... 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.


Dave Hall wrote:
Specific details have not been finalized yet.

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


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

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

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



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.


That's the name of the thread.


But to a tax and spend democrat, increasing taxes is a simple
solution.

Except that in this case, it's not "tax & spend." It's tax & already spent.

When the "borrow & spend" Republicans finish their terms, we will have
all the gov't programs in the boat SS is headed for.


... 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.


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


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.

Agreed. Your statements about Social Security, such as claiming that
Democrats want to spend the excess and comparing SS to investments, are
a total load of crap.


... Your "sources" are mostly agenda driven.

Wrong. You are the one with an agenda, my "sources" are things like the
SSA itself... clearly a hotbed of liberal spinmeistering...


... Ask
yourself, why are you against people having their SS contributions
invested in a private interest bearing retirement account instead of
the current system?


Because people's SS tax payments are already committed paying for
benefits of those already retired.

Again, SS is *not* an investment program.

Furthermore, this is a method of diverting tax money into private
pockets for profit. This is not the way I want the gov't to operate,
helping Wall St profit off citizen's taxes. It's not the way the
Founding Fathers wanted it to operate, either.

I would not have a problem with restructuring Social Security tazes &
benefits to bring the system into long term balance.... although the
imbalance is not going to happen for 20+ years anyway...

Certainly I don't have a problem with encouraging people to save and
invest their own money. For one thing, that's what I've been doing for
the past 25+ years.



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.

So why do you want the gov't to take an *increased* role by making the
SS system more complex? Why do you want the gov't to take charge of your
savings, and "encourage" savings by shaving it off SS taxes... creating
a shortfall which will have to be made up by more taxes.

... I'd rather
control my own destiny than have the government do it.

Good. Then save your money & invest it wisely.

... I'm supporting
the IDEA, not getting hung up on the, as of yet, undefined details.


heh heh heh maybe if they change 100% of Bush's plan it will become
actually conservative in nature, and might even do something to help
Social Security. Of course you support Bush & Cheney blindly no matter
what they do.

DSK

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 19:12:14 -0500, DSK wrote:

... 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.


Dave Hall wrote:
Specific details have not been finalized yet.

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

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



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

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

A ponzi scheme that's heading for financial insolvency?


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

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



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.


That's the name of the thread.

So you admit that your suggestion is short sighted and lacks any sort
of innovation beyond the same status quo?


But to a tax and spend democrat, increasing taxes is a simple
solution.

Except that in this case, it's not "tax & spend." It's tax & already spent.

When the "borrow & spend" Republicans finish their terms, we will have
all the gov't programs in the boat SS is headed for.

Irrelevant.


... 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.


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

That much is obvious, as there is no compounding of interest on the
return. It's more like an insurance policy. But it is supposed to
provide for people when they retire. A private 401K-type of account
would be a better alternative to a retirement income. And I'd rather
provide my own insurance. I don't want/need the government.


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.

Agreed. Your statements about Social Security, such as claiming that
Democrats want to spend the excess and comparing SS to investments, are
a total load of crap.

I never said anything about democrats spending the excess. Your
attempt to cloud the issue by splitting semantic hairs about what the
"purpose" of SS is and what it is supposed to be, is also noted.



... Your "sources" are mostly agenda driven.

Wrong. You are the one with an agenda, my "sources" are things like the
SSA itself... clearly a hotbed of liberal spinmeistering...

The SSA told you that Bush wants to line the pockets of Wall street
with the proceeds of his private accounts?


... Ask
yourself, why are you against people having their SS contributions
invested in a private interest bearing retirement account instead of
the current system?


Because people's SS tax payments are already committed paying for
benefits of those already retired.

By that logic, we will never be able to break out of this vicious
cycle then.

Again, SS is *not* an investment program.

But its primary purpose is as a supplemental retirement source.

Furthermore, this is a method of diverting tax money into private
pockets for profit.

*OUR* profit! What's wrong with that?

This is not the way I want the gov't to operate,
helping Wall St profit off citizen's taxes. It's not the way the
Founding Fathers wanted it to operate, either.

You don't know that, you're only parroting DNC pablum.

