On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 21:29:40 -0500, DSK wrote:

If you find this offensive, I suggest you re-examine your core values.
An agenda that relies on deceit & ignorance is not a good path for America.



John H wrote:
You keep managing to snip this:

"In other words, certain Republicans lie like a rug in order to fool
people like you & JohnH & Nobby etc etc into voting for them, again and
again."

Cute.

Why are you blaming me for the current administration's mendacity? I was
merely restating what your pal "Bert Robbins" said.

BTW You're the one who keeps proclaiming the superiority of the
Bush/Cheney Administration, but cannot state one accomplishment of
theirs. And you also keep proclaiming how you're "winning."

DSK

I've blamed you for nothing other than your post. Show me where I've *ever*
proclaimed the superiority of anything. I think the administration has made
several mistakes. I don't just yap a bunch of horse **** about it, however.

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 21:35:01 -0500, HarryKrause wrote:

DSK wrote:
If you find this offensive, I suggest you re-examine your core
values. An agenda that relies on deceit & ignorance is not a good
path for America.



John H wrote:

You keep managing to snip this:
"In other words, certain Republicans lie like a rug in order to fool
people like you & JohnH & Nobby etc etc into voting for them, again
and again."

Cute.


Why are you blaming me for the current administration's mendacity? I was
merely restating what your pal "Bert Robbins" said.

BTW You're the one who keeps proclaiming the superiority of the
Bush/Cheney Administration, but cannot state one accomplishment of
theirs. And you also keep proclaiming how you're "winning."

DSK


If he doesn't, his army pension checks will stop.

I think Obsession was a perfume.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

BTW You're the one who keeps proclaiming the superiority of the
Bush/Cheney Administration, but cannot state one accomplishment of
theirs. And you also keep proclaiming how you're "winning."


John H wrote:
I've blamed you for nothing other than your post.

In that case, you should acknowledge that my post was in agreement with
"Bert's." Nothing insulting about it at all.

... Show me where I've *ever*
proclaimed the superiority of anything. I think the administration has made
several mistakes. I don't just yap a bunch of horse **** about it, however.


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

DSK

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 07:02:58 -0500, DSK wrote:

BTW You're the one who keeps proclaiming the superiority of the
Bush/Cheney Administration, but cannot state one accomplishment of
theirs. And you also keep proclaiming how you're "winning."


John H wrote:
I've blamed you for nothing other than your post.

In that case, you should acknowledge that my post was in agreement with
"Bert's." Nothing insulting about it at all.

... Show me where I've *ever*
proclaimed the superiority of anything. I think the administration has made
several mistakes. I don't just yap a bunch of horse **** about it, however.


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

DSK

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

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

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
Jeff Rigby wrote:
"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...

Jeff Rigby wrote:

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...


Jeff Rigby wrote:


"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...



Jeff Rigby wrote:




It's been my observation that most of the really successful Blacks

are

because of their grandparents.


It's been my observation that "most of the really successful Blacks"

are

because (sic) of their hard work, just like most successful whites.

What a wonderfully mind-expanding forum this is.

One of our friends just finished her medical residency at a nearby
teaching hospital. She's 36 or 37, orphaned while a young teen,
grandparents on another continent, and a single mom. She had foster
parents who provided her with shelter until she was 18 and then she
left. On her own ever since. Oh, and she's black. She got to where
she
is today by working her butt off.

Ke-rist.


It's a given that successful means they worked their tails off.
Where

did


this woman get her values? Some life lesson made a difference. You

are

not


talking about an American here who grew up in the black culture. In

any

case well done to her.




She's as American as I am. She was born in the Boston area and grew up
in Roxbury, which for many years has been a pretty grim area.

I've encountered a great number of "really successful Blacks" in my
life. They're successful because their parents imbued them with the
proper values and because of that, they worked hard to get where they
are. Just like most successful white folks. I believe your
"grandparents
factor" is a canard. I'm not saying that solid grandparents aren't a
help for any kid of any color, but to state that most black success is
due to grandparents is more than a little racist.


