Dave Hall wrote:

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 21:28:37 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


Dave Hall wrote:


On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 07:29:53 -0500, HarryKrause
wrote:



Dave Hall wrote:


On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 13:43:22 -0500, DSK wrote:




Jeff Rigby wrote:



LETS GET REAL HERE!! The real reason the Democrats are against ANY plan
for PRIVATE savings is because THEY CAN"T SPEND that money.

This is "getting real"?


It is if you're not politically blind to the motives of those most
opposed to private saving accounts.


No one is stopping you from setting up a private savings account, and I
don't know anyone who opposes private savings accounts.


I agree. I think I should be able to divert all of my SS withholding
into my 401K. I'll earn much more that way.

Dave



OK divert everything -- now go find an insurance policy that will pay
you if you're disabled, pay your wife and kids if you die, be indexed to
inflation -- what do you think that would co$t you additionall


I already have a company paid policy that covers much of that. Any
additional coverage that I might need, based on my age and health will
not be all that bad. Certainly less than the interest I'll be getting
from the 401K over what I'd get from SS.

Dave

And should you get hurt, and no longer be able to work, you will have no
company plan -- should the company go out of business, or simply fall on
hard times you will have a diminished or NO company plan. *It's
happening today* read the newspaper. And let's see you find a policy
as stated above for the price of SS.

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 21:24:03 -0500, DSK wrote:

Is that why you haven't said anything about the Bush Administration's
accomplishments?


John H wrote:
Is that question supposed to show me where I've proclaimed the superiority of
the Bush/Cheney administration?


Well then you should be willing to admit that they are inferior, then.

Crappy logic. Your inability to find a post where I've proclaimed superiority
has no bearing on my willingness to do anything.

In any event, you blow a lot of gas about how many wonderful things the
Bush Administration has accomplished, and yet you seem unable to name any.

Another crappy conclusion. Please show any post where I've 'blown a lot of gas'
about Bush Administration accomplishments. To my knowledge, they don't exist.


Or is it just a way to bypass the fact that you spread some more crap?


Quote one single post of mine that isn't fact. You've already struck out
on the insults, while feeling free to be offensive.

There, I've quoted two parts of one single post that isn't fact. You find a
piece or two of factual minutiae and then reach gross conclusions to which
you've added your hate for the administration.

DSK

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

Dave Hall wrote:
How is it different from a typical IRA or 401K?


From what I have read & heard, Bush's proposed plan is to allow people
to divert part of their SS taxes into an investment account... details
on what type of account and with whom are pretty sketchy, but the notion
of putting it inot the gov't employee's... or Congress' own...
retirement investment mutual funds has been ruled out.

The difference:
Not paying is not an option. Choices of investment are likely to be much
more limited. It is not tax advantaged in any way (other than that
you're already paying SS tax).




... 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".


That is rather different from "skimming". I explained how the chosen
Wall St firms will profit, but I suppose you weren't paying attention.

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?


(sigh) As I said before-

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?


I never said anything was sinister or underhanded... only that it was
flirting with being illegal and that the most likely reason is to reap
increased campaign fund contributions from the chosen firms.

As I also sais earlier, this was pretty much verbatim what the news
releases from Vice President Cheney's office was saying, before they got
their spin control better organized.



... 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.

Well, that's not an option.

... If everyone has a 401K, why the need for SS at all?

Because your 401K does not offer the same benefits that SS does. For
example, let's suppose that you get killed in plane crash and you leave
behind a few dependent orphans... the get your 401K, which might be very
good, or it might be peanuts... however SS benefits are reliable &
consistent.

For example, the stock market can (and does) go down. If you pick
stocks... or your mutual fund manager picks stocks... that fall off a
cliff, then too bad. In retirement you eat dog food & sleep on the street.

Social Security is just exactly that... security. It's not supposed to
be a cushy retirement plan and never was. It's more a form of insurance,
funded by a Ponzi scheme but with the excess invested in Treasury bonds
(a point often overlooked)

... The
people stand to expect a better long term benefit, there is no chance
that the government can "raid" the fund for pork projects.