I would not have a problem with restructuring Social Security taxes &
benefits to bring the system into long term balance.... although the
imbalance is not going to happen for 20+ years anyway...

Yea, you won't have to worry so why care now right? That's the same
logic that owners of Hummers use when faced with the eventual
exhaustion of fossil fuels.


Certainly I don't have a problem with encouraging people to save and
invest their own money. For one thing, that's what I've been doing for
the past 25+ years.

That's great! I have too. But it would grow a lot faster if we could
add our SS deduction (or a good part of it) to what we already
contribute. As it stands, you have to divert a portion of your income
that would otherwise be used for other uses, into your IRA or 401K
above and beyond what the government takes from you by mandate.

If the main purpose of SS is to provide for a person's retirement,
then it makes no sense to not utilize an investment program which will
guarantee a much higher long term return on their investment.


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.

So why do you want the gov't to take an *increased* role by making the
SS system more complex?

It doesn't have to be "more complex". You divert a portion of your SS
withholding into a private interest bearing account. Check yes or no.

Why do you want the gov't to take charge of your
savings, and "encourage" savings by shaving it off SS taxes.

I'd rather they allow me to just put the SS money into my existing
401K. But I know that some people are irresponsible and would not
invest wisely. Those people need the government to force them to save.
But in the long run they will have a larger nest egg to fall back on
come retirement.

.. creating
a shortfall which will have to be made up by more taxes.

Not necessarily.


... I'd rather
control my own destiny than have the government do it.

Good. Then save your money & invest it wisely.

While the government continues to drain a portion of my income to use
in something which stands a very good chance of not being there when I
need it in 20+ years? I'm sorry, but I'd rather have control over
that.


... I'm supporting
the IDEA, not getting hung up on the, as of yet, undefined details.


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

What part would you change?


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

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


Dave

Specific details have not been finalized yet.

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


Dave Hall wrote:
Who's backpededalling? I'm stating a fact.


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

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


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

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


A ponzi scheme that's heading for financial insolvency?


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



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


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


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

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

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


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

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



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

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

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

You should shop around before making statements like that.

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


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


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


What part would you change?

Other than all of it?

What makes sense would be to

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

2- increase the cap on SS taxes

3- decrease the actual percentages of SS tax

4- increase the allowed IRA deduction

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

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



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


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


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

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

DSK

DSK wrote:
Specific details have not been finalized yet.


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



Dave Hall wrote:

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


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

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


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


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



A ponzi scheme that's heading for financial insolvency?


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



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



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


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

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

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



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


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



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


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

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


You should shop around before making statements like that.

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


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


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



What part would you change?


Other than all of it?

What makes sense would be to

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

2- increase the cap on SS taxes

3- decrease the actual percentages of SS tax

4- increase the allowed IRA deduction

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

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



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



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


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

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

DSK


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

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

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

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 19:12:14 -0500, DSK wrote:

... 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.


Dave Hall wrote:
Specific details have not been finalized yet.

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

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



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

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

A ponzi scheme that's heading for financial insolvency?


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

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



Welfare Junkies

By Robert J. Samuelson
Thursday, March 24, 2005; Page A19

We are a nation of closet welfare junkies, which helps explain why we can't
have an honest debate about Social Security. Social Security and Medicare
are our biggest welfare programs, but because Americans regard "welfare" as
shameful, we've found other labels for them. We call them "social insurance"
or "entitlements." Anything but welfare. Democrats and Republicans alike
embrace the deception. No one wants to upset older voters. Well, if you
can't call something by its real name, you can't discuss it honestly.

Welfare is a governmental transfer from one group to another for the benefit
of those receiving. The transfer involves cash or services (health care,
education). We have welfare for the poor, the old, the disabled, farmers and
corporations. Social Security is mainly welfare. Workers' payroll taxes pay
the benefits of today's retirees. The taxes aren't "saved" for the workers'
own retirement. There have been huge disparities between taxes paid and
benefits received.

