And please answer the question... just exactly *who* are you accusing of
"living large" on Social Security?



Bill McKee wrote:
You and your side are the ones saying it is the national retirement plan and
you get a good return on you money.

Baloney. Can you make an intelligent statement without setting up a
straw man to attack? Provide one quote where I said any such thing. And
I don't have a side, since nobody has ever proposed doing what I think
would be sensible.

What *has* been said about Social Security: It will be in the black for
the next 20+ years. It's long term solvency looks better now than 5
years ago. Some potential solutions for the distant future cash-flow
imbalance would be to cut benefits and/or raise the salary cap 9this
would also reduce the regressiveness of the tax).


... And the plan put
forward by Bush allows you to either leave the tax money in SS (WHICH THE
GOVERNMENT IS HAPPILY SPENDING NOW) or put part in a private investment
account. You do not get to keep and spend the money each month like a raise
in pay.


So you're in favor of Bush's "plan"? And can you explain how this "plan"
is supposed to fix Social Security? Do you feel that it offers such a
great improvement that it's worth increasing U.S. deficit spending?

BTW if the Social Security Trust Fund did not buy US treasuries, then
Bush would be borrowing yet more from the Chinese. And the stock market
gives better returns but is also prone to crash from time to time. So
far Uncle Sam has not defaulted on the national debt. So the SS trust is
invested in lower returns but much much more secure. Do you think this
is bad?

And when are you going to answer the question: who exactly is "living
large" on Social Security?

If you can't answer these questions with at least an attempt at honesty,
then why should anybody take your opinions seriously?

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
And please answer the question... just exactly *who* are you accusing of
"living large" on Social Security?



Bill McKee wrote:
You and your side are the ones saying it is the national retirement plan
and you get a good return on you money.

Baloney. Can you make an intelligent statement without setting up a straw
man to attack? Provide one quote where I said any such thing. And I don't
have a side, since nobody has ever proposed doing what I think would be
sensible.

What *has* been said about Social Security: It will be in the black for
the next 20+ years. It's long term solvency looks better now than 5 years
ago. Some potential solutions for the distant future cash-flow imbalance
would be to cut benefits and/or raise the salary cap 9this would also
reduce the regressiveness of the tax).

How about the government get out of the business of providing insurance and
retirement programs. Then the government will have to stop spending the SS
tax money like drunken sailors every year!

Bert Robbins wrote:
How about the government get out of the business of providing insurance and
retirement programs.

That would suit me just fine.

... Then the government will have to stop spending the SS
tax money like drunken sailors every year!


Considering that "the government" doesn't spend the SS tax money at all,
you can consider this already done.

You know, you Bush supporters shouldn't work so hard at making brainless
statements. Is stupidty really that seductive for you all?

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
And please answer the question... just exactly *who* are you accusing of
"living large" on Social Security?



Bill McKee wrote:
You and your side are the ones saying it is the national retirement plan
and you get a good return on you money.

Baloney. Can you make an intelligent statement without setting up a straw
man to attack? Provide one quote where I said any such thing. And I don't
have a side, since nobody has ever proposed doing what I think would be
sensible.

What *has* been said about Social Security: It will be in the black for
the next 20+ years. It's long term solvency looks better now than 5 years
ago. Some potential solutions for the distant future cash-flow imbalance
would be to cut benefits and/or raise the salary cap 9this would also
reduce the regressiveness of the tax).


... And the plan put forward by Bush allows you to either leave the tax
money in SS (WHICH THE GOVERNMENT IS HAPPILY SPENDING NOW) or put part in
a private investment account. You do not get to keep and spend the money
each month like a raise in pay.

So you're in favor of Bush's "plan"? And can you explain how this "plan"
is supposed to fix Social Security? Do you feel that it offers such a
great improvement that it's worth increasing U.S. deficit spending?

BTW if the Social Security Trust Fund did not buy US treasuries, then Bush
would be borrowing yet more from the Chinese. And the stock market gives
better returns but is also prone to crash from time to time. So far Uncle
Sam has not defaulted on the national debt. So the SS trust is invested in
lower returns but much much more secure. Do you think this is bad?

And when are you going to answer the question: who exactly is "living
large" on Social Security?

If you can't answer these questions with at least an attempt at honesty,
then why should anybody take your opinions seriously?

DSK



Living large: one example: Any body who put very little in to the "trust
Fund" and is getting a nice sized check is living large. 10 quarters is all
you have to contribute if I remember correctly. State employee 40 years, 3
years in industry, nice check. At least Bush is proposing a fix. Under
the last administration SS was in trouble in 10 years, and now it is 20
years. The way it is going, we are going to be like France. They are
having public employee strikes over the governments attempts to fix their
retirement system. In 25 years, there will be only 2 workers in France for
each retiree. You want to just keep raising the money collected by SS while
not paying out for even more years. What kind of fix is that?

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:
How about the government get out of the business of providing insurance
and retirement programs.

That would suit me just fine.

... Then the government will have to stop spending the SS tax money like
drunken sailors every year!

Considering that "the government" doesn't spend the SS tax money at all,
you can consider this already done.

You know, you Bush supporters shouldn't work so hard at making brainless
statements. Is stupidty really that seductive for you all?