Where do you get racist? To say that grandparents are a critical

resource t

o our society and that they are being wasted when they retire to
Florida

is

racist?? My example occurs with ALL peoples but it is most apparent

with

blacks. Hmm, that's where you call it racist, I call it reality.

Blacks

ARE disadvantaged and discriminated against because of many factors,

they

earn less and have to work harder. THUS they have less time to raise

their

children, grandparent are needed more in that situation.

Because some parents do a good job and have time and energy to properly
devote to their children does not obviate my point.



Your intent was quite clear. Your implication was that black parents
could not raise their children, and that black grandparents did the job.
Now you come up with a rationalization.


Harry, obviously my intent was not clear to YOU. You have that left
mentality that jumps to the conclusion that all on the right are racist.
It's also been my observation that Democrats are MORE racist than
republicans that there is more racism in the north than in the south. I
can
argue this point and win, there are documented studies that support this
observation.

Now why did I say that. Because you struck a sore point with me Harry.
Racism and bigotry are the purview of the ignorant. You called me
ignorant
Harry and that's the pot calling the kettle black.



Thanks for the laugh.

Your welcome Harry, thanks for the adrenaline rush.

Really, you need to watch your tendency toward rudeness. It marks you as a
northerner grin..

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.

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.

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.

DSK

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 21:30:56 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:30:23 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


Dave Hall wrote:



I want you to explain to the class how diverting a portion of the SS
tax money, already being collected, into a privately maintained (and
interest bearing) account would increase spending? The money is
already coming in, and it stands to earn a larger return for the
individual over the long term.

Now, the only thing that would suffer is the general SS fund. But if
you reduce the SS fund pay out to the people who opted to use the
private accounts, it should turn out to be a wash. Unless of course,
you are one of those government types who like to raid the SS fund for
projects not related to SS. If that money is no longer available to
be raided, then I guess it will cause spending in other areas to
increase. But they shouldn't be raiding SS in the first place.

Dave


Even Bush admits that private funds will do nothing to help the current
projected shortfall; in fact additional funds will be needed to make up
for that money diverted to private funds.


You make up for the money diverted by reducing the benefits to those
who put into the private accounts.

Money diverted to private accounts will only hasten the need for the SS
administration to start cashing in bonds.



Face it -- the REAL reason for the 'crisis" (and I have a hard time
accepting the term "crisis" for something 30-50 years down the road, is
that the money is already spent.


It is, in many ways, a pyramid scheme.



Comes time for the SS administration
to start cashing bonds (or as Bush described them "worthless scraps of
paper"), the government has to either come up with money or default.
Given the bonds held by foreigners, default would equal disaster.


Which is why I cringe when I hear democrats describe SS benefits as
"guaranteed", when they try to scare seniors and other people into
opposing private accounts. A private 401K has a better guarantee than
the SS fund, considering the fragile nature of the program.

So Bonds, guaranteed by the "Full Faith and Credit of the US" are worthless?

No, they're not "worthless", but there are no guarantees that you or I
will ever see the proceeds of them. I have no control at all over the
SS or what the government may choose to do with it. I do have some
control over a private account.

Dave

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 13:56:45 -0500, DSK wrote:

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.


Dave Hall wrote:
Please explain how this happens?


It's very very simple, Dave. How do you think they choose which Wall St
firms get to handle the new accounts?

I don't know. Maybe long term performance? Longevity? Stability?

Does it really matter as long as the return on investment for the
citizen is improved?


Regarding the comparison of Bush's SS proposal to the 401K plans.... if
the goal was to increase people's ownership of their retirement (as is
claimed) then the same thing could be accomplished by increasing the
allowed 401K deduction and lowering SS taxes. Very simple, but it
doesn't steer that money into the "right" pockets.