Ida May Fuller, the first retiree to receive benefits, in 1940, paid $24.75
and got almost a thousand times that ($22,888.92). In the 1950s and '60s,
many beneficiaries received 10 or more times the amount their payroll taxes
would have returned if invested in U.S. Treasury bonds and kept for retirees
(they weren't). Indeed, most beneficiaries who retired before 2000 have
received -- or will receive -- a surplus in benefits over what their taxes
would have returned if similarly invested, write Sylvester Schieber and John
Shoven in their history of Social Security, "The Real Deal." This surplus
now has a present value of almost $16 trillion, says Schieber, head of
research for the consulting firm Watson Wyatt Worldwide. (Shoven is a
Stanford University economist.)

Naturally, the elderly don't see themselves as freeloaders. They think
they've "earned" their Social Security benefits by paying payroll taxes. As
Schieber and Shoven note, the term "social insurance" dates to Bismarck in
19th-century Germany. But applying it to Social Security involved much
political license. In normal usage, insurance suggests protection against
something you don't expect to happen -- a house fire, a car accident. By
contrast, most people expect to grow old. Using the "terminology of
insurance . . . [was intended] to mask the huge welfare payments being
made," they write. People falsely believe they're "only getting what they
have paid for." That is even less true of Medicare. In 2006 the
Congressional Budget Office expects Medicare to cost $383 billion. Medicare
premiums (paid by recipients) pay 12 percent; payroll taxes, 49 percent;
general taxes and borrowing provide the rest.

This mass deception may seem harmless. After all, most Social Security
recipients have been responsible citizens and productive workers. Why accuse
them of living on government handouts? The answer is that today's myths
perpetuate unrealistic expectations and prevent honest debate. Americans
regard "earned benefits" and "welfare" differently. The first is a right,
the second a privilege. In theory, welfare should serve some public purpose
and not just enrich the recipients. By admitting that Social Security and
Medicare are welfare, we allow relevant questions to be raised. Do all
beneficiaries "need" or "deserve" their welfare? Is the cost "unfair" to
taxpayers or burdensome to the economy? Have the social and economic
conditions that originally justified the welfare changed?

For Social Security, they have. In 1935 Americans 65 and older were 6
percent of the population. They're now 12 percent and by 2030 are projected
to be 20 percent. Most Americans can now save for their own retirement,
including the cost of health insurance. The Social Security debate ought to
involve moral values and economic realities. How generous a "safety net" for
the elderly can a decent society afford without overtaxing the young or
harming the economy? How can changes be made without being too disruptive?
Instead, the debate has degenerated into an obscure technical exercise
focused on baffling accounting concepts (trust fund "solvency," "unfunded
liabilities").

Despite what you've heard, the real issue is not Social Security's
"solvency." It is the total cost to the government of baby boomers'
retirement, including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (which covers
much nursing home care). The real issue is preventing those costs from
becoming economically oppressive and politically poisonous. Even if the
Social Security trust fund is made permanently "solvent" -- in the sense
that taxes cover benefits -- the costs of all federal retirement programs
may still become undesirably high. In 2004 Social Security, Medicare and
Medicaid were 8 percent of national income. Left alone, they'll reach 14.5
percent by 2030, the Government Accountability Office projects. The CBO has
made a similar projection.

If these costs are too high (and I think they are), the only way to curb
them is to cut benefits. Neither Democrats nor Republicans want to face that
reality. President Bush's proposal for "personal accounts" diverts the
debate. To enhance their appeal, he promises to exempt anyone 55 or older
(anyone born in 1950 or earlier) from any benefit cuts. Some other proposals
lower the exemption to 45 (anyone born in 1960 or earlier). Well, that
covers most of the baby boom, which stretched from 1946 to 1964. If the real
problem is the baby boomers' retirement costs and you exempt baby boomers
from benefit cuts, then by definition you ignore the problem.

On these issues, we can't think straight unless we talk straight. We can't
control our welfare habit unless we admit our addiction. Don't hold your
breath.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Mar23.html



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.


That's the name of the thread.

So you admit that your suggestion is short sighted and lacks any sort
of innovation beyond the same status quo?


But to a tax and spend democrat, increasing taxes is a simple
solution.

Except that in this case, it's not "tax & spend." It's tax & already
spent.

When the "borrow & spend" Republicans finish their terms, we will have
all the gov't programs in the boat SS is headed for.

Irrelevant.


... 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.


