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