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