1- the people *might* get a better long term benefit.
2- the gov't is not "raid"ing SS funds now.




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?


(sigh) repost

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"?


Diverting a fraction of SS taxes into private accounts can not and will
not "fix" the future imbalance of SS payouts to income. The only way to
fix it is to either reduce benefits or increase SS taxes.




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?

Because SS will have to make up the difference between the lost income
and the payout.


... Remember that the SS payout will
decrease to those who opt out in favor of the private account.


But that money is being paid out now.



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?


When you say "all options are on the table" and then immediately... with
no discussion or debate... rule out several practical proposals, and
furthermore accuse your opponents of *not having* any proposals, then
that is lying.... and bad faith.

This is exactly what the Bush Administration has done.



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.

What have I said that is "scare propaganda"?

*Everything* I have posted is gospel truth.




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?

Yep. That's the truth.

... There are
many who would vehemently disagree with you, including certain
democrats who accuse republicans of that very deed.


Lots of people put partisanship ahead of truth.

The fact is that the SS surplus has been used to mask the deficit. The
SS surplus is invested in treasury bonds, which underwrites the deficit.
Those are a sort of fudgy way to claim that it is being spent... one
might say that it is a legal money-laundering scheme. But it is still a
fact that the gov't can not and has not spent SS funds on other programs.



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.


Yep, I tend to look at occurences in the real world as "fact." You seem
to think that if Bush & Cheney announce that water runs up hill, then by
golly enybody who says otherwise is a liberal fag-loving traitor. I'm
sure this is great for self-esteem but it's not a good approach to
practical decision making.

DSK

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 09:55:21 -0500, DSK wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
How is it different from a typical IRA or 401K?


From what I have read & heard, Bush's proposed plan is to allow people
to divert part of their SS taxes into an investment account... details
on what type of account and with whom are pretty sketchy, but the notion
of putting it inot the gov't employee's... or Congress' own...
retirement investment mutual funds has been ruled out.

Ok, that's good so far, but it's short on details. Hardly enough to
pass judgement against yet.


The difference:
Not paying is not an option. Choices of investment are likely to be much
more limited. It is not tax advantaged in any way (other than that
you're already paying SS tax).

But it is similar in principle to an IRA or 401K type of investment,
is it not?


... 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".


That is rather different from "skimming". I explained how the chosen
Wall St firms will profit, but I suppose you weren't paying attention.

How did you explain? How CAN you explain something that hasn't even
been codified yet? You are only echoing the speculation and scare
tactics that the DNC have used to try and discredit this plan.

Since we're on the subject, what practical alternatives have the
democrats offered up to help to "fix" SS? Other than the typical raise
taxes and lower payments that is?


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?


(sigh) As I said before-

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?


I never said anything was sinister or underhanded... only that it was
flirting with being illegal and that the most likely reason is to reap
increased campaign fund contributions from the chosen firms.

How? Private investment firms set up accounts to suit all sorts of
situations. They also do not do it for free. There are fees for
managing those accounts. Are they not entitled to recover a small
amount of money to defray their operating costs? If you have a 401K
fund now, you're already paying those "greedy wall streeters", so how
would the federal plan be any different? Should it be? If the
individual doesn't pay the investment firm, who does? Explain how this
is "flirting with being illegal" or even unethical, as long as the
costs are up front and out in the open from the onset?

The part about increased campaign contributions is pure speculation
fueled by the scare tactics of the DNC.


As I also sais earlier, this was pretty much verbatim what the news
releases from Vice President Cheney's office was saying, before they got
their spin control better organized.



... 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.

Well, that's not an option.

No, but I'd be the first to support it if it were. I WANT control over
my investment funds. I don't want the government deciding my fate. I
don't want to have put in 45 years of SS only to find out come
retirement, that the money's no longer there.



