On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 18:19:52 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

John H wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 17:42:46 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


John H wrote:


On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:58:09 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



Social Security reform chatter is everywhere, and it's likely that at
some point, you're going to be cornered by the water cooler or in the
cafeteria and asked what you think. Your conversation partner may even
be (gasp) a conservative. So be ready. This guide from Think Progress (a
project of the American Progress Action Fund) includes point-by-point
claims in the Bush administration's words, coupled with the real facts
about Social Security. Make sure you're able to explain to a
conservative why that "personal" account won't really be yours to
control, or why passing on account money to your grandchildren won't be
possible. SEE THE GUIDE

http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=206



Here's some good thinking:

FACT: Analysis of the plan so far does not prove the [personal] accounts would
be a better deal for anyone not working on Wall Street. Workers who opt for the
private accounts would recover forfeited benefits through their accounts only
“if their investments realized a return equal to or greater than the 3 percent
earned by Treasury bonds currently held by the Social Security system.”

Of course, analysis doesn't prove it would be a worse deal either. History shows
it would likely be a better deal than the 3% earned by bonds. Is there risk?
Sure.

Except the blended return of bonds held by the SS administration is
closer to 5%. The 3% figure is only for the most recent bonds, and
rates are rising again.

Here are todays numbers note the 30 year return is 5.375%
From http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates/
(note that unlike you *I* always try to give a source for my data, so
people can check what i say)
U.S. TREASURIES
Bills
COUPON MATURITY
DATE CURRENT
PRICE/YIELD PRICE/YIELD
CHANGE TIME
3-Month N.A. 05/26/2005 2.69/2.74 0.00/.015 11:14
6-Month N.A. 08/25/2005 2.89/2.97 -0.01/.031 10:54
Notes/Bonds
COUPON MATURITY
DATE CURRENT
PRICE/YIELD PRICE/YIELD
CHANGE TIME
2-Year 3.375 02/28/2007 99-19/3.58 -0-03/.053 12:22
3-Year 3.375 02/15/2008 98-31/3.74 -0-06/.068 12:23
5-Year 3.500 02/15/2010 97-27/3.98 -0-12/.085 12:24
10-Year 4.000 02/15/2015 97-06/4.35 -0-21/.084 12:24
30-Year 5.375 02/15/2031 109-29/4.71 -1-06/.074 12:23




But, people can always stop putting their money into risky accounts. In fact,
they can stop participation at any time.

I still can't understand how a bunch of 'pro-choice' folks can be so
'anti-choice'!

Do we assume people have the responsibility to make baby-killing decisions but
not monthly investment decisions?



The 3% figure came from *your* reference, which apparently I read but you
didn't.

The 3% figure was in the article because that's the number the
administration is tossing around to push their plan. The number is
BOGUS -- see the rate of return on bonds (and remember this is a low point)

Now go back and check the stock market figures for the last 40 years.

Snipped.

Yes, Jimcomma, you can find examples of people who lost money in the stock
market. You did good.

I don't care where the 3% figure came from other than that it came from *your*
friggin source, and then you put *me* down for using it.

Go play with yourself. You're getting tiresome.



John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

John H wrote:
You have a reference for this, right? The TSP has been used repeatedly as an
example of the type of account the personal account would be.


Yep... "an example" not the exact same plan.

You think that Congress i going to let the average citizen join in their
investment plan? That has about as much odds as them letting citizens
join in their health care plan.


You're reiterating the distortions and outright lies of the Bush-Cheney
spin machine.


Show me a lie with respect to the personal savings account.


That it's a "choice."

That people opposed to Bush's plan are somehow against individuals
saving & investing their own money.

That the gov't isn't taking your money in the first place.

That Social Security is in serious financial trouble

That "private investment" is somehow going to help cover the potential
Social Security shortfall in 30+ years



The taking and putting into a personal savings account is voluntary. The other
option isn't.


And where does the SS payout come from, that these "voluntary personal
savings accounts" would normally have gone to cover? Bigger gov't
deficit spending, maybe?



... Again, do we assume people have the
responsibility to make baby-killing decisions but not monthly investment
decisions?


This seems to be a buzz-phrase for you. Where does this come from? Are
people not able to make savings & investment decisions now? Preventing
the diversion of Social Security taxes into "private investment
accounts" in no way diminishes people's ability to invest their money as
they choose.


Sure it does. If I had the choice, I'd rather see half my Social Security
withdrawals going into an investment over which I had some control.

So why aren't you saving & investing an equal amount of money already?

... By denying
me that opportunity, you are, in fact, diminishing my ability to invest my money
as I choose.

Nope. You've got exactly the same opportunity you always had... the
difference is that the money the gov't takes away from you is going to
cover Social Security obligations (or buy Treasuries, thus helping
underwrite the U.S. national debt) instead of being handed to Wall St
and then kicked back to certain favored political campaign funds.



The 'buzz-phrase' is applicable. You pro-choice folks are anti-choice here


Nope. Distortion and fantasy on your part, to cover up your own lack of
initiative & fiscal responsibility. WTF is "conservative" about that?

