"John H" wrote in message
...
On 12 Apr 2005 20:12:14 -0700, wrote:

All of those "plans" are laughable.


We need to get the money away from the government
***********

Prior to Social Security, most older people lived in abject poverty.
Many were forced to live with their adult kids- like it or not. From
this perspective, old-age benefits are part of the social safety net
legitimately provided by Social Security.

Nothing stops anybody from investing considerable sums of money, often
in tax advantaged or tax deferred programs, for retirement. Folks who
hope or expect to live as well in retirement as they do when working
will certainly need to make such investments throughout their working
career. Why is it necessary to gut social security in the process?

Chuck, that isn't the money under discussion. The money being discussed is
that
which the government takes from our checks for Social Security. If I could
invest it and get a better return, why shouldn't I be able to? If I could
pass
the savings on to my children, why shouldn't I be able to?

All the IRA, 401k, and 403b plans are great - for those who can take
advantage
of them. But whether an individual can or cannot take advantage of them is
beside the point. The point is the return on the money the government
takes for
Social Security.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

By John Carlisle

In the ongoing debate over Social Security, AARP may claim that its mission
is to defend the elderly, but its use of manipulative polls and inaccurate
ads to needlessly frighten the public about the merits of reform raises
serious questions about its tactics.
Moreover, while AARP says private stocks are too risky for individuals
to invest their retirement savings, the multibillion organization has no
problem making millions off those same "risky" investments.
As evidence for the alleged unpopularity of private accounts backed by
President Bush, AARP cites a poll it conducted in March that showed that 59
percent of the organization's 35 million members oppose the proposal.
However, the poll is suspect because it was framed in such a way as to
maximize a negative response. For example, 29 percent of AARP members
initially said they liked the idea of diverting up to $1,300 into private
accounts. These respondents were then asked a series of loaded questions,
such as "What if you heard that creating private accounts out of Social
Security funds will put more of your retirement savings at risk?" This was
followed up with language such as private accounts "will create winners and
losers" and "could mean cuts in everyone's Social Security benefits." Not
surprisingly, most of the respondents who supported private accounts changed
their minds.
AARP plays other games with polls to get the answers it wants. One poll
reported that the general public is opposed to private accounts by a margin
of 48 percent to 43 percent. However, the poll was skewed to maximize the
representation of demographic groups that tend to oppose the plan. To begin
with, the survey did not even sample people under 30 who comprise the most
pro-reform group. On the other hand, people over 60, the most skeptical of
private accounts, constituted 34 percent of the survey, even though they
made up just 24 percent of voters in the 2004 election. Likewise, the poll
sampled 37 percent Democrats and 31 percent Republicans. In 2004,
Republicans and Democrats each constituted 37 percent of the electorate.
......................................

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20050...3809-2917r.htm

On 14 Apr 2005 08:22:41 -0700, wrote:

As long as you consider SS a welfare system, then there's little point
in a
discussion.

For many folks, SS *is* a large chunk of retirement income, if not all
of it.
Perhaps that wasn't the intent, but it's a fact.


*******************

Social Security isn't a welfare program as much as it is an insurance
program.
Using my 4-year-old nephew as an example- if his father had not paid
into social securit for 35 years he wouldn't be eligible for benefits.
Like any other insurance, you pay your preminums and then if X, Y, or Z
happens you collect benefits.

If you get too old or sick for productive employment, social security
will provide you with a subsistence lifestyle. There are certain
medical standards to meet before you can claim you are "too sick" to
work, as well as age requirements to meet before you can claim you are
"too old".. Those who want to retire in luxury, or even relative
comfort, have always needed to make financial arrangements far beyond
the scope of social security.

Pardon me if I don't trust Bush's motives in this matter. Throughout
his presidency, he has sought to dismantle the social safety net in the
US. Step one, of course, is to make a lot of noise about "faith based"
social services and propose taking the money currently funding the
social safety net and giving it to churches. If he can accomplish that,
it's a short and easy little hop to "The government shouldn't be
funding churches!" Voila- with the elimination of all welfare and
social support systems he will have freed up a walloping 12 percent of
the national budget (that can instead be diverted to defense
contractors or turned into tax cuts for the top 2-3% of wage earners).

While Bush and his cronies make a lot of noise about taking the
responsibility for social services away from the government and giving
it to a group of (approved, naturally) churches they are failing to
recognize a short sighted aspect of their plan. The poor, the disabled,
the mentally ill are in less need of "welfare" that curches and
families may be able to better provide than they are social justice-
and that *is* the business of government in a democracy.

Pardon me if I see some of the DSK techniques showing up here. You start with
one argument and now it's something totally different.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

Why is the government providing insurance?

