On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 09:08:53 -0500, 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

Yea, if you buy into the scare propaganda that the DNC spews.


, so first you spin out a lot of misconceptions
about Social Security, then you lie, then you say "details haven't been
finalized."

Which details have been finalized then? Prove me wrong.

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

No details have been finalized. We're still in the exploratory stage
in SS relief. There is only a preliminary model for what Bush's
proposal entails. The fine details will not be worked out unless there
is enough support to make it a viable solution.


.... 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?

In 25 years, *I* will be collecting from it. Call me selfish if you
will, but the probability that after putting in to this mandated ponzi
scheme for the last 45+ years, that I might not see "my share" when
the time comes has me concerned. A private account that cannot be
touched by the government, is much more secure to me, and I'd much
prefer it.


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.

Which has nothing to do with Bush's private account proposal. Try
again.


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.

Yes, you have to explain it, because you have no idea about what you
are talking about. You are trying to validate a paranoid conjecture.

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

Funny, I was about to ask you the same thing.


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.

Another rob Peter to pay Paul scenario eh? No wonder I don't like it.

But you (once again) are wrong. When SS was enacted in 1935, it was to
provide a $200 a month benefit to retired people. The dependant and
death provision was not added into 1939. Disability was not added
until the 50's, and it was not until the 60's that the minimum
disability age (50) was removed.

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.

Who are you to say that? Everyone who puts into SS is entitled to take
out when they retire. Not just the poor. And BTW, when someone
retires, they are no longer employed. For all intents and purposes,
they become "poor", except for assets and investments.

Our culture has changed with regard to personal responsibility,
for the worse.

I agree, which is why SS should be eliminated and the proceeds
invested in interest bearing accounts which would provide a better
retirement payout for those responsible enough to invest wisely.

... 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.

With the money stolen from me for a ponzi SS scheme added in, my 401K
would amount to more, and I could retire earlier.


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

You should shop around before making statements like that.

Been there done that. Not a problem.

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


And that's precisely what President Bush's plan gives you... more gov't
intrusion & control...

How? The current SS program is completely at the whim of government.
At least a private account would not be subject to the government's
control. The account would be YOURS, not a big pool of money that
everyone taps.

as well as spitting out your tax money into the
pockets of Wall St...

"Wall Street" is providing a service. The are entitled to be
compensated for it. It's a small price to pay for the privilege of
realizing a much larger return on investment. You still earn more
money that what SS would give you.



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.

Which hurts people who need it when they retire. Bad move.


2- increase the cap on SS taxes

I'd prefer that to an overall, increase in the tax rate, for a fund
that looks increasingly like I won't see my fair share of.

3- decrease the actual percentages of SS tax

I like that.


4- increase the allowed IRA deduction

I'd rather take a percentage of money earmarked for SS and put that
into the IRA/401K.


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.

Yea, but reducing payments will negate its purpose.


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

Any time you even think about cutting benefits, the AARP and other
like minded groups will see to it that you're voted out of office.

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.

You want basic facts? I'll give them to you.

Fact #1. SS is a ponzi scheme which is heading for insolvency, at a
time when most of us will need it most.

Fact #2. A private account is more secure than a government supervised
"money pool".

Fact #3. People generally don't like paying taxes for something that
they receive no benefit from.

Fact #4 Galveston Texas opted out of SS on a loophole over 20 years
ago, and set up a private account system which yielded a much better
return for those who selected it. The private account model is already
there and it worked.

I can go on if you want.

Dave