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

That much is obvious, as there is no compounding of interest on the
return. It's more like an insurance policy. But it is supposed to
provide for people when they retire. A private 401K-type of account
would be a better alternative to a retirement income. And I'd rather
provide my own insurance. I don't want/need the government.


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.

Agreed. Your statements about Social Security, such as claiming that
Democrats want to spend the excess and comparing SS to investments, are
a total load of crap.

I never said anything about democrats spending the excess. Your
attempt to cloud the issue by splitting semantic hairs about what the
"purpose" of SS is and what it is supposed to be, is also noted.



... Your "sources" are mostly agenda driven.

Wrong. You are the one with an agenda, my "sources" are things like the
SSA itself... clearly a hotbed of liberal spinmeistering...

The SSA told you that Bush wants to line the pockets of Wall street
with the proceeds of his private accounts?


... Ask
yourself, why are you against people having their SS contributions
invested in a private interest bearing retirement account instead of
the current system?


Because people's SS tax payments are already committed paying for
benefits of those already retired.

By that logic, we will never be able to break out of this vicious
cycle then.

Again, SS is *not* an investment program.

But its primary purpose is as a supplemental retirement source.

Furthermore, this is a method of diverting tax money into private
pockets for profit.

*OUR* profit! What's wrong with that?

This is not the way I want the gov't to operate,
helping Wall St profit off citizen's taxes. It's not the way the
Founding Fathers wanted it to operate, either.

You don't know that, you're only parroting DNC pablum.

I would not have a problem with restructuring Social Security taxes &
benefits to bring the system into long term balance.... although the
imbalance is not going to happen for 20+ years anyway...

Yea, you won't have to worry so why care now right? That's the same
logic that owners of Hummers use when faced with the eventual
exhaustion of fossil fuels.


Certainly I don't have a problem with encouraging people to save and
invest their own money. For one thing, that's what I've been doing for
the past 25+ years.

That's great! I have too. But it would grow a lot faster if we could
add our SS deduction (or a good part of it) to what we already
contribute. As it stands, you have to divert a portion of your income
that would otherwise be used for other uses, into your IRA or 401K
above and beyond what the government takes from you by mandate.

If the main purpose of SS is to provide for a person's retirement,
then it makes no sense to not utilize an investment program which will
guarantee a much higher long term return on their investment.


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.

So why do you want the gov't to take an *increased* role by making the
SS system more complex?

It doesn't have to be "more complex". You divert a portion of your SS
withholding into a private interest bearing account. Check yes or no.

Why do you want the gov't to take charge of your
savings, and "encourage" savings by shaving it off SS taxes.

I'd rather they allow me to just put the SS money into my existing
401K. But I know that some people are irresponsible and would not
invest wisely. Those people need the government to force them to save.
But in the long run they will have a larger nest egg to fall back on
come retirement.

.. creating
a shortfall which will have to be made up by more taxes.

Not necessarily.


... I'd rather
control my own destiny than have the government do it.

Good. Then save your money & invest it wisely.

While the government continues to drain a portion of my income to use
in something which stands a very good chance of not being there when I
need it in 20+ years? I'm sorry, but I'd rather have control over
that.


... I'm supporting
the IDEA, not getting hung up on the, as of yet, undefined details.


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

What part would you change?


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

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


Dave

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

Specific details have not been finalized yet.

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


Dave Hall wrote:
Who's backpededalling? I'm stating a fact.


Uh huh. What details have been announced turn out to have powerful
negative implications

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


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

Which details have been finalized then? Prove me wrong.

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

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


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

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


A ponzi scheme that's heading for financial insolvency?


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

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


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


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


1- Benefits have already been cut, and are already scheduled to be cut
more in the future.

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


2- Do I have to explain where the profit comes in again? This would make
the fourth or fifth time, and it's really very simple.

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

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

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


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


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

No, it is supposed to be security when poor people retire, or when
working class families have some type of disaster.

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

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

It's not supposed to
prop up the middle class credit card life style, which would have been
considered the height of idiotic folly back when Social Security was
enacted.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

You should shop around before making statements like that.

Been there done that. Not a problem.

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


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

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

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

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



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


What part would you change?

Other than all of it?