... If everyone has a 401K, why the need for SS at all?

Because your 401K does not offer the same benefits that SS does. For
example, let's suppose that you get killed in plane crash and you leave
behind a few dependent orphans... the get your 401K, which might be very
good, or it might be peanuts... however SS benefits are reliable &
consistent.

And tapping off of the income of others, which is why the fund is in
danger. Besides, I have a company paid benefit which covers accidental
death, and long term disability. Insurance policies are also offered
to make up for what SS currently covers. I suspect that a private
individual can do better than what the government currently offers.

You are only fooling yourself if you believe that SS is "reliable &
consistent". That's the whole point. If the fund becomes
insolvent,(which it can as long as the government can control it) you
have no choice about it. Think Enron, only it's the SS fund.


For example, the stock market can (and does) go down. If you pick
stocks... or your mutual fund manager picks stocks... that fall off a
cliff, then too bad. In retirement you eat dog food & sleep on the street.

That's why any good financial planner will tell you to diversify -
never put all of your eggs into one basket. The stock market has ups
and downs, but has historically performed well over the long term. And
that's what a 401K fund usually is.


Social Security is just exactly that... security.

THAT is a fallacy.

It's not supposed to
be a cushy retirement plan and never was. It's more a form of insurance,
funded by a Ponzi scheme but with the excess invested in Treasury bonds
(a point often overlooked)

But for us later "Baby Boomers", the "ponzi" part of the scheme will
likely become a reality, which is why the "security" part of it is
questionable.

Who you rather have direct control over your investment, or would you
rather let the government do it?


... The
people stand to expect a better long term benefit, there is no chance
that the government can "raid" the fund for pork projects.


1- the people *might* get a better long term benefit.

There is evidence to support this. Just look at Galveston Texas in the
1980's when they opted out of SS and invested privately.

2- the gov't is not "raid"ing SS funds now.

But they have in the past, and there is nothing stopping them from
doing it in the future.


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?


(sigh) repost

Repost what? More speculation?


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"?


Diverting a fraction of SS taxes into private accounts can not and will
not "fix" the future imbalance of SS payouts to income. The only way to
fix it is to either reduce benefits or increase SS taxes.

By weaning people off of social security and on to their own accounts,
you "fix" the problem, by eventually eliminating it.



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?

Because SS will have to make up the difference between the lost income
and the payout.

Which will be made up when the people who diverted their money into
the private accounts, become eligible for far less from SS.


... Remember that the SS payout will
decrease to those who opt out in favor of the private account.


But that money is being paid out now.

That's a problem anyway. Estimates claim there was once 16 people
paying in for every 1 taking out. Soon it will be down to 2 or 3
people paying in for every one taking out. SS cannot be maintained
under these conditions. You either have to drastically raise the SS
tax or drastically reduce payments or the scope and duration of
coverage. Private accounts are a way to slowly wean us off of this
self destructing system.


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?


When you say "all options are on the table" and then immediately... with
no discussion or debate... rule out several practical proposals, and
furthermore accuse your opponents of *not having* any proposals, then
that is lying.... and bad faith.

That's not what happened, although the spinmeisters will try to play
it that way.

But what innovative proposals have the democrats offered? None.

This is exactly what the Bush Administration has done.

The discussions are not even over yet, so how can you make that claim
with any intellectual honesty?


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.

What have I said that is "scare propaganda"?

*Everything* I have posted is gospel truth.

When you make claims that private accounts will not work, you either
have some intrinsic knowledge or experience in the area, or you are
speculating. Trying to paint a doom and gloom picture because you are
afraid of change is a scare tactic.


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?

Yep. That's the truth.

I guess you should be mad at those democrats who tried accusing
republicans of exactly that, including John Kerry.



... There are
many who would vehemently disagree with you, including certain
democrats who accuse republicans of that very deed.


Lots of people put partisanship ahead of truth.

Amen to that.....


The fact is that the SS surplus has been used to mask the deficit.

