|
Little for Bush to Savor in Latest Social Security Polling
I've already signed on to the Bush plan. Effective last month, I no longer
send my FICA money to the Feds. I have created a private investment account. When audited, I intend to call Mr. Bush as my first witness for the defense. "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... Little for Bush to Savor in Latest Social Security Polling Still "no" to private investment accounts by Lydia Saad GALLUP NEWS SERVICE PRINCETON, NJ -- The news for President George W. Bush on Social Security is not good. His approval ratings on Social Security are the worst they have been all year, and more Americans have faith in the Democrats than in the Republicans to deal with the issue. A majority of Americans continue to oppose private investment accounts -- Bush's core idea for addressing the Social Security system. And while a majority of Americans acknowledge Bush has proposed a Social Security plan, fewer describe it as a clear plan. Decidedly Weak Approval on Social Security According to the June 24-26, 2005, CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, only 31% of Americans approve of Bush's handling of Social Security; 64% disapprove. That amounts to a -33 net approval rating on Social Security, which is lower than where he stood even a month ago, and is substantially lower than results from earlier in the year. Bush's declining ratings on Social Security are possibly part of a larger pattern that is not directly related to his specific performance on the issue. His dwindling support on Social Security parallels a decline in his overall job approval rating, and is similar to the trend seen for his handling of the economy and Iraq. No to Private Investment Accounts Still, the important fact remains that a majority of Americans seem resistant to Bush's idea of establishing private investment accounts within the Social Security system -- at least as Gallup describes that idea. Fifty-three percent of Americans say they oppose a proposal that would "allow workers to invest part of their Social Security taxes in the stock market or in bonds, while the rest of those taxes would remain in the Social Security system." Just 44% favor this. These results are nearly identical to those measured in late April. Party affiliation presents the biggest distinctions in support for private accounts. About two-thirds of Republicans (69%) favor the idea, while three-quarters of Democrats (74%) and a majority of independents (59%) oppose it. But the differences are almost as stark according to the age of respondents. Adults under age 50 generally favor the idea while those 50 and older oppose it. Not Even an "A" for Effort Bush gets moderate credit from Americans for having proposed a plan for addressing the Social Security system. Two-thirds (67%) acknowledge he has a plan, compared with less than half (47%) who say the same of the Democrats in Congress. However, only a quarter of Americans believe Bush has proposed a clear plan, leaving a great deal of room for improvement on this front. Republicans might hope that Bush's Social Security initiative leaves Democrats vulnerable to being seen as obstructing the issue -- opposing Bush's plan without having one of their own. However, Americans still choose the Democrats over the Republicans as the party they trust more to deal with Social Security retirement benefits. Survey Methods These results are based on telephone interviews with a randomly selected national sample of 1,009 adults, aged 18 and older, conducted June 24-26, 2005. For results based on this sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum error attributable to sampling and other random effects is ±3 percentage points. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls. -- If it is Bad for Bush, It is Good for the United States. |
"HarryKrause" wrote in message ... Fifty-three percent of Americans say they oppose a proposal that would "allow workers to invest part of their Social Security taxes in the stock market or in bonds, while the rest of those taxes would remain in the Social Security system." Just 44% favor this. These results are nearly identical to those measured in late April. I wonder how these numbers compare to the percentages of people with at least some money in the stock market or mutual funds? Party affiliation presents the biggest distinctions in support for private accounts. About two-thirds of Republicans (69%) favor the idea, while three-quarters of Democrats (74%) and a majority of independents (59%) oppose it. No big surprise there. Dems want the government to take care of them...and Republicans want to be responsible for themselves. Every issue in politics seems to come down to who can create the most effective scare tactic ads on any given subject. New ideas are inherently easy to target...because people fear the unknown. But the differences are almost as stark according to the age of respondents. Adults under age 50 generally favor the idea while those 50 and older oppose it. No surprise again. The over-50's will get their money either way. Us under-50's will get screwed...and we know it. Not Even an "A" for Effort Bush gets moderate credit from Americans for having proposed a plan for addressing the Social Security system. Two-thirds (67%) acknowledge he has a plan, compared with less than half (47%) who say the same of the Democrats in Congress. So that means the majority trusts the status-quo...which is scary since even the Dems have said that social security is in trouble. Just goes to show how uninformed some people are. They think the problems will go away if they just stick their heads n the sand and pretend that they don't exist. |
"NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... I've already signed on to the Bush plan. Effective last month, I no longer send my FICA money to the Feds. I have created a private investment account. When audited, I intend to call Mr. Bush as my first witness for the defense. No need to worry, Democrats' own mood poll scares them http://washingtontimes.com/upi/20050...5428-8801r.htm With the party made up of buffons like harry and kevin, and led by dean.....it is no surprise "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... Little for Bush to Savor in Latest Social Security Polling Still "no" to private investment accounts by Lydia Saad GALLUP NEWS SERVICE PRINCETON, NJ -- The news for President George W. Bush on Social Security is not good. His approval ratings on Social Security are the worst they have been all year, and more Americans have faith in the Democrats than in the Republicans to deal with the issue. A majority of Americans continue to oppose private investment accounts -- Bush's core idea for addressing the Social Security system. And while a majority of Americans acknowledge Bush has proposed a Social Security plan, fewer describe it as a clear plan. Decidedly Weak Approval on Social Security According to the June 24-26, 2005, CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, only 31% of Americans approve of Bush's handling of Social Security; 64% disapprove. That amounts to a -33 net approval rating on Social Security, which is lower than where he stood even a month ago, and is substantially lower than results from earlier in the year. Bush's declining ratings on Social Security are possibly part of a larger pattern that is not directly related to his specific performance on the issue. His dwindling support on Social Security parallels a decline in his overall job approval rating, and is similar to the trend seen for his handling of the economy and Iraq. No to Private Investment Accounts Still, the important fact remains that a majority of Americans seem resistant to Bush's idea of establishing private investment accounts within the Social Security system -- at least as Gallup describes that idea. Fifty-three percent of Americans say they oppose a proposal that would "allow workers to invest part of their Social Security taxes in the stock market or in bonds, while the rest of those taxes would remain in the Social Security system." Just 44% favor this. These results are nearly identical to those measured in late April. Party affiliation presents the biggest distinctions in support for private accounts. About two-thirds of Republicans (69%) favor the idea, while three-quarters of Democrats (74%) and a majority of independents (59%) oppose it. But the differences are almost as stark according to the age of respondents. Adults under age 50 generally favor the idea while those 50 and older oppose it. Not Even an "A" for Effort Bush gets moderate credit from Americans for having proposed a plan for addressing the Social Security system. Two-thirds (67%) acknowledge he has a plan, compared with less than half (47%) who say the same of the Democrats in Congress. However, only a quarter of Americans believe Bush has proposed a clear plan, leaving a great deal of room for improvement on this front. Republicans might hope that Bush's Social Security initiative leaves Democrats vulnerable to being seen as obstructing the issue -- opposing Bush's plan without having one of their own. However, Americans still choose the Democrats over the Republicans as the party they trust more to deal with Social Security retirement benefits. Survey Methods These results are based on telephone interviews with a randomly selected national sample of 1,009 adults, aged 18 and older, conducted June 24-26, 2005. For results based on this sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum error attributable to sampling and other random effects is ±3 percentage points. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls. -- If it is Bad for Bush, It is Good for the United States. |
I would have to agree with this poll. Both the Republicans and the
