"DSK" wrote in message
...
Bill McKee wrote:
You can buy and invest the annual amount of SS contributions and get a
much better return. SS has an annual return of -0.1%. Pretty easy to
beat that return.


True, but Social Security is not an investment program.

Is this a red herring to distract yourself from your previous outright
lies? Just a little misdirection and obfuscation, it always helps doesn't
it...




Who exactly is "living large" on Social Security?


And you apparently can't answer this question, either.

DSK



You are beyond comprehending. Go back to the first person who retired on
SS. She paid in about $26.30 and got back thousands. She is one of the
last people to get this big a return.

Again you miss the point... Social Security is not an investment program.

If you want to paint Social Security as a failure, try something other
than blatant lies and not-so-artful misdirection.

Who exactly is "living large" on Social Security?

DSK


I always said it was not an investment proigram. As well as not the
national retirement program.

Bill McKee wrote:
I always said it was not an investment proigram.

Then why do you keep comparing it to investment programs, and talking
about "returns"?

Can you not discuss the issue without some kind of inherent dishonesty
in your approach? Or would that leave the only option of abandoning your
preconceived "solutions"?

... As well as not the
national retirement program.


You're right, it isn't... except for those who are either too poor or
too dumb to save up for their own future. Your point is... ??

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

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Bill McKee wrote:
I always said it was not an investment proigram.

Then why do you keep comparing it to investment programs, and talking
about "returns"?

Can you not discuss the issue without some kind of inherent dishonesty in
your approach? Or would that leave the only option of abandoning your
preconceived "solutions"?

... As well as not the national retirement program.

You're right, it isn't... except for those who are either too poor or too
dumb to save up for their own future. Your point is... ??

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

DSK


You and your side are the ones saying it is the national retirement plan and
you get a good return on you money. Neither is true. 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.

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
...
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".

"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.

I will detail how the government spends the SS tax money because you aren't
smart enough to figure it out yourself.

1) The government extracts 15% of my income and puts it into the "Social
Security Trust Fund".
2) The government takes my 15% and gives the "Social Security Trust Fund" an
IOU in the form of a Treasury Note or Bond.
3) My 15% is now in the general account of the government.
4) The government appropriates that 15% to be used for the what ever program
they desire to spend it on.
5) The government can decide to retire Treasure Notes or Bonds with my 15%
but, the Treasury Notes or Bonds that are in the "Social Security Trust
Fund" are not retired with my 15%.

The only thing in the "Social Security Trust Fund" is a pile of IOUs. IOUs
are not money. IOUs are a promise to repay money.

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

I'm sure that you and your ilk can answer that question better than us.

"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?

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