Dave Hall wrote:
That's pretty much the plan.

No it isn't. Not even close!

How is it different from a typical IRA or 401K?


... 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".

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?


Dave Hall wrote:
Liberals have to demonize this plan to put people in charge of their
own retirement planning by spinning it as a windfall for
wall-streeters, simply because investment firms usually manage such
plans. The fee for managing a 401K is usually much less than interest
earned, so you're still ahead of the game.


Does that change the *fact* that the Wall St'rs involved are now getting
a gov't mandated profit from Social Security dollars, which will have to
be replaced by further gov't spending?


Post your "facts".

It's very simple, Dave (see above).

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?


... 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. If everyone has a 401K, why the need for SS at all? The
people stand to expect a better long term benefit, there is no chance
that the government can "raid" the fund for pork projects.


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?


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"?


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


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?


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.


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


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.

Dave

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

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 21:35:09 -0500, DSK wrote:

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


Dave Hall wrote:
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.


You should totally skip on paying *all* your tax obligations. The
gov'mint just wastes all your money anyway. Just think how much you
could save!

Believe me, I'd like that, if I could.

Taxes are collected all wrong anyway. I pay the most to the federal
government, then the state, and the least to the locals. Yet I gain
the most direct benefit from the locals, then the states, and I get
the very least from the feds.

Dave

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.

... 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."

"John H" wrote in message
...
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.

As well as accumulating wealth that can be passed to heirs.

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

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.



John H wrote:
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.

Speak for yourself.

Except for the very lowest rungs of the economic ladder, it is fully
possible to save & invest.

It does require the self discipline to live within (or even below) one's
means. Solid investment advice is available for free at the nearest
public library... again, though, that requires self-discipline.

I see that you mix your "conservatism" with socialism, not having the
guts to drink it straight. Or to put it another way, you are only
willing to apply your moral principles when it's convenient.



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

So, you don't believe that people currently have a choice with their
money? Is this a capitalist country, or what?

DSK

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 11:44:55 -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.



John H wrote:
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.

Speak for yourself.

Except for the very lowest rungs of the economic ladder, it is fully
possible to save & invest.

And for those who can't?


It does require the self discipline to live within (or even below) one's
means. Solid investment advice is available for free at the nearest
public library... again, though, that requires self-discipline.

Self discipline and sufficient income. Yes, for those with extra money to
invest, advice is everywhere. That's not the issue.

I see that you mix your "conservatism" with socialism, not having the
guts to drink it straight. Or to put it another way, you are only
willing to apply your moral principles when it's convenient.

That paragraph makes little sense, other than as some sort of put down.

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

So, you don't believe that people currently have a choice with their
money? Is this a capitalist country, or what?

People currently have no choice as to the investment of their SS money.

DSK

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

Except for the very lowest rungs of the economic ladder, it is fully
possible to save & invest.


John H wrote:
And for those who can't?


You want the gummint to step in and coddle people who don't have the
self-discipline to provide for themselves?



It does require the self discipline to live within (or even below) one's
means. Solid investment advice is available for free at the nearest
public library... again, though, that requires self-discipline.


Self discipline and sufficient income. Yes, for those with extra money

That's ridiculous. Nobody has "extra money." Not you, me, not poor
people, nor millionaires. There is only the self-discipline to live
within your means, and save, and the lack of that self-discipline.

... to
invest, advice is everywhere.

Including bad advice. That's why the public library is a great place to
start... costs nothing, nobody trying to sell you anything, no vested
interests pushing their "plan."




People currently have no choice as to the investment of their SS money.


And there is no reason why the people should have yet another intrusive
gov't program that takes money away from them. If you want the people to
have choice, why not let them keep that money in the first place?

A reduction in SS taxes would be better all the way around.... except
that President Bush could not then funnel that money into the "right"
pockets...

DSK

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 16:54:10 -0500, DSK wrote:

Except for the very lowest rungs of the economic ladder, it is fully
possible to save & invest.