Dumacrats suck. The Republicans just suck less. "P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... I've already signed on to the Bush plan. Effective last month, I no longer send my FICA money to the Feds. I have created a private investment account. When audited, I intend to call Mr. Bush as my first witness for the defense. No need to worry, Democrats' own mood poll scares them http://washingtontimes.com/upi/20050...5428-8801r.htm With the party made up of buffons like harry and kevin, and led by dean.....it is no surprise "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... Little for Bush to Savor in Latest Social Security Polling Still "no" to private investment accounts by Lydia Saad GALLUP NEWS SERVICE PRINCETON, NJ -- The news for President George W. Bush on Social Security is not good. His approval ratings on Social Security are the worst they have been all year, and more Americans have faith in the Democrats than in the Republicans to deal with the issue. A majority of Americans continue to oppose private investment accounts -- Bush's core idea for addressing the Social Security system. And while a majority of Americans acknowledge Bush has proposed a Social Security plan, fewer describe it as a clear plan. Decidedly Weak Approval on Social Security According to the June 24-26, 2005, CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, only 31% of Americans approve of Bush's handling of Social Security; 64% disapprove. That amounts to a -33 net approval rating on Social Security, which is lower than where he stood even a month ago, and is substantially lower than results from earlier in the year. Bush's declining ratings on Social Security are possibly part of a larger pattern that is not directly related to his specific performance on the issue. His dwindling support on Social Security parallels a decline in his overall job approval rating, and is similar to the trend seen for his handling of the economy and Iraq. No to Private Investment Accounts Still, the important fact remains that a majority of Americans seem resistant to Bush's idea of establishing private investment accounts within the Social Security system -- at least as Gallup describes that idea. Fifty-three percent of Americans say they oppose a proposal that would "allow workers to invest part of their Social Security taxes in the stock market or in bonds, while the rest of those taxes would remain in the Social Security system." Just 44% favor this. These results are nearly identical to those measured in late April. Party affiliation presents the biggest distinctions in support for private accounts. About two-thirds of Republicans (69%) favor the idea, while three-quarters of Democrats (74%) and a majority of independents (59%) oppose it. But the differences are almost as stark according to the age of respondents. Adults under age 50 generally favor the idea while those 50 and older oppose it. Not Even an "A" for Effort Bush gets moderate credit from Americans for having proposed a plan for addressing the Social Security system. Two-thirds (67%) acknowledge he has a plan, compared with less than half (47%) who say the same of the Democrats in Congress. However, only a quarter of Americans believe Bush has proposed a clear plan, leaving a great deal of room for improvement on this front. Republicans might hope that Bush's Social Security initiative leaves Democrats vulnerable to being seen as obstructing the issue -- opposing Bush's plan without having one of their own. However, Americans still choose the Democrats over the Republicans as the party they trust more to deal with Social Security retirement benefits. Survey Methods These results are based on telephone interviews with a randomly selected national sample of 1,009 adults, aged 18 and older, conducted June 24-26, 2005. For results based on this sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum error attributable to sampling and other random effects is ±3 percentage points. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls. -- If it is Bad for Bush, It is Good for the United States. |
NOYB wrote:
I've already signed on to the Bush plan. Effective last month, I no longer send my FICA money to the Feds. I have created a private investment account. When audited, I intend to call Mr. Bush as my first witness for the defense. That's a great idea, one of the few things I agree with you on. The problem is that President Bush has a history of refusing to testify. In fact, it's such a good idea that I've been doing it for years, except to avoid trouble with the IRS, I've been diverting my own money into a private investment account. The result is that we should have a retirement income of about 6X what Social Security is going to pay us. Work hard, get ahead, save up against a rainy day... it used to be American family values. DSK |
"HarryKrause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... Fifty-three percent of Americans say they oppose a proposal that would "allow workers to invest part of their Social Security taxes in the stock market or in bonds, while the rest of those taxes would remain in the Social Security system." Just 44% favor this. These results are nearly identical to those measured in late April. I wonder how these numbers compare to the percentages of people with at least some money in the stock market or mutual funds? I'm in favor of private accounts, and they'd be here already if Bush had presented them properly. All that was needed was an expansion and relaxation of IRA and 401k plans and contributions, funded by enabling a dollar for dollar deduction off of income taxes due. I agree. But we should get to keep some of the FICA that we currently pay out if we're never going to get Social Security anyhow. That's all Bush is proposing. |
"NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... Fifty-three percent of Americans say they oppose a proposal that would "allow workers to invest part of their Social Security taxes in the stock market or in bonds, while the rest of those taxes would remain in the Social Security system." Just 44% favor this. These results are nearly identical to those measured in late April. I wonder how these numbers compare to the percentages of people with at least some money in the stock market or mutual funds? I'm in favor of private accounts, and they'd be here already if Bush had presented them properly. All that was needed was an expansion and relaxation of IRA and 401k plans and contributions, funded by enabling a dollar for dollar deduction off of income taxes due. I agree. But we should get to keep some of the FICA that we currently pay out if we're never going to get Social Security anyhow. That's all Bush is proposing. That will never happen. That plan would 1) take money out of the general revenue 2) Only benifit the rich The plan Bush proposed for the general public is what Congressional employees are getting now. A poll should ask if they would like the same plan government workers get. Most would vote for that plan. As soon as the Bush plan is mentioned they say no because the Democrats are very good at misleading their own. |
"DSK" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: I've already signed on to the Bush plan. Effective last month, I no longer send my FICA money to the Feds. I have created a private investment account. When audited, I intend to call Mr. Bush as my first witness for the defense. That's a great idea, one of the few things I agree with you on. The problem is that President Bush has a history of refusing to testify. In fact, it's such a good idea that I've been doing it for years, except to avoid trouble with the IRS, I've been diverting my own money into a private investment account. The result is that we should have a retirement income of about 6X what Social Security is going to pay us. Me too. But if I had an additional 12.4% of money that the Feds steal every year for social security, I'd have 10X what SS will pay me. Work hard, get ahead, save up against a rainy day... it used to be American family values. DSK |
"DSK" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: I've already signed on to the Bush plan. Effective last month, I no longer send my FICA money to the Feds. I have created a private investment account. When audited, I intend to call Mr. Bush as my first witness for the defense. That's a great idea, one of the few things I agree with you on. The problem is that President Bush has a history of refusing to testify. Most Presidents have a history of refusing to testify. The last one to actually testify in court, lied. |
Jeff Rigby wrote:
The plan Bush proposed for the general public is what Congressional employees are getting now. Except that it's not under Social Security. ... As soon as the Bush plan is mentioned they say no because the Democrats are very good at misleading their own. Isn't it odd, Democrats are a minority but a majority are against Bush's plan... so at least some Republicans must also be against it... Oh yes, it's definitely the Democrats that are misleading everybody on this issue... it was the Democrats who misrepresented whether Bush's plan would increase the deficit, as Alan Greenspan told Congress... no, that was President Bush, wasn't it... he said on TV that Greenspan testified it would *not* increase the deficit... It was the Democrats who mirepresented to everybody that Bush's plan will make the Social Security Trust run dry sooner... no wait, that's true, Bush plan *will* dring forward the date SST goes bust... Well it doesn't matter... everybody knows that Democrats are horrible America-hating terrorist-coddling fiscally irresponsible bad people. Just keep shouting that loudly from every window! DSK |
"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... Fifty-three percent of Americans say they oppose a proposal that would "allow workers to invest part of their Social Security taxes in the stock market or in bonds, while the rest of those taxes would remain in the Social Security system." Just 44% favor this. These results are nearly identical to those measured in late April. I wonder how these numbers compare to the percentages of people with at least some money in the stock market or mutual funds? I'm in favor of private accounts, and they'd be here already if Bush had presented them properly. All that was needed was an expansion and relaxation of IRA and 401k plans and contributions, funded by enabling a dollar for dollar deduction off of income taxes due. I agree. But we should get to keep some of the FICA that we currently pay out if we're never going to get Social Security anyhow. That's all Bush is proposing. That will never happen. That plan would 1) take money out of the general revenue 2) Only benifit the rich You're correct. And here's why: the rich pay the most money into the "general revenue". If you let them take their money out of the "general revenue", there wouldn't be much in there at the end of the day. But social security wasn't designed to be a program to redistribute wealth. And that is what it has become. No wonder the Dems like it so much...and the Republicans despise it. The plan Bush proposed for the general public is what Congressional employees are getting now. A poll should ask if they would like the same plan government workers get. Most would vote for that plan. As soon as the Bush plan is mentioned they say no because the Democrats are very good at misleading their own. "The Democrats are very good at misleading their own." ;-) ;-) ;-) |
