|
( OT ) How To Talk To A Conservative about SS
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 |
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. 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? 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:
Here's some good thinking: Oh yeah. 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. And you don't see any problem with introducing RISK into a program titled "Social Security"? Maybe you'd like to see the Homeland Security Dept embrace the policy putting your life & your family at risk? But, people can always stop putting their money into risky accounts. In fact, they can stop participation at any time. AFAIK paying into Social Security is not "voluntary." I still can't understand how a bunch of 'pro-choice' folks can be so 'anti-choice'! Personally, I'm not anti-choice at all. However I am very definitely against the diversion of Social Security funds to politically favored Wall St brokerages, so that a portion can be returned as campaign contributions (an accurate term would be "kickbacks"). Do we assume people have the responsibility to make baby-killing decisions but not monthly investment decisions? There is no reason whatever you can't invest your own money as you like. You are obviously trying to dodge the issue that this is a case of the gov't taking your money and giving it to private enterprise, on the gamble that you might get some of it back later. DSK |
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? 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 |
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 12:31:21 -0500, DSK wrote:
John H wrote: Here's some good thinking: Oh yeah. 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. And you don't see any problem with introducing RISK into a program titled "Social Security"? Maybe you'd like to see the Homeland Security Dept embrace the policy putting your life & your family at risk? No more so than putting RISK into the thrift savings plan, 403b plans, 401K plans, Traditional IRAs, Roth IRAs! If it's my choice, it's my risk. Your Homeland Security analogy was somewhat ridiculous, so I won't comment thereon. But, people can always stop putting their money into risky accounts. In fact, they can stop participation at any time. AFAIK paying into Social Security is not "voluntary." No, but putting any of it into a personal savings account would be. I still can't understand how a bunch of 'pro-choice' folks can be so 'anti-choice'! Personally, I'm not anti-choice at all. However I am very definitely against the diversion of Social Security funds to politically favored Wall St brokerages, so that a portion can be returned as campaign contributions (an accurate term would be "kickbacks"). Do you think all the Congressmen putting their money into the Thrift Savings Plan are doing so just to fatten the wallets in Wall Street. You're reiterating the panic crap espoused by some of the more notable Bush-haters. Do we assume people have the responsibility to make baby-killing decisions but not monthly investment decisions? There is no reason whatever you can't invest your own money as you like. You are obviously trying to dodge the issue that this is a case of the gov't taking your money and giving it to private enterprise, on the gamble that you might get some of it back later. Do you know *anything* about the Thrift Savings Plan used by government workers, to include Senators and Representatives? Lastly, the government wouldn't be *taking* anything. The program would be voluntary, as has been stated continuously. Again, do we assume people have the responsibility to make baby-killing decisions but not monthly investment decisions? 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 |
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. Now go back and check the stock market figures for the last 40 years. 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:
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. from the December 27, 2004 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1227/p01s03-cogn.html One man's retirement math: Social Security wins By David R. Francis | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor At the heart of President Bush's plan to sell Social Security private accounts is a simple notion: You're always better off investing your retirement money than letting the government do it. By doing it yourself, you can stow some money in the stock market, and over the long run will get a better return on that investment than today's Social Security system offers. The idea is broadly accepted. That's why the administration's plan to partially privatize the system sounds appealing to many. But that better return won't always happen. Just ask Stanley Logue of San Diego. For 45 years, the defense-industry analyst paid into the system until his retirement in 1994. But with all the recent hoopla over reform, Mr. Logue, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology graduate, decided to go back and check his own records. Would he have done better investing his money than the bureaucrats at the Social Security Administration? He recorded all the payroll taxes he paid into the system (including the matching amount from his employer), tracked down the return the Social Security Trust Fund earned for each of the 45 years, and then compared the result with what he would have gotten had he been able to invest the same amount of payroll tax money over the same period in the Dow Jones Industrial Average (including dividends). To his surprise, the Social Security investment won out: $261,372 versus $255,499, a difference of $5,873. It's an astonishing finding. The DJIA represents blue-chip stocks. Social Security invests in US Treasury bonds. Over long periods of time, stocks have consistently outperformed bonds. So, you would think that Logue's theoretical stock investments from 1950 to 1994 would have surely outpaced the return on government bonds. The fact that they didn't illustrates one of the hard truths about stock investing: Timing matters. Although Logue started pouring money into Social Security in the 1950s and early 1960s, some of the best years for stocks, he hadn't accumulated a lot of money. So the gains of his theoretical stock portfolio would have been limited. By the time he had substantial sums, the market swooned for long periods. From 1965 to 1982, for instance, the DJIA made no progress. Logue retired before the real run-up in stocks in the latter half of the late 1990s. So the real lesson from his analysis is that any pension plan based on stock investments carries extra risks. Advocates of privatization point out - correctly - that Logue's analysis compares theoretical stock returns with what the Social Security Trust Fund earned - not what he himself would get from