix it, if not for those pesky troublemakers on the other side.

In Clinton's administration he stated the problem, Republicans said the same thing Democrats are saying now.

Now that Bush is stating the problem, Democrats are taking the Republican stance.


The problem has been pointed out by both sides, the problem has been said to not be fixable by both sides "unless we work TOGETHER on fixing it", and the end result is politicians worried more about covering their own asses than in actually looking at the problem, nailing down what the actual numbers are, finding out if there IS a problem (which both sides seem to agree that there is, depending on WHEN you ask them), and doing what they were elected to do:

Work to do what is best for the people they represent!


All these dumbass "studies" and "reports" that tell people one thing or the other, which they don't agree with because it doesn't "help" them in some way, so they commission their own that tells them the exact OPPOSITE!  No wonder our government is so damn bloated. 

Thankfully, all these reports are paid for with our tax money to tell us that the party not in the White House at the moment doesn't want to fix the problem and give credit to the party that IS in the White House at the moment.

Seriously, these are the guys we want fixing the problem, right?

[fredster]

Social Security has a savings account.  Right now, SS takes in more than it spends.

Uh, I don't think so. The "takes in more that it spends" goes to the general funds and we see it at work in other places. 

Show me where the savings account is and how much is in it.

The concept of "Pay as you Go" means we are paying out, it's not being saved.  That's the whole point of this thread.

There is no savings account Cooter. Where is it?  It just means that there are more people paying in now than get the money, so it's easy to budget for it. 

Where is our economist? 

[DrewKaree]

This is a simple do-the-math investigation

Go to www.ssa.gov and find Social Security's calculators.

Enter in your figures as if you were earning $15,000 a year.  Pretty low standard, wouldn't you say?

What's your monthly benefit?

Now, for ease of math's sake, let's say the rate you pay is 10%, and the cap on payments INTO the system is at $90,000.  That means if you make a million dollars, you are only paying into S.S. at that rate.  That means the MOST someone pays into S.S. (assuming our simplified percentage) is $9,000.

Let's go back to our calculation of the dude earning 15k a year.  Do the math and figure out his yearly amount paid from S.S.  See a problem there?

If you DON'T see a problem there, or at the very least, one that WILL be developing when Baby Boomers start to retire in those vast numbers they say are out there, then let me help you a bit further.

Go back to the calculator.  Let's use the dude who gets 90k.  Figure out his monthly amount from S.S. since HE TOO, is going to be getting S.S.

NOW do you see where S.S. will be shortly headed down a road that needs to be fixed?

Using S.S. and the figures they give, the picture the "there is no crisis" crowd paints can be seen by anyone with a fifth-grade education to be ignorant of the facts easily obtained from the Social Security Administration.

SOMETHING will have to be done, and soon.  Some avenues to fix it are:

• Reduce benefits - imagine the stink THAT will cause!
• Raise the "you have to pay in" cap - why it's where it's at even I'm mystified
  
• Raise the amount collected - imagine the stink THAT will cause!
• Offer the ability to invest a portion of your money where you want.

The raising of (or altogether removing) the cap is nothing more than a band-aid solution.  The size of the band-aid is dependent on how far up the ladder you want to go, and does nothing to address the fact you learned with the simple calculators that Social Security Insurance is currently being looked at as a retirement plan, and that it's so far removed from its initial purpose simply for political purposes - by BOTH sides.

Look at S.S.'s FAQ's.  Still today they state that S.S. "is only one of three legs that should be utilized as a whole to plan for your retirement", ignoring the fact that politicians will use them as a carrot when seeking power for themselves.

[daywane]

Is there some huge untapped savings account I'm not aware of for Social security?

Yes.

[fredster]

Yep, the savings account is a "lock box" full of US treasury bonds.

You know, government "IOU's" That's our big savings account. IOU's.

I got all kinda warm fuzzies over that. Cause if we cash them in, the goverment takes money out of the general fund and pays them.  You know, they don't go to the bank, they dig it out of their taxes for that month or day.

[daywane]

I have heard this all my life. I do not say it is true. just i have heard it from relatives that in WW2 the government sold war bonds to SS and SS still has them . If SS would turn them in it would bankrupt the US?

[DrewKaree]

So I had to get a replacement Social Security card the other day and....

[daywane]

I like that. I just might print that and send it to my congress man.

[daywane]

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU ARE REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT!
KEEP IT GOING!!!!

2008 Election Issue!!

GET A BILL STARTED TO PLACE ALL POLITICIANS ON SOC. SEC.
This must be an issue in "2008 ". Please! Keep it going.

----------------------------------
SOCIAL SECURITY:
(This is worth reading. It is short and to the point.)

Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years.
Our Senators and Congresswomen do not pay into Social Security and, of course, they do not collect from it.
You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of their rare elevation in society.  They felt they should have a special plan for themselves. So, many years ago they voted in their own benefit plan.
In more recent years, no congress person has felt the need to change it. After all, it is a great plan.
For all practical purposes their plan works like this:
When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die.
Except it may increase from time to time for cost of living adjustments..
This is calculated on an average life span for each of those two Dignitaries. For example, Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may expect to draw $7,800,000.00 (that's Seven Million, Eight-Hundred Thousand Dollars), with their wives drawing $275,000.00 during the last years of their lives.
Younger Dignitaries who retire at an early age, will receive much more during the rest of their lives.
Their cost for this excellent plan is $0.00. NADA....ZILCH....
This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them. You and I pick up the tab for this plan. The funds for this fine retirement plan come directly from the General Funds;
"OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK"!
From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have paid) into,-every payday until we retire (which amount is matched by our employer)-we can expect to get an average of $1,000 per month after retirement.
Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of $1,000 monthly benefits for 68 years and one (1) month to equal Senator! Bill Bradley's benefits!
Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made.

That change would be to:
Jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and Congressmen. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us.
then sit back.....
and watch how fast they would fix it.
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe good changes will evolve.
How many people can YOU send this to? Better yet.....
How many people WILL you send this to??
Keep this going clear up thru the 2008 election!! We need to be heard

[mr.Curmudgeon]

GET A BILL STARTED TO PLACE ALL POLITICIANS ON SOC. SEC.

Now, this is something I think we can *all* agree on!

Now that Bush is stating the problem, Democrats are taking the Republican stance.

At issue, with me, is Bush "overstating" the problem. I already don't trust him on any level. Not because he's a Republican, but because his actions over the past several years have shown to me that he says one thing, does another, and lies about it six ways to Sunday.

I'm glad he's being fought hard on this issue. I don't think his position on SS is tenable. Hell, even the GOA (Government Accountability Office) doesn't agree with (W)MD's fearmongering about the "CRISIS!!!!!!"

Social Security "does not face an immediate crisis," the head of the Government Accountability Office said Wednesday, but it does face a long-term financing problem "and it would be prudent to address it sooner rather than later." [Link]

Seriously, these are the guys we want fixing the problem, right?

Well, if you and I could vote on the floor of the House and Senate, there wouldn't be a problem now would there. But we can't. So the best we can do, as I've suggested before, and as you seem to be suggesting now, is to demand our "ELECTED" leaders vote our wishes, and hold them responsible when they do *not*.

The best thing born out of Bush's "screamin' Mimi" approach, is that the Dems have woken up and will now hopefully listen to their constituents, forming a more solvent plan. Social Security is fixable, and it's NOT in crisis. Bush doesn't want debate on this issue, because he knows he's wrong.

Believe me, we on the left have NO PROBLEM pushing out those who hurt our cause. Lieberman (D-CT) is going to get it for dancing with the Devil on the SS issue, and Joe Biden (D-MBNA) just kissed his '08 presidential bid bye-bye when he voted for cloture on the "Bankrupt Bill."

My hope is the the fight over SS will allow us to continue "cleaning house" on this side of the aisle and help finish the backbone grafting surgery the HoDean started, as well as put the thumbscrews to the Republicans in '06.


mrC

[fredster]

Right, we aren't dead yet.  Bush said that too.

SS doesn't start to decline until 2014.  But as long as it takes the government to do something, 9 years isn't a long time.   That quote was right on, because that's all that has been said so far.

What I like is now that you are admitting there may be a problem now we can solve before it gets too big.  That's an advance. 

I like the idea of personal accounts, but as I mentioned before, there's a lot of open issues.

I also like the idea of paying no taxes at all ever again, but there are issues there too.

Just because Bush put it out there doesn't mean it's a bad idea.  Bush is just following through like he always does. You know, he does what he says he will.  He doesn't make empty threats or promises.  I'm sure as a democrat, that's upsetting to have a politician follow through on his word.  You aren't used to that from your candidates and it's unsettling for you.

And oh, Please make sure that Biden doesn't go anywhere. I like that Idea too.  Very good idea. 

Joe, I don't care what you do with Joe.  Whatever you guys want.

[DrewKaree]

I also like the idea of paying no taxes at all ever again, but there are issues there too.

From the Steve Martin School of Accounting:

How to be a millionaire, and NEVER pay taxes

First, get a million bucks.....

Then, don't pay taxes.  If the IRS comes around and asks you why you haven't been paying your taxes, tell them two simple words from the English language.

I

Forgot!

[DrewKaree]

This just in:

March 20, 2005
BUSH OFFERS RETIREES OPTION OF SERVING IN IRAQ

Social Security Participants Given Wide Choice of Iraqi Cities to Patrol

After receiving only muted support for his sweeping proposals to overhaul Social Security, President George W. Bush attempted to sweeten the pot today, offering all retirees the opportunity to serve in Iraq.

With most insiders calling the president's proposal for individual investment accounts dead on arrival in Congress, the White House hopes that Mr. Bush's offer of guaranteed military service to all retired Americans will find more favor.

Speaking at a rally in Detroit today, the president told his audience, "In the year 2054, the Social Security trust fund will be bankrupt, but the war in Iraq will be alive and well."