"DSK" wrote in message ... Jeff Rigby wrote: The plan Bush proposed for the general public is what Congressional employees are getting now. Except that it's not under Social Security. ... As soon as the Bush plan is mentioned they say no because the Democrats are very good at misleading their own. Isn't it odd, Democrats are a minority but a majority are against Bush's plan... so at least some Republicans must also be against it... Oh yes, it's definitely the Democrats that are misleading everybody on this issue... it was the Democrats who misrepresented whether Bush's plan would increase the deficit, as Alan Greenspan told Congress... no, that was President Bush, wasn't it... he said on TV that Greenspan testified it would *not* increase the deficit... It was the Democrats who mirepresented to everybody that Bush's plan will make the Social Security Trust run dry sooner... no wait, that's true, Bush plan *will* dring forward the date SST goes bust... Well it doesn't matter... everybody knows that Democrats are horrible America-hating terrorist-coddling fiscally irresponsible bad people. Just keep shouting that loudly from every window! Why? In my neighborhood, I'd just be preaching to the choir. |
... But we should get to keep some of the FICA that we currently
pay out if we're never going to get Social Security anyhow. That's all Bush is proposing. Huh? Bush is proposing shutting off Social Security altogether? That's a new one. That will never happen. That plan would 1) take money out of the general revenue 2) Only benifit the rich That's right, heaven forbid that President Bush do anything that benefits only the rich! NOYB wrote: You're correct. And here's why: the rich pay the most money into the "general revenue". And here's why 'the rich' *should* pay the most money into the general revenue: they get most of the nation's income and control more than most of the nation's wealth. Doesn't it sound fair that they should pay a fair portion of the total tax bill? Somehow, that part of it never gets mentioned by pro-Bush 'conservatives.' But social security wasn't designed to be a program to redistribute wealth. Yes, it was. It was a redistribution program from day one, a Ponzi scheme... illegal for private citizens, but gov'ts get to make their own rules! And that is what it has become. No wonder the Dems like it so much...and the Republicans despise it. No, I think that many Republicans despise Social Security for the same reason they despise the French, because a lot of money has been spent to monopolize the airwaves, drumming those thoughts into everybody's head. Fortunately some of us can still think on our own. DSK |
Doesn't it sound fair that they should pay a fair portion of the total
tax bill? Kubez wrote: 5% of taxpayers paying 50% of all taxes is "a fair portion"? When that 5% of taxpayers receive 50% or more of all income in the nation, yes. DSK |
"DSK" wrote in message ... ... But we should get to keep some of the FICA that we currently pay out if we're never going to get Social Security anyhow. That's all Bush is proposing. Huh? Bush is proposing shutting off Social Security altogether? That's a new one. That will never happen. That plan would 1) take money out of the general revenue 2) Only benifit the rich That's right, heaven forbid that President Bush do anything that benefits only the rich! NOYB wrote: You're correct. And here's why: the rich pay the most money into the "general revenue". And here's why 'the rich' *should* pay the most money into the general revenue: they get most of the nation's income and control more than most of the nation's wealth. Doesn't it sound fair that they should pay a fair portion of the total tax bill? Somehow, that part of it never gets mentioned by pro-Bush 'conservatives.' But social security wasn't designed to be a program to redistribute wealth. Yes, it was. It was a redistribution program from day one, a Ponzi scheme... illegal for private citizens, but gov'ts get to make their own rules! And that is what it has become. No wonder the Dems like it so much...and the Republicans despise it. No, I think that many Republicans despise Social Security for the same reason they despise the French, because a lot of money has been spent to monopolize the airwaves, drumming those thoughts into everybody's head. Fortunately some of us can still think on our own. Or perhaps we despise it because of the reason you listed above: it's a system designed to redistribute wealth. |
... I think that many Republicans despise Social Security for the same