We have private companies that will ensure your risk for much cheaper than
the government.


wrote in message
ups.com...
As long as you consider SS a welfare system, then there's little point
in a
discussion.

For many folks, SS *is* a large chunk of retirement income, if not all
of it.
Perhaps that wasn't the intent, but it's a fact.


*******************

Social Security isn't a welfare program as much as it is an insurance
program.
Using my 4-year-old nephew as an example- if his father had not paid
into social securit for 35 years he wouldn't be eligible for benefits.
Like any other insurance, you pay your preminums and then if X, Y, or Z
happens you collect benefits.

If you get too old or sick for productive employment, social security
will provide you with a subsistence lifestyle. There are certain
medical standards to meet before you can claim you are "too sick" to
work, as well as age requirements to meet before you can claim you are
"too old".. Those who want to retire in luxury, or even relative
comfort, have always needed to make financial arrangements far beyond
the scope of social security.

Pardon me if I don't trust Bush's motives in this matter. Throughout
his presidency, he has sought to dismantle the social safety net in the
US. Step one, of course, is to make a lot of noise about "faith based"
social services and propose taking the money currently funding the
social safety net and giving it to churches. If he can accomplish that,
it's a short and easy little hop to "The government shouldn't be
funding churches!" Voila- with the elimination of all welfare and
social support systems he will have freed up a walloping 12 percent of
the national budget (that can instead be diverted to defense
contractors or turned into tax cuts for the top 2-3% of wage earners).

While Bush and his cronies make a lot of noise about taking the
responsibility for social services away from the government and giving
it to a group of (approved, naturally) churches they are failing to
recognize a short sighted aspect of their plan. The poor, the disabled,
the mentally ill are in less need of "welfare" that curches and
families may be able to better provide than they are social justice-
and that *is* the business of government in a democracy.

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
The very concept of right-wing religious organizations replacing societal
responsibility for our brothers and sisters is repugnant as soon as anyone
is forced to listen to a religious spiel.

The government is not society regardless of how much you want it to be.

The religious organizations are more in tune with society and are therefore
a better option to providing help at the community level.

It's the same reason why I fought so hard to get my polling place in
Florida removed from a damned fundie church to a public facility, such as
a school or a firehouse and actually went to the expense of having my
lawyer there write up and file a civil complaint.

Mostlikely a unionized firehouse!

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, "P.Fritz" wrote:

OT post snipped!

Off topic to rec.boats. This isn't wrecked.boats. Post complaints or
comments to the appropriate newsgroup. Not here.

Remember, this is a boating newsgroup. OT posting is not welcome and is
unappreciated.

If you still feel compelled to post OT, seek professional help.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
is unverified. You need a valid hashcash token to post to groups other
than alt.test and alt.anonymous.messages. Visit www.panta-rhei.dyndns.org
for abuse and hashcash info.

wrote in message
ups.com...
As long as you consider SS a welfare system, then there's little point
in a
discussion.

For many folks, SS *is* a large chunk of retirement income, if not all
of it.
Perhaps that wasn't the intent, but it's a fact.


*******************

Social Security isn't a welfare program as much as it is an insurance
program.
Using my 4-year-old nephew as an example- if his father had not paid
into social securit for 35 years he wouldn't be eligible for benefits.
Like any other insurance, you pay your preminums and then if X, Y, or Z
happens you collect benefits.

If you get too old or sick for productive employment, social security
will provide you with a subsistence lifestyle. There are certain
medical standards to meet before you can claim you are "too sick" to
work, as well as age requirements to meet before you can claim you are
"too old".. Those who want to retire in luxury, or even relative
comfort, have always needed to make financial arrangements far beyond
the scope of social security.

Pardon me if I don't trust Bush's motives in this matter. Throughout
his presidency, he has sought to dismantle the social safety net in the
US. Step one, of course, is to make a lot of noise about "faith based"
social services and propose taking the money currently funding the
social safety net and giving it to churches. If he can accomplish that,
it's a short and easy little hop to "The government shouldn't be
funding churches!" Voila- with the elimination of all welfare and
social support systems he will have freed up a walloping 12 percent of
the national budget (that can instead be diverted to defense
contractors or turned into tax cuts for the top 2-3% of wage earners).

While Bush and his cronies make a lot of noise about taking the
responsibility for social services away from the government and giving
it to a group of (approved, naturally) churches they are failing to
recognize a short sighted aspect of their plan. The poor, the disabled,
the mentally ill are in less need of "welfare" that curches and
families may be able to better provide than they are social justice-
and that *is* the business of government in a democracy.