Ah! so it's "passive" raiding in numbers only.

The
SS surplus is invested in treasury bonds, which underwrites the deficit.
Those are a sort of fudgy way to claim that it is being spent... one
might say that it is a legal money-laundering scheme. But it is still a
fact that the gov't can not and has not spent SS funds on other programs.

Fred Astaire would be proud.



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.


Yep, I tend to look at occurences in the real world as "fact." You seem
to think that if Bush & Cheney announce that water runs up hill, then by
golly enybody who says otherwise is a liberal fag-loving traitor. I'm
sure this is great for self-esteem but it's not a good approach to
practical decision making.

Not at all. Your "real world" occurrences are based on what you
perceive as truth. But unless you are there directly, that "truth" is
brought to you in the form of a second (or third) hand report. Someone
collected and arranged that report. The report is then subject to
whatever spin or manipulation the reporter sees fit to apply.

Dave

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 13:02:52 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


OK divert everything -- now go find an insurance policy that will pay
you if you're disabled, pay your wife and kids if you die, be indexed to
inflation -- what do you think that would co$t you additionall


I already have a company paid policy that covers much of that. Any
additional coverage that I might need, based on my age and health will
not be all that bad. Certainly less than the interest I'll be getting
from the 401K over what I'd get from SS.

Dave

And should you get hurt, and no longer be able to work, you will have no
company plan

It's called "Long Term Disability". The company pays for a basic plan,
and I cough up additional deductions to make it cover me for life.


-- should the company go out of business, or simply fall on
hard times you will have a diminished or NO company plan.

Then I get another job, and start with a new plan.


*It's
happening today* read the newspaper. And let's see you find a policy
as stated above for the price of SS.

Life insurance is not that expensive. I'd still rather have my SS
money diverted into my 401K. As of now, had I had that option, 20
years ago, I'd be thinking about retiring at 55. The plan took a hit
in 2000, but overall, I've had double digit returns on my investment.

Dave

Dave Hall wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 13:02:52 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



OK divert everything -- now go find an insurance policy that will pay
you if you're disabled, pay your wife and kids if you die, be indexed to
inflation -- what do you think that would co$t you additionall


I already have a company paid policy that covers much of that. Any
additional coverage that I might need, based on my age and health will
not be all that bad. Certainly less than the interest I'll be getting
from the 401K over what I'd get from SS.

Dave


And should you get hurt, and no longer be able to work, you will have no
company plan


It's called "Long Term Disability". The company pays for a basic plan,
and I cough up additional deductions to make it cover me for life.



-- should the company go out of business, or simply fall on
hard times you will have a diminished or NO company plan.


Then I get another job, and start with a new plan.



*It's
happening today* read the newspaper. And let's see you find a policy
as stated above for the price of SS.


Life insurance is not that expensive. I'd still rather have my SS
money diverted into my 401K. As of now, had I had that option, 20
years ago, I'd be thinking about retiring at 55. The plan took a hit
in 2000, but overall, I've had double digit returns on my investment.

Dave


Life Insurance might not be expensive at age 30, but try to get a good
price at 55; especially if you want it to cover your Dependants also --
I think you'll find few firms who offer disability insurance, and to buy
it on your own is quite expensive. Suggest you contact a couple of
insurance agents and get some real numbers.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 09:55:21 -0500, DSK wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
How is it different from a typical IRA or 401K?


From what I have read & heard, Bush's proposed plan is to allow people
to divert part of their SS taxes into an investment account... details
on what type of account and with whom are pretty sketchy, but the notion
of putting it inot the gov't employee's... or Congress' own...
retirement investment mutual funds has been ruled out.

Ok, that's good so far, but it's short on details. Hardly enough to
pass judgement against yet.


The difference:
Not paying is not an option. Choices of investment are likely to be much
more limited. It is not tax advantaged in any way (other than that
you're already paying SS tax).

But it is similar in principle to an IRA or 401K type of investment,
is it not?