reason they despise the French, because a lot of money has been spent to monopolize the airwaves, drumming those thoughts into everybody's head. Fortunately some of us can still think on our own. NOYB wrote: Or perhaps we despise it because of the reason you listed above: it's a system designed to redistribute wealth. Are Republicans that stupid? On one level or another, *everything* is a system to redistribute the wealth. So, logically one would expect Republicans to hate everything... actually some Republicans talk as if they do hate everything including themselves & their country, but let's skip over that quickly... Any exchange of goods or services redistributes the wealth. Do you work for free? No? I don't either. So maybe you should rethink your position on this one. DSK |
"DSK" wrote in message ... ... I think that many Republicans despise Social Security for the same reason they despise the French, because a lot of money has been spent to monopolize the airwaves, drumming those thoughts into everybody's head. Fortunately some of us can still think on our own. NOYB wrote: Or perhaps we despise it because of the reason you listed above: it's a system designed to redistribute wealth. Are Republicans that stupid? On one level or another, *everything* is a system to redistribute the wealth. So, logically one would expect Republicans to hate everything... actually some Republicans talk as if they do hate everything including themselves & their country, but let's skip over that quickly... Any exchange of goods or services redistributes the wealth. Do you work for free? No? I don't either. So maybe you should rethink your position on this one. It's an *involuntary* redistribution of wealth. |
Any exchange of goods or services redistributes the wealth. Do you work
for free? No? I don't either. So maybe you should rethink your position on this one. NOYB wrote: It's an *involuntary* redistribution of wealth. That makes *slightly* more sense, except that it begs the question of what kind of wealth redistribution is truly voluntary. However, let's just toss out the fact that there are a LOT of things, like foreign aid and military budgets, that are also involuntary redistributions of the wealth. Before you start ranting about how much you hate foreign aid, let me point out that Pesident Bush just promised a large increase in foreign aid... DSK |
"DSK" wrote in message ... Any exchange of goods or services redistributes the wealth. Do you work for free? No? I don't either. So maybe you should rethink your position on this one. NOYB wrote: It's an *involuntary* redistribution of wealth. That makes *slightly* more sense, except that it begs the question of what kind of wealth redistribution is truly voluntary. However, let's just toss out the fact that there are a LOT of things, like foreign aid and military budgets, that are also involuntary redistributions of the wealth. Before you start ranting about how much you hate foreign aid, let me point out that Pesident Bush just promised a large increase in foreign aid... I hate foreign aid. Maybe he meant he was going to increase foreign AIDS? |
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 14:27:38 -0400, "Jeff Rigby" wrote:
"NOYB" wrote in message hlink.net... "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... Fifty-three percent of Americans say they oppose a proposal that would "allow workers to invest part of their Social Security taxes in the stock market or in bonds, while the rest of those taxes would remain in the Social Security system." Just 44% favor this. These results are nearly identical to those measured in late April. I wonder how these numbers compare to the percentages of people with at least some money in the stock market or mutual funds? I'm in favor of private accounts, and they'd be here already if Bush had presented them properly. All that was needed was an expansion and relaxation of IRA and 401k plans and contributions, funded by enabling a dollar for dollar deduction off of income taxes due. I agree. But we should get to keep some of the FICA that we currently pay out if we're never going to get Social Security anyhow. That's all Bush is proposing. That will never happen. That plan would 1) take money out of the general revenue 2) Only benifit the rich The plan Bush proposed for the general public is what Congressional employees are getting now. A poll should ask if they would like the same plan government workers get. Most would vote for that plan. As soon as the Bush plan is mentioned they say no because the Democrats are very good at misleading their own. You are almost totally correct. The public does not 'like' the plan because they've been fed a bunch of crap by a bunch of 'progressives'. The plan the government gets now is called the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) allows government employees to contribute, but the money is not reduced from their FICA. If the employees are under the old Civil Service Retirement System they don't pay FICA, but they can't draw Social Security. Under the Federal Employees Retirement System, the new plan, they do pay in to Social Security. But, they don't get a reduction in FICA for money paid to the TSP. On the other hand, FERS employees get a matching contribution (like a 401K) up to some small percent of their pay. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
Any exchange of goods or services redistributes the wealth.