DSK

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:13:03 -0500, DSK wrote:

John H wrote:
You have a reference for this, right? The TSP has been used repeatedly as an
example of the type of account the personal account would be.


Yep... "an example" not the exact same plan.

You think that Congress i going to let the average citizen join in their
investment plan? That has about as much odds as them letting citizens
join in their health care plan.


You're reiterating the distortions and outright lies of the Bush-Cheney
spin machine.


Show me a lie with respect to the personal savings account.


That it's a "choice."

The word 'voluntary' doesn't indicate choice?

That people opposed to Bush's plan are somehow against individuals
saving & investing their own money.

That the gov't isn't taking your money in the first place.

That Social Security is in serious financial trouble

An airplane with landing gear that won't deploy isn't in trouble either, until
it has to land.

That "private investment" is somehow going to help cover the potential
Social Security shortfall in 30+ years

The personalization is not touted as a cure. It is touted as a way to give
people more control over their money.

The taking and putting into a personal savings account is voluntary. The other
option isn't.


And where does the SS payout come from, that these "voluntary personal
savings accounts" would normally have gone to cover? Bigger gov't
deficit spending, maybe?

Yup. It looks like it will take some up front money. But, so what? You folks
admit to using funds from elsewhere to pay for the program anyway.

... Again, do we assume people have the
responsibility to make baby-killing decisions but not monthly investment
decisions?


This seems to be a buzz-phrase for you. Where does this come from? Are
people not able to make savings & investment decisions now? Preventing
the diversion of Social Security taxes into "private investment
accounts" in no way diminishes people's ability to invest their money as
they choose.


Sure it does. If I had the choice, I'd rather see half my Social Security
withdrawals going into an investment over which I had some control.

So why aren't you saving & investing an equal amount of money already?

Did someone say I wasn't? Does that have some bearing on the issue, or are you
just trying to be negative?


... By denying
me that opportunity, you are, in fact, diminishing my ability to invest my money
as I choose.

No. I have no control over the money taken from my checks to cover Social
Security. I cannot invest it, nor can I bequeath it. When I die, it's gone.

Nope. You've got exactly the same opportunity you always had... the
difference is that the money the gov't takes away from you is going to
cover Social Security obligations (or buy Treasuries, thus helping
underwrite the U.S. national debt) instead of being handed to Wall St
and then kicked back to certain favored political campaign funds.

You, as you well know, are wrong. But I can see that you don't want to show it.

The 'buzz-phrase' is applicable. You pro-choice folks are anti-choice here


Nope. Distortion and fantasy on your part, to cover up your own lack of
initiative & fiscal responsibility. WTF is "conservative" about that?

My lack of fiscal responsibility? We aren't talking about me. I won't have any
options. My daughters would. That would be nice. Are you trying to imply you
*aren't* anti-choice?

DSK

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

John H wrote:
An airplane with landing gear that won't deploy isn't in trouble either, until
it has to land.


And this is relevant to... what, exactly?


That "private investment" is somehow going to help cover the potential
Social Security shortfall in 30+ years


The personalization is not touted as a cure. It is touted as a way to give
people more control over their money.


Why not simply decrease SS taxes then? That would be much simpler, it
would give people more of their own money back, which they would then
"control" even more than with Bush's SS plan.

Why not?

Answer- because it would not serve Bush & Cheney's real purpose near as
well: to loot the SS trust Fund and ensure yet another fountain of
reliable campaign donations... using taxpayers money! It's beautiful!


The taking and putting into a personal savings account is voluntary. The other
option isn't.


And where does the SS payout come from, that these "voluntary personal
savings accounts" would normally have gone to cover? Bigger gov't
deficit spending, maybe?


Yup. It looks like it will take some up front money. But, so what?


Yeah.

Bush Leadership in action... "Sure it costs money, it's based on a lie,
and it won't fix the problem... SO WHAT?"


Sure it does. If I had the choice, I'd rather see half my Social Security
withdrawals going into an investment over which I had some control.

So why aren't you saving & investing an equal amount of money already?


Did someone say I wasn't?

Apparently you aren't, or else you would not be clinging to the illusion
that Bush's plan somehow gives you "control."


... I have no control over the money taken from my checks to cover Social
Security. I cannot invest it, nor can I bequeath it. When I die, it's gone.

Yep... gone to pay the SS income of those who already paid into the
system before you.


You, as you well know, are wrong. But I can see that you don't want to show it.


How do you "know" I'm wrong? So far you haven't poasted anything that in
any way disproved my statements... I guess if you just keep saying over
and over "you're wrong" maybe you can believe it.



... WTF is "conservative" about that?


My lack of fiscal responsibility? We aren't talking about me.

Yes we were.

Your lack of fiscal responsibility and your equally irresponsible
bally-hooing of this silly scheme to drum up pro-Bush campaign
contributions from Wall St.

... I won't have any
options.

Correct.

... My daughters would.

Not really

... Are you trying to imply you
*aren't* anti-choice?


I am definitely not anti-choice. That's just another of your distortions
and silly non-factual statements.

Are you claiming that you are now pro-choice?