John H wrote:
And for those who can't?


You want the gummint to step in and coddle people who don't have the
self-discipline to provide for themselves?



It does require the self discipline to live within (or even below) one's
means. Solid investment advice is available for free at the nearest
public library... again, though, that requires self-discipline.


Self discipline and sufficient income. Yes, for those with extra money

That's ridiculous. Nobody has "extra money." Not you, me, not poor
people, nor millionaires. There is only the self-discipline to live
within your means, and save, and the lack of that self-discipline.

I guess we can do away with *any* form of welfare then.

... to
invest, advice is everywhere.

Including bad advice. That's why the public library is a great place to
start... costs nothing, nobody trying to sell you anything, no vested
interests pushing their "plan."

And just as much bad advice, except it's 'free' bad advice.


People currently have no choice as to the investment of their SS money.


And there is no reason why the people should have yet another intrusive
gov't program that takes money away from them. If you want the people to
have choice, why not let them keep that money in the first place?

Who said anything about 'another' program taking money? Same program, same
money. Just goes to a different place.


A reduction in SS taxes would be better all the way around.... except
that President Bush could not then funnel that money into the "right"
pockets...

I'd go for that, but those without the discipline to put the money into
investments would be in the same shape they're in now.

I realize you can't discuss without making your Bush attacks. So, I'll stop now.
Go ahead, say your piece. You'll get the last word, as O'Reilly says/

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:
I guess we can do away with *any* form of welfare then.


???

I don't see the connection between the gov't propping up credit-card
addicted middle class idiots & welfare... which BTW has been "ended as
we know it" for aboud a decade. Isn't it time you updated your prejudices?



.. the public library is a great place to
start... costs nothing, nobody trying to sell you anything, no vested
interests pushing their "plan."


And just as much bad advice, except it's 'free' bad advice.


And therefor doesn't start you off in the hole.

The fact that nobody at at the library is deliberately trying to sell
you an investment program or plan... which of course is profitable to
them, but not necessarily to you.... is the biggest reason to start there.


People currently have no choice as to the investment of their SS money.



That's largely because it's not invested.

And there is no reason why the people should have yet another intrusive
gov't program that takes money away from them. If you want the people to
have choice, why not let them keep that money in the first place?


Who said anything about 'another' program taking money? Same program, same
money. Just goes to a different place.

Does SS manage private investment accounts now?

Shake your head no

Will they under Bush's plan?

Nod your head yes.

Does that mean that the gov't is doing something new that it didn't do
before?

Nod your head yes.

Do you genuinely think that this is going to make the gov't department
involved smaller (which is supposedly one of Bush's few conservative
principles)?



A reduction in SS taxes would be better all the way around.... except
that President Bush could not then funnel that money into the "right"
pockets...


I'd go for that, but those without the discipline to put the money into
investments would be in the same shape they're in now.

And your point is?


I realize you can't discuss without making your Bush attacks.

You seem to think that pointing out facts is attacking President Bush.

DSK

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 11:44:55 -0500, DSK wrote:


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.

Speak for yourself.

Except for the very lowest rungs of the economic ladder, it is fully
possible to save & invest.

It does require the self discipline to live within (or even below) one's
means. Solid investment advice is available for free at the nearest
public library... again, though, that requires self-discipline.

Which many people lack.


I see that you mix your "conservatism" with socialism, not having the
guts to drink it straight. Or to put it another way, you are only
willing to apply your moral principles when it's convenient.


It's not socialism in the truest sense. Socialism relies on the
government to provide to the "needy". In this scenario, the government
would only be mandating individual savings. That way, when you retire,
YOU are providing your income and NOT the government.



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

So, you don't believe that people currently have a choice with their
money? Is this a capitalist country, or what?

Some people make poor choices. Then they cry to the government when
they fall on their faces. THose of us, who make good choices, are then
asked to dig deeper in our pockets to "help" those who can't or refuse
to plan wisely. This is an unfair burden to those who are responsible
in their affairs.