Kubez wrote: Wrong. An exchange is just that: I trade my money for something I value or need, whether it's a steak or a DVD. Well, if it did not redistribute the wealth in some degree, then profit would be impossible. I realize that this is a difficult concept for one who thinks 'Economics In One Lesson' is the pinnacle of knowledge, but think about it a while, let it percolate. ... Redistribution means that my money is taken from me and nothing given in return Really? In that case, Social Security is NOT redistribution, because something is very definitely given in return. ... and the money is then given to someone else without them deserve it by providing a good or service. Really? Other people who have paid into Social Security should not be given benefits? That means your concept is basically to steal money from those who have already paid. If you tried working for free for a couple of months, you might understand what we've been talking about. If you tried to actually understand some basic economic principles, instead of deciding you already know everything, maybe you wouldn't sound like a nutcase. DSK |
John H wrote:
You are almost totally correct. The public does not 'like' the plan because they've been fed a bunch of crap by a bunch of 'progressives'. Really? You mean President Bush is now a 'progressive'? He seems to have done by far the most talking about his plan, and he has certainly been less than truthful (as I have already proved to the previous contestants). And now for a treat (this one took me by surprise)- The plan the government gets now is called the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) allows government employees to contribute, but the money is not reduced from their FICA. If the employees are under the old Civil Service Retirement System they don't pay FICA, but they can't draw Social Security. Under the Federal Employees Retirement System, the new plan, they do pay in to Social Security. But, they don't get a reduction in FICA for money paid to the TSP. On the other hand, FERS employees get a matching contribution (like a 401K) up to some small percent of their pay. DING DING DING we have a winner! Excellent post, John H, thanks for your clear & accurate explanation! DSK |
... Redistribution means that my
money is taken from me and nothing given in return Really? In that case, Social Security is NOT redistribution, because something is very definitely given in return. Kubez wrote: I don't consider generational warfare, fiscal shell games at the national level and loss of the control of my own destiny to be "something given in return". How about if they give you MONEY in return? You know, that green stuff? ... and the money is then given to someone else without them deserve it by providing a good or service. Really? Other people who have paid into Social Security should not be given benefits? That means your concept is basically to steal money from those who have already paid. Paid what? Taxes? You think the government is just going to give people TAX MONEY BACK? News flash, Cubey, they DO give money back. You say so yourself. Political & economic theories should be based on observed fact. If you are just spinning out fantasy, go talk to some of the other dwellers-on-distant-planets here in this newsgroup. I'm not interested. DSK |
How about if they give you MONEY in return? You know, that green
stuff? Kubez wrote: 1. Trading money for money illustrates the absurdity of SS. Really? That's what banks do all day long. Maybe you should tell them they're being absurd... or does your political agenda include wiping out banks? 2. 30 years later? What was that MLK said about delayed=denied? He was talking about social justice, and it had already been denied 30 years & more. Can we stick to one subject at a time? 3. If you die the day after you retire, you DON'T get ANY money. True. But if you live to be 100, you collect a lot more than you paid in, more than you'd have if you invested that same money wisely... looks like Social Security gives you incentive to keep up your health & live long... is this a bad thing IYHO? 4. I can do a damn better job of managing that money from today 'til the day I retire than the politicians can. Maybe, maybe not. I'd agree that it should be your right to do so (pretending you haven't made a lot of silly & stupid statements about shooting people). But that's not the way things work in the here & now... do you want to join reality? DSK |