DSK

"Jim," wrote in message
...
Social Security reform chatter is everywhere, and it's likely that at
some point, you're going to be cornered by the water cooler or in the
cafeteria and asked what you think. Your conversation partner may even
be (gasp) a conservative. So be ready. This guide from Think Progress (a
project of the American Progress Action Fund) includes point-by-point
claims in the Bush administration's words, coupled with the real facts
about Social Security. Make sure you're able to explain to a
conservative why that "personal" account won't really be yours to
control, or why passing on account money to your grandchildren won't be
possible. SEE THE GUIDE

http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=206

I thought the plan(s) being discussed were similar to the one offered to
government workers. The plan Government workers have is much superior to
SS.

On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 05:28:06 -0500, "Jeff Rigby" wrote:


"Jim," wrote in message
...
Social Security reform chatter is everywhere, and it's likely that at
some point, you're going to be cornered by the water cooler or in the
cafeteria and asked what you think. Your conversation partner may even
be (gasp) a conservative. So be ready. This guide from Think Progress (a
project of the American Progress Action Fund) includes point-by-point
claims in the Bush administration's words, coupled with the real facts
about Social Security. Make sure you're able to explain to a
conservative why that "personal" account won't really be yours to
control, or why passing on account money to your grandchildren won't be
possible. SEE THE GUIDE

http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=206

I thought the plan(s) being discussed were similar to the one offered to
government workers. The plan Government workers have is much superior to
SS.


The Thrift Savings Plan, which federal workers can use, has been used as a
'model' for the types of investments which could be made with the personal part
of the social security withdrawal.

Jimcomma has found a site which touts bull****. That, in Jimcomma's eyes, makes
it worth repeating.

John H wrote:

On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 05:28:06 -0500, "Jeff Rigby" wrote:


"Jim," wrote in message
...

Social Security reform chatter is everywhere, and it's likely that at
some point, you're going to be cornered by the water cooler or in the
cafeteria and asked what you think. Your conversation partner may even
be (gasp) a conservative. So be ready. This guide from Think Progress (a
project of the American Progress Action Fund) includes point-by-point
claims in the Bush administration's words, coupled with the real facts
about Social Security. Make sure you're able to explain to a
conservative why that "personal" account won't really be yours to
control, or why passing on account money to your grandchildren won't be
possible. SEE THE GUIDE

http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=206

I thought the plan(s) being discussed were similar to the one offered to
government workers. The plan Government workers have is much superior to
SS.



The Thrift Savings Plan, which federal workers can use, has been used as a
'model' for the types of investments which could be made with the personal part
of the social security withdrawal.

Jimcomma has found a site which touts bull****. That, in Jimcomma's eyes, makes
it worth repeating.


And the shoot from the hip Bull**** espoused here should be taken as Gospel?

This may be news to you, but Bush wants to reinvent the wheel and take
credit for anything that rolls.

Flash: We *already have* a number of federally recognized retirement
schemes, (IRA's, 401K, etc) doing what Bush is propsing to do with
social security.
People should save for their own retirement and assemble some wealth
beyond social security.

Difference is that the current programs do not withdraw money from a
social security system that is tottering as it is.

If a worker is so strapped that he or she cannot afford to put any
money in the bank unless social security impounds are cut by half, that
worker is probably so strapped that the freed up cash will go into a
higher car payment or an extra credit card balance instead of a
long-range strategy like retirement.

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 05:28:06 -0500, "Jeff Rigby" wrote:


"Jim," wrote in message
...
Social Security reform chatter is everywhere, and it's likely that at
some point, you're going to be cornered by the water cooler or in the
cafeteria and asked what you think. Your conversation partner may even
be (gasp) a conservative. So be ready. This guide from Think Progress (a
project of the American Progress Action Fund) includes point-by-point
claims in the Bush administration's words, coupled with the real facts
about Social Security. Make sure you're able to explain to a
conservative why that "personal" account won't really be yours to
control, or why passing on account money to your grandchildren won't be
possible. SEE THE GUIDE

http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=206

I thought the plan(s) being discussed were similar to the one offered to
government workers. The plan Government workers have is much superior to
SS.


The Thrift Savings Plan, which federal workers can use, has been used as a
'model' for the types of investments which could be made with the personal
part
of the social security withdrawal.

Jimcomma has found a site which touts bull****. That, in Jimcomma's eyes,
makes
it worth repeating.

No kidding, it is amazing how there has been all this analysis of a 'plan'
that doesn't exist. To bad hillary's health care plan didn't get this
much scrutiny......then the whole country would have seen how bad it really
was.

P.Fritz wrote:
No kidding, it is amazing how there has been all this analysis of a 'plan'
that doesn't exist. To bad hillary's health care plan didn't get this
much scrutiny......then the whole country would have seen how bad it really
was.


Hey stupid, let me remind you that Hillary's health care plan was never
enacted... kinda like Newt Gengrich's 'Contract With America' of which
not single point was ever legislated into existence.

You must have a tiny little memory.

BTW don't let the other Bush-Cheney cheerleaders see you comparing
Bush's SS plan to anything by Hillary... they'll kick you out of the club...

DSK