DSK wrote:
Specific details have not been finalized yet.


Is President Bush going to backpedal as hard as you are?



Dave Hall wrote:

Who's backpededalling? I'm stating a fact.


Uh huh. What details have been announced turn out to have powerful
negative implications, so first you spin out a lot of misconceptions
about Social Security, then you lie, then you say "details haven't been
finalized."

Which is true. It's also a huge backpedal.


.... Your "common sense" is based mostly on speculation and
conjecture.


And the facts of what Social Security *is* and what the SS trust Fund
*is*.



A ponzi scheme that's heading for financial insolvency?


In about 25 years. And it's *always* been a pyramid scheme, was designed
so from the start, so why all of a sudden is that just so completely
terrible that it can't possibly be tolerated?



One of the most definite facts about Bush's plan is that his
supporters are trying to sell it by lying about Social Security...
and you claim that telling the truth about SS is "scare tactics."



How does the proliferation of the ideas such as "Seniors will have
their benefits cut", and "Bush's plan will put money in the pockets of
Wall streeters", relate to telling the "truth" about SS?


1- Benefits have already been cut, and are already scheduled to be cut
more in the future.
2- Do I have to explain where the profit comes in again? This would make
the fourth or fifth time, and it's really very simple.

Is reality so terrible that you just *can't* face it, Dave?

You are confused. Social Security is not an investment program.



That much is obvious, as there is no compounding of interest on the
return. It's more like an insurance policy. But it is supposed to
provide for people when they retire.


No, it is supposed to be security when poor people retire, or when
working class families have some type of disaster. It's not supposed to
prop up the middle class credit card life style, which would have been
considered the height of idiotic folly back when Social Security was
enacted. Our culture has changed with regard to personal responsibility,
for the worse.



... A private 401K-type of account
would be a better alternative to a retirement income.


Well, you can have all the 401K you want. Nobody is stopping you.

... And I'd rather
provide my own insurance.


You should shop around before making statements like that.

... I don't want/need the government.


And that's precisely what President Bush's plan gives you... more gov't
intrusion & control... as well as spitting out your tax money into the
pockets of Wall St...


heh heh heh maybe if they change 100% of Bush's plan it will become
actually conservative in nature, and might even do something to help
Social Security.



What part would you change?


Other than all of it?

What makes sense would be to

1- scale down Social Security benefits over time. It could be done very
gradually.

2- increase the cap on SS taxes

3- decrease the actual percentages of SS tax

4- increase the allowed IRA deduction

Note that this does not create any new gov't agency, nor hand over
anybody's tax money to private corporations, nor make any radical
changes (ie it's conservative in nature), and encourages people to save
& invest more, and makes Social Security solvent for the long term.

Also note that so far, all these have been either proposed or partially
enacted, some by Democrats even.



Of course you support Bush & Cheney blindly no matter what they do.



I support those programs and policies which make the most sense.
There is nothing "blind" about it.


Sure, what "makes the most sense" to you is to heavily deny basic facts.

Like for example, no WMDs, no capture of Osama Bin Laden, a bizarre plan
to "save" Social Security which really doesn't, an economy that lags in
the dumper for 4 years, a gov't which releases it's own fake news
because real news is too unfavorable (sort of like Pravda, nyet?),
repeal of environmental laws, etc etc. All fact.

DSK


One more thing to consider. SS relies on Government bonds for
additional income. At present, recently purchased bonds pay about 3%.
They have some on file that pay much higher.

Rates are rising, so newer bonds will pay a little more. The rising
rates will help balance things (note i didn't say cure, but help).

Since we have 30-50 years before facing a "crisis" it should require
only minimal changes to fix things. This was done in the 80s and nobody
bitched too much, and again in the 90s when SS for those with income
over some number was taxed. IT *CAN* be done again