DSK


Where does the government not spend the SS money? Is the reason that
Congress and President Clinton could declare a surplus in the budget. They
do not buy treasuries with the money, they just issue an IOU. If there were
government bonds in a depository, then there would be a "trust fund".

Bill McKee wrote:
"DSK" wrote in message
...

Bert Robbins wrote:

How about the government get out of the business of providing insurance
and retirement programs.

That would suit me just fine.


... Then the government will have to stop spending the SS tax money like
drunken sailors every year!

Considering that "the government" doesn't spend the SS tax money at all,
you can consider this already done.

You know, you Bush supporters shouldn't work so hard at making brainless
statements. Is stupidty really that seductive for you all?

DSK



Where does the government not spend the SS money? Is the reason that
Congress and President Clinton could declare a surplus in the budget. They
do not buy treasuries with the money, they just issue an IOU. If there were
government bonds in a depository, then there would be a "trust fund".


See http://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/investheld.cgi

For a listing of government bonds held by the SS administration, and
interest paid on same.

Jim, wrote:

Bill McKee wrote:

"DSK" wrote in message
...

Bert Robbins wrote:

How about the government get out of the business of providing
insurance and retirement programs.


That would suit me just fine.


... Then the government will have to stop spending the SS tax money
like drunken sailors every year!


Considering that "the government" doesn't spend the SS tax money at
all, you can consider this already done.

You know, you Bush supporters shouldn't work so hard at making
brainless statements. Is stupidty really that seductive for you all?

DSK



Where does the government not spend the SS money? Is the reason that
Congress and President Clinton could declare a surplus in the budget.
They do not buy treasuries with the money, they just issue an IOU. If
there were government bonds in a depository, then there would be a
"trust fund".

See http://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/investheld.cgi

For a listing of government bonds held by the SS administration, and
interest paid on same.

Addendum to the above (Quoted)

The average interest rate, weighted by the amount invested at each rate,
is 5.492 percent at the end of December 2004. Similarly, the average
number of years to maturity, weighted by the amounts maturing, is 7.237
years.

A little ways from the 3% quoted by Bush

Bill McKee wrote:
Living large: one example: Any body who put very little in to the "trust
Fund" and is getting a nice sized check is living large.

OK, I guess that part was easy.

For myself, I don't think Social Security provides *anybody* with the
means to "live large" but then I'm accustomed to a standard of living
wherein a 5 course meal doesn't include peanut butter.


.. At least Bush is proposing a fix.

Is he? The proposal I've seen increases the deficit, shortens the time
to Social Security going bust, and does nothing to redress long term
Social Security cash flow imbalances.

If you look back in several other threads, you'll see how difficult it
is to defend President Bush's Social Security proposal(s) from a
standpoint of fiscal common sense. If OTOH you want to see a lot of Wall
St money kicked back to pro-Bush campaign coffers (used to be simply
Republican, but now the Rove-Bush team has begun attacking many fellow
Repubs), then it's easy to defend.

DSK

Bill McKee wrote:
Where does the government not spend the SS money?

(sigh) Is that what you consider an intelligent answer? "The gov't" does
not spend Social Security money. Period.

... Is the reason that
Congress and President Clinton could declare a surplus in the budget.

A big part of it, yes. Another big reason is that they did not stage a
futile invasion of another country, handing out gazillions of
unaccounted for dollars (not to mention hundreds of millions in gouging,
fraud, & kickbacks, to a company run by the Vice President). A billion
here, a billion there, it adds up.


... They
do not buy treasuries with the money, they just issue an IOU.

Another favorite lie from the people who'd like to do for Social
Security what they did for airport security, anti-terrorism, intel ops,
etc etc.

Fact: The Social Security Trust Fund buys *only* debt issued by the U.S.
Treasury.

Fact: This is the safest investment in the world

Fact: The tax income from Social Security is no more "spent by the
gov't" than you spend your neighbor's mortgage payment, if you use the
same bank.


... If there were
government bonds in a depository, then there would be a "trust fund".


WTF do you think the U.S. Treasury is?

You have yet to make ONE sensible or factual statement. Yet you stick
your head further in the sand, digging deeper for those fatuous lies to
prop up your stupid prejudices. I sincerely hope that you do not call
yourself a "conservative" because you're just as big an embarassment as
NOBBY, John H, and Dave Hall. Welcome to the club.

Bye bye, unless you have a BOATING related comment.

DSK

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
ink.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:
How about the government get out of the business of providing insurance
and retirement programs.

That would suit me just fine.

... Then the government will have to stop spending the SS tax money like
drunken sailors every year!

Considering that "the government" doesn't spend the SS tax money at all,
you can consider this already done.

You know, you Bush supporters shouldn't work so hard at making brainless
statements. Is stupidty really that seductive for you all?

DSK


Where does the government not spend the SS money? Is the reason that
Congress and President Clinton could declare a surplus in the budget.
They do not buy treasuries with the money, they just issue an IOU. If
there were government bonds in a depository, then there would be a "trust
fund".

Free hint to the clueless liebral.......Johnson melded the FICA tax into the
genereal fund......there is no "Social Security Trust Fund" That is a
liebral myth.