the system. From that perspective, the investment approach looks better, they argue. Over the long run, a typical worker can expect to earn 4.6 percent a year (after administrative costs) on a diversified portfolio of stocks and bonds and only about 2 percent or less from Social Security, according to federal estimates reported by Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute, long a proponent of privatization. Hypothetically, someone earning $30,000 annually would at the end of a 40-year career receive nearly twice as much under the investment approach ($344,000) than with Social Security ($185,000). Who's right: Logue or Mr. Tanner? The debate hinges considerably on what people want their retirement system to be. Social Security has always been an insurance program. It was never intended as an investment scheme. So everyone - retirees, the disabled, widows, and orphans - receive guaranteed monthly income. The "return" on their Social Security contributions depends largely on how long they live. Those in their 90s have enjoyed superb returns. Those who don't live as long benefit less. Private accounts, by contrast, involve far more variability, both sides agree. Individuals who enter and exit the market at the right times would undoubtedly do better under privatization. But under Britain's privatized pension system, so many retirees are doing so poorly at this moment that a commission warned this fall that widespread poverty among the elderly may be returning, which could require massive new government spending. Presumably, President Bush's plan would offer the choice to meld insurance and private investment: much less guaranteed income in return for the opportunity - and risk - of earning more in the markets. "Because financial asset returns are volatile, benefits under a personal account system would fluctuate," notes Bill Dudley, an economist at Goldman, Sachs & Co., a New York investment bank. "On a risk-adjusted basis, the privatized account ... becomes much less compelling." There are other problems with private accounts. Administration expenses of the present Social Security system are minuscule compared with the size of the benefits provided. The Bush administration so far has provided no details on its private accounts plan. But if these are handled by Wall Street, the fees could be sizable, dissipating some of the return from investing in stocks. Logue takes no account of such expenses in his analysis. Further, administrative costs and difficulties for private business could be large as companies, big and small, try to deduct the right amount from a payroll and put it into a private account in a timely fashion. A study by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) notes some complexities: 650,000 employers go out of business or start new businesses each year. More than 4 million employers have 10 or fewer employees, often having record-keeping problems and errors. About 12 million to 15 million individuals are self-employed and presumably would have to send money directly to a private account. So the complexities of change are substantial. If the extra return from privatization is not very advantageous, "why even consider changes that all agree would be very disruptive?" asks Logue. 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:
Do you think all the Congressmen putting their money into the Thrift Savings Plan are doing so just to fatten the wallets in Wall Street. That's not Bush's plan. It's been mentioned as a possible option, with the change that it would be a seperate account (handled of course, by favored Wall St'ers) ... You're reiterating the panic crap espoused by some of the more notable Bush-haters. You're reiterating the distortions and outright lies of the Bush-Cheney spin machine. There is no reason whatever you can't invest your own money as you like. You are obviously trying to dodge the issue that this is a case of the gov't taking your money and giving it to private enterprise, on the gamble that you might get some of it back later. Do you know *anything* about the Thrift Savings Plan used by government workers, to include Senators and Representatives? More than you, apparently. Lastly, the government wouldn't be *taking* anything. Really? Is the gov't not taking your money when it pulls in Social Security taxes? ... 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. |
JimH wrote:
"Jim," wrote in message ... 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. from the December 27, 2004 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1227/p01s03-cogn.html One man's retirement math: Social Security wins By David R. Francis | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor At the heart of President Bush's plan to sell Social Security private accounts is a simple notion: You're always better off investing your retirement money than letting the government do it. By doing it yourself, you can stow some money in the stock market, and over the long run will get a better return on that investment than today's Social Security system offers. The idea is broadly accepted. That's why the administration's plan to partially privatize the system sounds appealing to many. But that better return won't always happen. Just ask Stanley Logue of San Diego. For 45 years, the defense-industry analyst paid into the system until his retirement in 1994. But with all the recent hoopla over reform, Mr. Logue, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology graduate, decided to go back and check his own records. Would he have done better investing his money than the bureaucrats at the Social Security Administration? He recorded all the payroll taxes he paid into the system (including the matching amount from his employer), tracked down the return the Social Security Trust Fund earned for each of the 45 years, and then compared the result with what he would have gotten had he been able to invest the same amount of payroll tax money over the same period in the Dow Jones Industrial Average (including dividends). To his surprise, the Social Security investment won out: $261,372 versus $255,499, a difference of $5,873. It's an astonishing finding. The DJIA represents blue-chip stocks. Social Security invests in US Treasury bonds. Over long periods of time, stocks have consistently outperformed bonds. So, you would think that Logue's theoretical stock investments from 1950 to 1994 would have surely outpaced the return on government bonds. The fact that they didn't illustrates one of the hard truths about stock investing: Timing matters. Although Logue started pouring money into Social Security in the 1950s and early 1960s, some of the best years for stocks, he hadn't accumulated a lot of money. So the gains of his theoretical stock portfolio would have been limited. By the time he had substantial sums, the