... 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".


That is rather different from "skimming". I explained how the chosen
Wall St firms will profit, but I suppose you weren't paying attention.

How did you explain? How CAN you explain something that hasn't even
been codified yet? You are only echoing the speculation and scare
tactics that the DNC have used to try and discredit this plan.

Since we're on the subject, what practical alternatives have the
democrats offered up to help to "fix" SS? Other than the typical raise
taxes and lower payments that is?


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?


(sigh) As I said before-

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?


I never said anything was sinister or underhanded... only that it was
flirting with being illegal and that the most likely reason is to reap
increased campaign fund contributions from the chosen firms.

How? Private investment firms set up accounts to suit all sorts of
situations. They also do not do it for free. There are fees for
managing those accounts. Are they not entitled to recover a small
amount of money to defray their operating costs? If you have a 401K
fund now, you're already paying those "greedy wall streeters", so how
would the federal plan be any different? Should it be? If the
individual doesn't pay the investment firm, who does? Explain how this
is "flirting with being illegal" or even unethical, as long as the
costs are up front and out in the open from the onset?

The part about increased campaign contributions is pure speculation
fueled by the scare tactics of the DNC.


As I also sais earlier, this was pretty much verbatim what the news
releases from Vice President Cheney's office was saying, before they got
their spin control better organized.



... 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.

Well, that's not an option.

No, but I'd be the first to support it if it were. I WANT control over
my investment funds. I don't want the government deciding my fate. I
don't want to have put in 45 years of SS only to find out come
retirement, that the money's no longer there.



... If everyone has a 401K, why the need for SS at all?

Because your 401K does not offer the same benefits that SS does. For
example, let's suppose that you get killed in plane crash and you leave
behind a few dependent orphans... the get your 401K, which might be very
good, or it might be peanuts... however SS benefits are reliable &
consistent.

And tapping off of the income of others, which is why the fund is in
danger. Besides, I have a company paid benefit which covers accidental
death, and long term disability. Insurance policies are also offered
to make up for what SS currently covers. I suspect that a private
individual can do better than what the government currently offers.

You are only fooling yourself if you believe that SS is "reliable &
consistent". That's the whole point. If the fund becomes
insolvent,(which it can as long as the government can control it) you
have no choice about it. Think Enron, only it's the SS fund.


For example, the stock market can (and does) go down. If you pick
stocks... or your mutual fund manager picks stocks... that fall off a
cliff, then too bad. In retirement you eat dog food & sleep on the street.

That's why any good financial planner will tell you to diversify -
never put all of your eggs into one basket. The stock market has ups
and downs, but has historically performed well over the long term. And
that's what a 401K fund usually is.


Social Security is just exactly that... security.

THAT is a fallacy.

The supreme court has already ruled that there is no guarantee of
payments.......payments made are at the whim of congress..........the
liebrals continue to keep their heads stuck in the sand.


It's not supposed to
be a cushy retirement plan and never was. It's more a form of insurance,
funded by a Ponzi scheme but with the excess invested in Treasury bonds
(a point often overlooked)





But for us later "Baby Boomers", the "ponzi" part of the scheme will
likely become a reality, which is why the "security" part of it is
questionable.

Who you rather have direct control over your investment, or would you
rather let the government do it?

Borrowing money from oneself and calling it bonds is a fabrication to ease
the liebral minds.



... The
people stand to expect a better long term benefit, there is no chance
that the government can "raid" the fund for pork projects.


1- the people *might* get a better long term benefit.

There is evidence to support this. Just look at Galveston Texas in the
1980's when they opted out of SS and invested privately.

2- the gov't is not "raid"ing SS funds now.

But they have in the past, and there is nothing stopping them from
doing it in the future.

The guvmint is spending every penny of the "surplus" and then some. the
only way to repay that is for the guvmint to increase income (i.e. raise
taxes) or lower cost (i.e. cut services)




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?


(sigh) repost

Repost what? More speculation?