You can buy a lot better long term / life insurance policy for a lot less
money than SS takes out. One that would pay your children / widow more
money and would even give you a nice retirement annuity after 45 years of
working. SS is now just an extra tax. Has kept the government going for
at least 40 years. Was why the last administration could declare an almost
balanced budget. LBJ and his cronies figured out they could get a lot more
federal income with out a tax raise by raising the SS payouts in some future
years while raising the pay in then. If you are going to have SS then
nobody should be exempt from paying. State employees, Federal legislators,
etc. as it is now, a state employee is exempt from paying and then retires
from the state, and works for private industry for about 10 quarters. Then
is fully vested. The time may be longer or shorter, but is in the ballpark.
And the stock market over it's history has returned about 9% average. Is
why most insurance companies and annuity providers keep money in the market.
Where is the money we paid last year in excess to
SS benefits, taxes invested?

"I hate OT posts" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, John H wrote:

OT post snipped!

Off topic to rec.boats. This isn't wrecked.boats. Post complaints or
comments to the appropriate newsgroup. Not here.

Remember, this is a boating newsgroup. OT posting is not welcome and is
unappreciated.

If you still fill compelled to post OT, seek professional help.



Take your own advice.

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, "Jim," wrote:

OT post snipped!

Off topic to rec.boats. This isn't wrecked.boats. Post complaints or
comments to the appropriate newsgroup. Not here.

Remember, this is a boating newsgroup. OT posting is not welcome and is
unappreciated.

If you still feel compelled to post OT, seek professional help.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
is unverified. You need a valid hashcash token to post to groups other
than alt.test and alt.anonymous.messages. Visit www.panta-rhei.dyndns.org
for abuse and hashcash info.

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, "Bill McKee" wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
As long as you consider SS a welfare system, then there's little point
in a
discussion.

For many folks, SS *is* a large chunk of retirement income, if not all
of it.
Perhaps that wasn't the intent, but it's a fact.


*******************

Social Security isn't a welfare program as much as it is an insurance
program.
Using my 4-year-old nephew as an example- if his father had not paid
into social securit for 35 years he wouldn't be eligible for benefits.
Like any other insurance, you pay your preminums and then if X, Y, or Z
happens you collect benefits.

If you get too old or sick for productive employment, social security
will provide you with a subsistence lifestyle. There are certain
medical standards to meet before you can claim you are "too sick" to
work, as well as age requirements to meet before you can claim you are
"too old".. Those who want to retire in luxury, or even relative
comfort, have always needed to make financial arrangements far beyond
the scope of social security.

Pardon me if I don't trust Bush's motives in this matter. Throughout
his presidency, he has sought to dismantle the social safety net in the
US. Step one, of course, is to make a lot of noise about "faith based"
social services and propose taking the money currently funding the
social safety net and giving it to churches. If he can accomplish that,
it's a short and easy little hop to "The government shouldn't be
funding churches!" Voila- with the elimination of all welfare and
social support systems he will have freed up a walloping 12 percent of
the national budget (that can instead be diverted to defense
contractors or turned into tax cuts for the top 2-3% of wage earners).

While Bush and his cronies make a lot of noise about taking the
responsibility for social services away from the government and giving
it to a group of (approved, naturally) churches they are failing to
recognize a short sighted aspect of their plan. The poor, the disabled,
the mentally ill are in less need of "welfare" that curches and
families may be able to better provide than they are social justice-
and that *is* the business of government in a democracy.



You can buy a lot better long term / life insurance policy for a lot less
money than SS takes out. One that would pay your children / widow more
money and would even give you a nice retirement annuity after 45 years of
working. SS is now just an extra tax. Has kept the government going for
at least 40 years. Was why the last administration could declare an almost
balanced budget. LBJ and his cronies figured out they could get a lot more
federal income with out a tax raise by raising the SS payouts in some future
years while raising the pay in then. If you are going to have SS then
nobody should be exempt from paying. State employees, Federal legislators,
etc. as it is now, a state employee is exempt from paying and then retires
from the state, and works for private industry for about 10 quarters. Then
is fully vested. The time may be longer or shorter, but is in the ballpark.
And the stock market over it's history has returned about 9% average. Is
why most insurance companies and annuity providers keep money in the market.
Where is the money we paid last year in excess to
SS benefits, taxes invested?

Off topic to rec.boats. This isn't wrecked.boats. Post complaints or
comments to the appropriate newsgroup. Not here.

Remember, this is a boating newsgroup. OT posting is not welcome and is
unappreciated.

If you still feel compelled to post OT, seek professional help.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
is unverified. You need a valid hashcash token to post to groups other
than alt.test and alt.anonymous.messages. Visit www.panta-rhei.dyndns.org
for abuse and hashcash info.