What makes sense would be to

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

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


2- increase the cap on SS taxes

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

3- decrease the actual percentages of SS tax

I like that.


4- increase the allowed IRA deduction

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


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

Yea, but reducing payments will negate its purpose.


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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

I can go on if you want.

Dave

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 14:21:02 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


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

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

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

The "fixes" in the 80's only moved the inevitable back 20 or so years.
That's not a "fix", it's only a band-aid.

The plan is set up such that it can't be fixed without digging deeper
into everyone's pockets. It needs to be scrapped and a new plan put
into place. The problem is that there are people currently receiving
benefits who put into the plan and deserve them. The only way to keep
most people happy is through a "phased" approach. The president's plan
touches on this strategy. The end result should be a gradual weaning
of people from government dependency, and on to private retirement
accounts of their own choosing.

Dave

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 10:49:37 -0500, "P.Fritz"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 19:12:14 -0500, DSK wrote:

... 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.


Dave Hall wrote:
Specific details have not been finalized yet.

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

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



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

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

A ponzi scheme that's heading for financial insolvency?


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

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



Welfare Junkies

By Robert J. Samuelson
Thursday, March 24, 2005; Page A19

We are a nation of closet welfare junkies, which helps explain why we can't
have an honest debate about Social Security. Social Security and Medicare
are our biggest welfare programs, but because Americans regard "welfare" as
shameful, we've found other labels for them. We call them "social insurance"
or "entitlements." Anything but welfare. Democrats and Republicans alike
embrace the deception. No one wants to upset older voters. Well, if you
can't call something by its real name, you can't discuss it honestly.

Welfare is a governmental transfer from one group to another for the benefit
of those receiving. The transfer involves cash or services (health care,
education). We have welfare for the poor, the old, the disabled, farmers and
corporations. Social Security is mainly welfare. Workers' payroll taxes pay
the benefits of today's retirees. The taxes aren't "saved" for the workers'
own retirement. There have been huge disparities between taxes paid and
benefits received.

Ida May Fuller, the first retiree to receive benefits, in 1940, paid $24.75
and got almost a thousand times that ($22,888.92). In the 1950s and '60s,
many beneficiaries received 10 or more times the amount their payroll taxes
would have returned if invested in U.S. Treasury bonds and kept for retirees
(they weren't). Indeed, most beneficiaries who retired before 2000 have
received -- or will receive -- a surplus in benefits over what their taxes
would have returned if similarly invested, write Sylvester Schieber and John
Shoven in their history of Social Security, "The Real Deal." This surplus
now has a present value of almost $16 trillion, says Schieber, head of
research for the consulting firm Watson Wyatt Worldwide. (Shoven is a
Stanford University economist.)

Naturally, the elderly don't see themselves as freeloaders. They think
they've "earned" their Social Security benefits by paying payroll taxes. As
Schieber and Shoven note, the term "social insurance" dates to Bismarck in
19th-century Germany. But applying it to Social Security involved much
political license. In normal usage, insurance suggests protection against
something you don't expect to happen -- a house fire, a car accident. By
contrast, most people expect to grow old. Using the "terminology of
insurance . . . [was intended] to mask the huge welfare payments being
made," they write. People falsely believe they're "only getting what they
have paid for." That is even less true of Medicare. In 2006 the
Congressional Budget Office expects Medicare to cost $383 billion. Medicare
premiums (paid by recipients) pay 12 percent; payroll taxes, 49 percent;
general taxes and borrowing provide the rest.

This mass deception may seem harmless. After all, most Social Security
recipients have been responsible citizens and productive workers. Why accuse
them of living on government handouts? The answer is that today's myths
perpetuate unrealistic expectations and prevent honest debate. Americans
regard "earned benefits" and "welfare" differently. The first is a right,
the second a privilege. In theory, welfare should serve some public purpose
and not just enrich the recipients. By admitting that Social Security and
Medicare are welfare, we allow relevant questions to be raised. Do all
beneficiaries "need" or "deserve" their welfare? Is the cost "unfair" to
taxpayers or burdensome to the economy? Have the social and economic
conditions that originally justified the welfare changed?