Under his new plan, the president said, upon reaching the age of 59 every participant in the Social Security program would be offered the opportunity to begin basic training for what Mr. Bush called "the adventure of their lives."

According to the president, retirees would be "totally free to choose" which Iraqi city they would like to patrol from a list of twenty cities including Baghdad, Tikrit, Fallujah, and oil-rich Kirkuk.

Mr. Bush added that the average retiree serving in Iraq would earn approximately $1500 a month, which would be boosted to $1800 if the retiree should somehow stumble across weapons of mass destruction.

In Washington, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said he was "intrigued" by the notion of spending his retirement years in Iraq but that he had decided to run the World Bank instead.

Elsewhere, antiwar protesters across Europe marked the second anniversary of President Bush ignoring antiwar protesters across Europe.

www.borowitzreport.com
(taking this report seriously could require a funny-bone transplant)

[daywane]

I repeat from a post I made before.
when Clinton was in charge and Bush and Al gore were fighting it out
Al gore scream all about SS
republicans screamed fear mongering
nor Republicans cry OHHH my god SS is going to die
Democrats cry fear mongering
 I give up
lets elect factory workers, truck drivers, waitresses.
working class. not some spoon feed $$$$ bags who has not a clue.

[Dartful Dodger]

when Clinton was in charge and Bush and Al gore were fighting it out
Al gore scream all about SS

Dude STOP!

Didn't you get the memo? 

Don't complain about Bush and Gore.  The Dems don't want to remind people the only reason they hate Bush is because he beat Gore.

[Crazy Cooter]

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/wm31_democrats/062905_house_republicans_abandon_principle_in_attempt_to_scam_the_american_people.html

"Washington, D.C. - Rep. Charles B. Rangel, pointed out today how the Ways and Means Republicans have unceremoniously removed one of the principles behind their so-called

[DrewKaree]

"Washington, D.C. - Rep. Charles B. Rangel, pointed out today how the Ways and Means Republicans have unceremoniously removed one of the principles behind their so-called

[geomartin]

I'm not too worried about my Social Security benefits.  The Social Security Administration will simply keep raising the retirement age until a sufficient number of my generation have deceased and that the lucky few will get their two or three years of Social Security benefits, after paying in for the 50, 60, or 70 some odd years that the Social Security Administration deems adequate to cover my generations costs.

[hanelyp]

Social security is a Ponze Scheme, wealth transfer, boondoggle, doomed from the start to collapse.  It's kept going this long only because the government has compelled 'investors' in the program.  It was origionally designed as a safety net, but as with many govenrment programs, it has expanded in scope.

As for the shifting stances of the parties, I believe the democrats were proposing a different 'solution' to the problem, and it was the proposed change the Republicans objected to, not the overall idea of fixing the system.

Not planning to rely on social security for retirement is a good idea.  Private investments will give you a better rate of return anyway.

[Crazy Cooter]

It's awful hard for me to care about anything Rangel points out when he shares responsibility with those he's whining about.

I don't care for the guy wither, but it does concern me that what *should* be the most important line has been taken out.  Without it, all this is going to do is "reset" the whole problem.  Doesn't matter if its the fault of the republicans, democrats, or any of the other... oh wait...

[DrewKaree]

It's awful hard for me to care about anything Rangel points out when he shares responsibility with those he's whining about.

I don't care for the guy wither, but it does concern me that what *should* be the most important line has been taken out.  Without it, all this is going to do is "reset" the whole problem.  Doesn't matter if its the fault of the republicans, democrats, or any of the other... oh wait...

My concern is whether this was sent up without being read or not, and who actually did the transcription.  It seems EXTREMELY odd that Rangel got the jump on everyone to be the first to wail about this. 

Until he tells us about the process HE was involved with that resulted in this "disappearing principle", I have no reason to believe the accuracy and truth of this story.  Right now, it's a claim by a man who should be intimately involved in the process, which should also mean he KNOWS why the line was removed, or he's using an error for political bickering.

I'll start to worry about this after I hear Mr Rangel's explanation.  Clearly since he's one of the head guys, he'll be able to tell us how this all came about and why his "stamp of approval" ran out of ink before this went to press.

[Crazy Cooter]

I'm not so sure he's smart enough.

But it *apparently* is removed... is there any way to view it ourselves?

I'm disappointed at how much we as the public are kept in the dark about this kind of stuff.  50,000 ways to find out who's sleeping with who in Hollywood, but nobody wants to talk about our Social Security changes until it's too late.  I think I need to run for office (and win) just so I can keep informed myself.

[DrewKaree]

You'll get voted out soon enough after they catch on, PLUS the amount of reading you'll be deluged with will be the reason why you have staffers (here son, read this for me and prepare a brief with the bullet points so I can get up to speed on this).

You could try speed-reading or memory programs, if the Scientology expert hasn't gotten to you already

[Crazy Cooter]

No problem, I grew up in the "true" arcade era:

Who can do a headstand and read eveything on the newsstand...

LOL.