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"?


Diverting a fraction of SS taxes into private accounts can not and will
not "fix" the future imbalance of SS payouts to income. The only way to
fix it is to either reduce benefits or increase SS taxes.

By weaning people off of social security and on to their own accounts,
you "fix" the problem, by eventually eliminating it.



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?

Because SS will have to make up the difference between the lost income
and the payout.

Which will be made up when the people who diverted their money into
the private accounts, become eligible for far less from SS.


... Remember that the SS payout will
decrease to those who opt out in favor of the private account.


But that money is being paid out now.

That's a problem anyway. Estimates claim there was once 16 people
paying in for every 1 taking out. Soon it will be down to 2 or 3
people paying in for every one taking out. SS cannot be maintained
under these conditions. You either have to drastically raise the SS
tax or drastically reduce payments or the scope and duration of
coverage. Private accounts are a way to slowly wean us off of this
self destructing system.


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?


When you say "all options are on the table" and then immediately... with
no discussion or debate... rule out several practical proposals, and
furthermore accuse your opponents of *not having* any proposals, then
that is lying.... and bad faith.

That's not what happened, although the spinmeisters will try to play
it that way.

But what innovative proposals have the democrats offered? None.

This is exactly what the Bush Administration has done.

The discussions are not even over yet, so how can you make that claim
with any intellectual honesty?


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.

What have I said that is "scare propaganda"?

*Everything* I have posted is gospel truth.

When you make claims that private accounts will not work, you either
have some intrinsic knowledge or experience in the area, or you are
speculating. Trying to paint a doom and gloom picture because you are
afraid of change is a scare tactic.


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?

Yep. That's the truth.

I guess you should be mad at those democrats who tried accusing
republicans of exactly that, including John Kerry.



... There are
many who would vehemently disagree with you, including certain
democrats who accuse republicans of that very deed.


Lots of people put partisanship ahead of truth.

Amen to that.....


The fact is that the SS surplus has been used to mask the deficit.

Ah! so it's "passive" raiding in numbers only.

The
SS surplus is invested in treasury bonds, which underwrites the deficit.
Those are a sort of fudgy way to claim that it is being spent... one
might say that it is a legal money-laundering scheme. But it is still a
fact that the gov't can not and has not spent SS funds on other programs.

Fred Astaire would be proud.



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.


Yep, I tend to look at occurences in the real world as "fact." You seem
to think that if Bush & Cheney announce that water runs up hill, then by
golly enybody who says otherwise is a liberal fag-loving traitor. I'm
sure this is great for self-esteem but it's not a good approach to
practical decision making.

Not at all. Your "real world" occurrences are based on what you
perceive as truth. But unless you are there directly, that "truth" is
brought to you in the form of a second (or third) hand report. Someone
collected and arranged that report. The report is then subject to
whatever spin or manipulation the reporter sees fit to apply.

Dave

That is rather different from "skimming". I explained how the chosen
Wall St firms will profit, but I suppose you weren't paying attention.


Dave Hall wrote:
How did you explain? How CAN you explain something that hasn't even
been codified yet? You are only echoing the speculation and scare
tactics that the DNC have used to try and discredit this plan.


Baloney. What I have said is based 100% on what has been announced by
the Bush Administration as their plan, and applying some very straight
forward common sense.



Since we're on the subject, what practical alternatives have the
democrats offered up to help to "fix" SS? Other than the typical raise
taxes and lower payments that is?


Oh, other than actually fixing it, you mean?

The ONLY way to "fix" the upcoming (in about 20+ years) imbalance in
Social Security is to either reduce payouts, or increase taxes, or both.



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?


(sigh) As I said before-


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?


I never said anything was sinister or underhanded... only that it was
flirting with being illegal and that the most likely reason is to reap
increased campaign fund contributions from the chosen firms.


How? Private investment firms set up accounts to suit all sorts of
situations. They also do not do it for free. There are fees for
managing those accounts. Are they not entitled to recover a small
amount of money to defray their operating costs?

