Social Security reform

[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.