On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 13:56:45 -0500, DSK wrote:

Bush's private account proposal is nothing less than a very cynical
attempt to manipulate the system and steer large amounts of wealth into
the pockets of his supporters.


Dave Hall wrote:
Please explain how this happens?


It's very very simple, Dave. How do you think they choose which Wall St
firms get to handle the new accounts?

I don't know. Maybe long term performance? Longevity? Stability?

Does it really matter as long as the return on investment for the
citizen is improved?


Regarding the comparison of Bush's SS proposal to the 401K plans.... if
the goal was to increase people's ownership of their retirement (as is
claimed) then the same thing could be accomplished by increasing the
allowed 401K deduction and lowering SS taxes. Very simple, but it
doesn't steer that money into the "right" pockets.


Dave Hall wrote:
That's pretty much the plan.

No it isn't. Not even close!

How is it different from a typical IRA or 401K?


... Where do you get the notion that some
mythical phantom people will be skimming the personal accounts of the
holders?

Please quote where I said any such thing.

You made the statement along the lines of : "Bush's private account
proposal is nothing less than a very cynical attempt to manipulate the
system and steer large amounts of wealth into the pockets of his
supporters".

I assume you can tell me how he plans to "steer large amounts of
wealth into the pockets of his supporters"? Where is that "wealth"
coming from, if not from the investors?


Dave Hall wrote:
Liberals have to demonize this plan to put people in charge of their
own retirement planning by spinning it as a windfall for
wall-streeters, simply because investment firms usually manage such
plans. The fee for managing a 401K is usually much less than interest
earned, so you're still ahead of the game.


Does that change the *fact* that the Wall St'rs involved are now getting
a gov't mandated profit from Social Security dollars, which will have to
be replaced by further gov't spending?


Post your "facts".

It's very simple, Dave (see above).

Do any SS taxes currently go into Wall St accounts? No (shake your head
side to side)

Will they if Bush's proposal is passed? Yes (nod your head up & down)

Do Wall St firms profit from accounts they handle? Yes (nod your head up
& down)

QED The chosen Wall St firms will take a profit out of SS taxes under
Bushes plan.

But how is a reasonable administration fee interpreted as something
sinister and underhanded?


... Is a
reasonable plan administration fee not appropriate in a managed equity
private account? Would not that fee be deducted from earned interest
resulting in no additional outlay from the government?

That's the way my 401K works.


Then why not put more money into your 401K and devote some time & effort
into actually *fixing* Social Security?

I want to put *ALL* of my SS money into my 401K and eliminate SS
entirely. If everyone has a 401K, why the need for SS at all? The
people stand to expect a better long term benefit, there is no chance
that the government can "raid" the fund for pork projects.


Does "liberal demonization" of Bush's SS proposal change the *fact* that
the Bush-Cheney team have lied about his plan and it's impact?


Who said they lied? In what way?


They (and you) lie about almost every single aspect of it.

Where's the proof?


The most obvious example I can present is Bush's own statements:
1- it will somehow "fix" Social Security

It can. Why do you assume that this is a "lie"?


2- it will not increase deficits (and he compounded this lie by stating
that Alan Greenspan said it would not increase the deficit, which is the
exact opposite of what Greenspan actually said)

If the money brought into SS is diverted into private accounts, how
does that increase the deficit? Remember that the SS payout will
decrease to those who opt out in favor of the private account.


3- that "all options are on the table" when they reject other proposals
more directly aimed at stabilizing SS in the long run

He said that "all options are on the table". That does not mean that
every one will be enacted. So tell me again how that's a lie?


4- that this plan should "stand on it's own" when there are
behind-the-scenes pro-Bush/Cheney publicity campaigns spending tens of
millions of dollars promoting this plan

Because the minions of the DNC like "moveon.org" are spending equal
amounts of money spreading scare propaganda (Which you have apparently
bought into hook line and sinker) to trash the idea, to scare
seniors, who aren't even affected by the plan.


5- Democrat opposition is based on the supposition that Dems want to
"spend" that money (as opposed to what... the wise & conservative fiscal
management of the Bush Administration so far? And the fact that Congress
can't spend SS, and never could?)

You are claiming that the SS fund has never been "raided" or otherwise
"appropriated" for projects not directly relating to SS? There are
many who would vehemently disagree with you, including certain
democrats who accuse republicans of that very deed.


If it's so great, why can't they tell the truth?


That you think that they are not being truthful is an example of the
liberal demonization at work.

No, the thing that makes me think they are lying is that their
statements don't match up with facts in the real world.

Considering your loose definition of what constitutes a "fact", I'm
not surprised.

Dave