And you think it's just dandy to steer tax money, previously earmarked
to be paid out to those who paid in, into those pockets to "defray their
operating costs" (and of course make a small contribution to selected
campaign funds).



.. If you have a 401K
fund now, you're already paying those "greedy wall streeters", so how
would the federal plan be any different? Should it be?

Umm, no. Actually the simplest and most practical way would be to
increase the IRA / 401K allowance... but once again, that would not
steer that money into the "right" pockets.

If it looks like a duck and quack likes a duck, the odds are pretty good
it's a duck.


.... I tend to look at occurences in the real world as "fact." You seem
to think that if Bush & Cheney announce that water runs up hill, then by
golly enybody who says otherwise is a liberal fag-loving traitor. I'm
sure this is great for self-esteem but it's not a good approach to
practical decision making.


Not at all.

Yes. That's all. So far you have not once proven your contentions, while
all my statements are based on fact. Your posts rely heavily... almost
entirely... on pro Bush/Cheney propaganda and you constantly insist that
anything outside this is somehow tainted liberal dogma.


... Your "real world" occurrences are based on what you
perceive as truth. But unless you are there directly, that "truth" is
brought to you in the form of a second (or third) hand report. Someone
collected and arranged that report. The report is then subject to
whatever spin or manipulation the reporter sees fit to apply.


Repeat- when it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like
a duck, it might as well be a duck. The info that I rely on is from many
widely different sources, and is consistant with facts that I have
observed directly myself. The "info" that you post is straight from the
Bush/Cheney tub-thumpers playbook.

DSK

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 17:07:09 -0500, DSK wrote:

That is rather different from "skimming". I explained how the chosen
Wall St firms will profit, but I suppose you weren't paying attention.


Dave Hall wrote:
How did you explain? How CAN you explain something that hasn't even
been codified yet? You are only echoing the speculation and scare
tactics that the DNC have used to try and discredit this plan.


Baloney. What I have said is based 100% on what has been announced by
the Bush Administration as their plan, and applying some very straight
forward common sense.

Specific details have not been finalized yet. All that we have is a
basic concept. Your "common sense" is based mostly on speculation and
conjecture.

Since we're on the subject, what practical alternatives have the
democrats offered up to help to "fix" SS? Other than the typical raise
taxes and lower payments that is?


Oh, other than actually fixing it, you mean?

The ONLY way to "fix" the upcoming (in about 20+ years) imbalance in
Social Security is to either reduce payouts, or increase taxes, or both.

Really? Talk about binary thinking.

But to a tax and spend democrat, increasing taxes is a simple
solution. After all, we should just open our wallets and pay out more
now so that we can earn the same amount later. That seems REAL fair.

I'd rather take my chances with the stock market.



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?


(sigh) As I said before-


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?


I never said anything was sinister or underhanded... only that it was
flirting with being illegal and that the most likely reason is to reap
increased campaign fund contributions from the chosen firms.


How? Private investment firms set up accounts to suit all sorts of
situations. They also do not do it for free. There are fees for
managing those accounts. Are they not entitled to recover a small
amount of money to defray their operating costs?

And you think it's just dandy to steer tax money, previously earmarked
to be paid out to those who paid in, into those pockets to "defray their
operating costs" (and of course make a small contribution to selected
campaign funds).

There you go again, substituting conjecture for fact. You do it so
often, you don't even realize it.

By your judgement, I guess I should just throw away my 401K because,
gosh darn, those plan administrators are taking a piece out of my
investment as a fee to manage my account. It doesn't matter that their
expertise is earning me double digit returns which more than offsets
their "fee", and allows my investment to compound.

Is that not a sensible compromise?

As long as the investor's return amounts to far more than what they
would realize through the usual SS plan, then is that not a good
thing?


.. If you have a 401K
fund now, you're already paying those "greedy wall streeters", so how
would the federal plan be any different? Should it be?