market swooned for long periods. From 1965 to 1982, for instance, the DJIA made no progress. Logue retired before the real run-up in stocks in the latter half of the late 1990s. So the real lesson from his analysis is that any pension plan based on stock investments carries extra risks. Advocates of privatization point out - correctly - that Logue's analysis compares theoretical stock returns with what the Social Security Trust Fund earned - not what he himself would get from the system. From that perspective, the investment approach looks better, they argue. Over the long run, a typical worker can expect to earn 4.6 percent a year (after administrative costs) on a diversified portfolio of stocks and bonds and only about 2 percent or less from Social Security, according to federal estimates reported by Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute, long a proponent of privatization. Hypothetically, someone earning $30,000 annually would at the end of a 40-year career receive nearly twice as much under the investment approach ($344,000) than with Social Security ($185,000). Who's right: Logue or Mr. Tanner? The debate hinges considerably on what people want their retirement system to be. Social Security has always been an insurance program. It was never intended as an investment scheme. So everyone - retirees, the disabled, widows, and orphans - receive guaranteed monthly income. The "return" on their Social Security contributions depends largely on how long they live. Those in their 90s have enjoyed superb returns. Those who don't live as long benefit less. Private accounts, by contrast, involve far more variability, both sides agree. Individuals who enter and exit the market at the right times would undoubtedly do better under privatization. But under Britain's privatized pension system, so many retirees are doing so poorly at this moment that a commission warned this fall that widespread poverty among the elderly may be returning, which could require massive new government spending. Presumably, President Bush's plan would offer the choice to meld insurance and private investment: much less guaranteed income in return for the opportunity - and risk - of earning more in the markets. "Because financial asset returns are volatile, benefits under a personal account system would fluctuate," notes Bill Dudley, an economist at Goldman, Sachs & Co., a New York investment bank. "On a risk-adjusted basis, the privatized account ... becomes much less compelling." There are other problems with private accounts. Administration expenses of the present Social Security system are minuscule compared with the size of the benefits provided. The Bush administration so far has provided no details on its private accounts plan. But if these are handled by Wall Street, the fees could be sizable, dissipating some of the return from investing in stocks. Logue takes no account of such expenses in his analysis. Further, administrative costs and difficulties for private business could be large as companies, big and small, try to deduct the right amount from a payroll and put it into a private account in a timely fashion. A study by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) notes some complexities: 650,000 employers go out of business or start new businesses each year. More than 4 million employers have 10 or fewer employees, often having record-keeping problems and errors. About 12 million to 15 million individuals are self-employed and presumably would have to send money directly to a private account. So the complexities of change are substantial. If the extra return from privatization is not very advantageous, "why even consider changes that all agree would be very disruptive?" asks Logue. Jimcomma, do you ever have an opinion of your own? Sure -- several, particularly about right wingers, but I'm too much a gentleman to express them here |
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 13:22:42 -0500, DSK wrote:
John H wrote: Do you think all the Congressmen putting their money into the Thrift Savings Plan are doing so just to fatten the wallets in Wall Street. That's not Bush's plan. It's been mentioned as a possible option, with the change that it would be a seperate account (handled of course, by favored Wall St'ers) 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. ... You're reiterating the panic crap espoused by some of the more notable Bush-haters. 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. There is no reason whatever you can't invest your own money as you like. You are obviously trying to dodge the issue that this is a case of the gov't taking your money and giving it to private enterprise, on the gamble that you might get some of it back later. Do you know *anything* about the Thrift Savings Plan used by government workers, to include Senators and Representatives? More than you, apparently. Lastly, the government wouldn't be *taking* anything. Really? Is the gov't not taking your money when it pulls in Social Security taxes? The taking and putting into a personal savings account is voluntary. The other option isn't. ... 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. By denying me that opportunity, you are, in fact, diminishing my ability to invest my money as I choose. (Note, the references to me are rhetorical.) The 'buzz-phrase' is applicable. You pro-choice folks are anti-choice here. Why? 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 |
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 |
|
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 12:46:24 -0500, DSK wrote:
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 "Hey stupid...." That's right up there with the basskisser mentality. John H |
"John H" wrote in message ... On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 12:46:24 -0500, DSK wrote: 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 "Hey stupid...." That's right up there with the basskisser mentality. I wonder if he heard that loud whooshing sound as the point passed well over his head? John H |
wrote in message ups.com... 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. The freed up cash does not go to the person to spend as they like. It either goes to SS or to personal retirement accounts. At the present time overall return on SS money that the people put in is -0.3%. And this is going to get worse as lots of those collecting SS did not pay much into the system. Only since the LBJ years when the government found that they could get a huge increase in revenue by raising SS payments a little and SS deposits a lot has the SS system been going down the tubes. And the SS system was not designed to be the national retirement system in it's formative years. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:06 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com