For Social Security, they have. In 1935 Americans 65 and older were 6
percent of the population. They're now 12 percent and by 2030 are projected
to be 20 percent. Most Americans can now save for their own retirement,
including the cost of health insurance. The Social Security debate ought to
involve moral values and economic realities. How generous a "safety net" for
the elderly can a decent society afford without overtaxing the young or
harming the economy? How can changes be made without being too disruptive?
Instead, the debate has degenerated into an obscure technical exercise
focused on baffling accounting concepts (trust fund "solvency," "unfunded
liabilities").

Despite what you've heard, the real issue is not Social Security's
"solvency." It is the total cost to the government of baby boomers'
retirement, including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (which covers
much nursing home care). The real issue is preventing those costs from
becoming economically oppressive and politically poisonous. Even if the
Social Security trust fund is made permanently "solvent" -- in the sense
that taxes cover benefits -- the costs of all federal retirement programs
may still become undesirably high. In 2004 Social Security, Medicare and
Medicaid were 8 percent of national income. Left alone, they'll reach 14.5
percent by 2030, the Government Accountability Office projects. The CBO has
made a similar projection.

If these costs are too high (and I think they are), the only way to curb
them is to cut benefits. Neither Democrats nor Republicans want to face that
reality. President Bush's proposal for "personal accounts" diverts the
debate. To enhance their appeal, he promises to exempt anyone 55 or older
(anyone born in 1950 or earlier) from any benefit cuts. Some other proposals
lower the exemption to 45 (anyone born in 1960 or earlier). Well, that
covers most of the baby boom, which stretched from 1946 to 1964. If the real
problem is the baby boomers' retirement costs and you exempt baby boomers
from benefit cuts, then by definition you ignore the problem.

On these issues, we can't think straight unless we talk straight. We can't
control our welfare habit unless we admit our addiction. Don't hold your
breath.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Mar23.html


That was insightful. That pretty much sums up how I feel about SS. SS
does seem to be more like an insurance policy than an investment
account. You pay in, and if you die, your beneficiary gets SS. If you
make it to retirement, you get an annuity. If you die at 65 alone, you
put in for nothing, but others benefitted from your contribution.

As the life expectance increases, the length of time that a retired
person potentially can expect payment from SS also increases. This
just adds to the problem. For SS to continue, the government would
have to hope that people collect less than they put in. Recent trends
would seem to predict the opposite.

Dave

Dave Hall wrote:
You want basic facts? I'll give them to you.

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


Wrong. Social Security is not headed for "insolvency" for who knows how
long. Since the changes in policy from the early 1990s, the date (2041)
at which Social Security tax revenue dips below benefits payouts has
moved ahead. In other words, current policy (established by a largely
non-partisan board) is working.

Fact #1b- President Bush's proposed plan does *nothing* to change the
potential imbalance between SS revenue & payouts.

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


Fact #2b- President Bush's proposed "private SS accounts" will be gov't
supervised.

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


Fact #3b- people generally don't like paying taxes. Some people have
such a paranoid hatred of any tax that they will invent all sorts of
ridiculous slander.


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


So why don't you move to Galveston?

BTW there are a number of problems with Galveston's program. For one
thing, it does not provide the type of insurance coverage SS does... for
another, it is available *only* to county employees, not every
citizen... a limited pool with more secure incomes, limited risk
exposure, etc etc.


I can go on if you want.


Suit yourself. Your "facts" are pretty much the same as always... what
shred of truth is occasionally found has been slanted heavily towards
your irrational prejudices.

And don't forget fact #6- Social Security does not change the basic
reality that saving & investing your own money wisely is the best means
to providing a secure future for your family. President Bush's plan
doesn't change that either, nor does it encourage it much.

DSK

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 09:30:41 -0500, DSK wrote:


And don't forget fact #6- Social Security does not change the basic
reality that saving & investing your own money wisely is the best means
to providing a secure future for your family. President Bush's plan
doesn't change that either, nor does it encourage it much.

DSK

Ahh, finally. A comment that makes some sense.

The problem with those in the lower end of the income spectrum is that they
don't have the extra money to save and invest wisely. They do, however, have the
money to put into Social Security, because they have no choice.

Giving them a choice of where their SS money goes allows them the option of
saving and investing wisely.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."