Umm, no. Actually the simplest and most practical way would be to
increase the IRA / 401K allowance... but once again, that would not
steer that money into the "right" pockets.

Those same people already manage 401K (and other) accounts! Do you
want a brick, or will a 2X4 upside your head be good enough?

Increasing the 401K/IRA "allowance" is not good enough. Diverting a
part of SS tax is what's needed.





.... I tend to look at occurences in the real world as "fact." You seem
to think that if Bush & Cheney announce that water runs up hill, then by
golly enybody who says otherwise is a liberal fag-loving traitor. I'm
sure this is great for self-esteem but it's not a good approach to
practical decision making.


Not at all.

Yes. That's all. So far you have not once proven your contentions, while
all my statements are based on fact.

That is a lie. Your "facts" consist of little more than speculation
and conjecture. Provide the proof that Bush wants to "reward" Wall
streeters in exchange for future campaign contributions.


Your posts rely heavily... almost
entirely... on pro Bush/Cheney propaganda and you constantly insist that
anything outside this is somehow tainted liberal dogma.

I apply common sense, and to my sense, you are doing exactly what you
accuse me of doing. You parrot the scare tactics given by the DNC and
their support minions, and then try to pass it of as "fact". You can't
factually conclude that Bush is planning on making Wall Street rich,
as the specific details have not been finalized yet. It's pure
conjecture at this point. The sad part is that you can't see it as
such.

There IS "tainted liberal dogma". It's a shame you buy into it so
easily and are equally duped into believing it as fact.


... Your "real world" occurrences are based on what you
perceive as truth. But unless you are there directly, that "truth" is
brought to you in the form of a second (or third) hand report. Someone
collected and arranged that report. The report is then subject to
whatever spin or manipulation the reporter sees fit to apply.


Repeat- when it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like
a duck, it might as well be a duck.

Or it could be Elmer Fudd in a duck costume.


The info that I rely on is from many
widely different sources, and is consistant with facts that I have
observed directly myself.

That's a load of crap. Your "sources" are mostly agenda driven. Ask
yourself, why are you against people having their SS contributions
invested in a private interest bearing retirement account instead of
the current system?

The "info" that you post is straight from the
Bush/Cheney tub-thumpers playbook.

Not at all. It's info driven from a common sense approach to reducing
the government's role in people's financial business. I'd rather
control my own destiny than have the government do it. I'm supporting
the IDEA, not getting hung up on the, as of yet, undefined details.

Dave

"Jim," wrote in message
...
Dave Hall wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 13:02:52 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



OK divert everything -- now go find an insurance policy that will pay
you if you're disabled, pay your wife and kids if you die, be indexed
to
inflation -- what do you think that would co$t you additionall


I already have a company paid policy that covers much of that. Any
additional coverage that I might need, based on my age and health will
not be all that bad. Certainly less than the interest I'll be getting
from the 401K over what I'd get from SS.

Dave


And should you get hurt, and no longer be able to work, you will have no
company plan


It's called "Long Term Disability". The company pays for a basic plan,
and I cough up additional deductions to make it cover me for life.



-- should the company go out of business, or simply fall on
hard times you will have a diminished or NO company plan.


Then I get another job, and start with a new plan.



*It's
happening today* read the newspaper. And let's see you find a policy
as stated above for the price of SS.


Life insurance is not that expensive. I'd still rather have my SS
money diverted into my 401K. As of now, had I had that option, 20
years ago, I'd be thinking about retiring at 55. The plan took a hit
in 2000, but overall, I've had double digit returns on my investment.

Dave


Life Insurance might not be expensive at age 30, but try to get a good
price at 55; especially if you want it to cover your Dependants also --
I think you'll find few firms who offer disability insurance, and to buy
it on your own is quite expensive. Suggest you contact a couple of
insurance agents and get some real numbers.

By a term life policy. Very resonable and you should not need much after 60
years in life insurance. You should have some investments, and savings.