Mandating that people save their own money for retirement provides
money for them at no extra cost to the other taxpayers.

Dave

I see that you mix your "conservatism" with socialism, not having the
guts to drink it straight. Or to put it another way, you are only
willing to apply your moral principles when it's convenient.



Dave Hall wrote:
It's not socialism in the truest sense.

And that makes it OK?

You are in favor of socialism when you find it convenient for yourself,
and condemn socialism harshly at all other times.

If you find this fact about your beliefs and principles uncomfortable,
maybe you should do some thinking.



Mandating that people save their own money for retirement provides
money for them at no extra cost to the other taxpayers.


In other words, the gov't should force people to save up for a rainy
day, regardless of their income level (in fact, this program mandates
that those with large incomes save less)... just like legislating
morality, you now believe that we should legislate financial judgement &
self-discipline.

Now tell me again, which political party is in favor of not intruding on
people's lives and maintaining Constitutional freedoms?

DSK

He's all yours, Dave. I can't put up with his deluge of ridiculous assertions.

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 08:49:01 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 11:44:55 -0500, DSK wrote:


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.

Speak for yourself.

Except for the very lowest rungs of the economic ladder, it is fully
possible to save & invest.

It does require the self discipline to live within (or even below) one's
means. Solid investment advice is available for free at the nearest
public library... again, though, that requires self-discipline.

Which many people lack.


I see that you mix your "conservatism" with socialism, not having the
guts to drink it straight. Or to put it another way, you are only
willing to apply your moral principles when it's convenient.


It's not socialism in the truest sense. Socialism relies on the
government to provide to the "needy". In this scenario, the government
would only be mandating individual savings. That way, when you retire,
YOU are providing your income and NOT the government.



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

So, you don't believe that people currently have a choice with their
money? Is this a capitalist country, or what?

Some people make poor choices. Then they cry to the government when
they fall on their faces. THose of us, who make good choices, are then
asked to dig deeper in our pockets to "help" those who can't or refuse
to plan wisely. This is an unfair burden to those who are responsible
in their affairs.

Mandating that people save their own money for retirement provides
money for them at no extra cost to the other taxpayers.

Dave

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 12:27:39 -0500, DSK wrote:

I see that you mix your "conservatism" with socialism, not having the
guts to drink it straight. Or to put it another way, you are only
willing to apply your moral principles when it's convenient.



Dave Hall wrote:
It's not socialism in the truest sense.

And that makes it OK?

It does when you don't understand socialism as you apparently don't.


You are in favor of socialism when you find it convenient for yourself,
and condemn socialism harshly at all other times.

I am not in favor of socialism at any time. I am in favor of making
people independent of the need for government handouts at the expense
of other people (Which IS socialism). Social security in its present
form is basically socialism. Putting that same money into individual
accounts is not.

If you find this fact about your beliefs and principles uncomfortable,
maybe you should do some thinking.

Maybe you should follow your own advice.

Mandating that people save their own money for retirement provides
money for them at no extra cost to the other taxpayers.


In other words, the gov't should force people to save up for a rainy
day, regardless of their income level (in fact, this program mandates
that those with large incomes save less)... just like legislating
morality, you now believe that we should legislate financial judgement &
self-discipline.

The government already takes that money from us in the form of SS
(Which is more akin to socialism). By placing that money instead, in
an individual private account, that money belongs to the individual,
not to the government, and will be available for them to tap when they
retire, or to leave to their dependents when they die. The biggest
benefit is that this money is outside of the governmental till, and
the need for people to tap the government for aid, will lessen,
meaning less socialism, as people are depending on their own income.



Now tell me again, which political party is in favor of not intruding on
people's lives and maintaining Constitutional freedoms?


The republicans of course. We'd rather make people independent from
the need for government handouts.

Dave