1. Trading money for money illustrates the absurdity of SS.
Really? That's what banks do all day long. Kubez wrote: That's right... without waiting 30 years for repayment or risking losing it all if one of their shareholders dies. Huh? Never heard of a 30 year mortgage? Did they not mention that in 'Economics in 1 Lesson"? 3. If you die the day after you retire, you DON'T get ANY money. True. But if you live to be 100, you collect a lot more than you paid in, more than you'd have if you invested that same money wisely... Proven incontestably wrong by every study conducted. Really? How about a few references on that? Or can you truly not find your way back to the real world? And what if you retire the day after a stock market crash? looks like Social Security gives you incentive to keep up your health & live long... is this a bad thing IYHO? Yeah, that's why obesity and heart disease rates have risen at the same rate as Social Security taxes. Are you suggesting that the two are related? Damn, you're stupid. I'm not the one saying so many ridiculous things, talking about shooting gov't officials, eradicating standard banking practices, woefully ignorant of basic economics, etc etc. Are you related to JAXAshby? DSK |
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 17:59:08 -0400, DSK wrote:
John H wrote: You are almost totally correct. The public does not 'like' the plan because they've been fed a bunch of crap by a bunch of 'progressives'. Really? You mean President Bush is now a 'progressive'? He seems to have done by far the most talking about his plan, and he has certainly been less than truthful (as I have already proved to the previous contestants). And now for a treat (this one took me by surprise)- The plan the government gets now is called the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) allows government employees to contribute, but the money is not reduced from their FICA. If the employees are under the old Civil Service Retirement System they don't pay FICA, but they can't draw Social Security. Under the Federal Employees Retirement System, the new plan, they do pay in to Social Security. But, they don't get a reduction in FICA for money paid to the TSP. On the other hand, FERS employees get a matching contribution (like a 401K) up to some small percent of their pay. DING DING DING we have a winner! Excellent post, John H, thanks for your clear & accurate explanation! DSK And I wasn't even being a wise ass. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
"DSK" wrote in message ... 1. Trading money for money illustrates the absurdity of SS. Really? That's what banks do all day long. Kubez wrote: That's right... without waiting 30 years for repayment or risking losing it all if one of their shareholders dies. Huh? Never heard of a 30 year mortgage? Did they not mention that in 'Economics in 1 Lesson"? 3. If you die the day after you retire, you DON'T get ANY money. True. But if you live to be 100, you collect a lot more than you paid in, more than you'd have if you invested that same money wisely... Proven incontestably wrong by every study conducted. Really? How about a few references on that? Or can you truly not find your way back to the real world? And what if you retire the day after a stock market crash? looks like Social Security gives you incentive to keep up your health & live long... is this a bad thing IYHO? Yeah, that's why obesity and heart disease rates have risen at the same rate as Social Security taxes. Are you suggesting that the two are related? Damn, you're stupid. I'm not the one saying so many ridiculous things, talking about shooting gov't officials, eradicating standard banking practices, woefully ignorant of basic economics, etc etc. Are you related to JAXAshby? DSK What about that 10-20% down? |
John H wrote:
And I wasn't even being a wise ass. I wasn't either. Your explanation of the Thrift Savings Plan was excellent... clearly worded & accurate. Well done. Regards Doug King |
Bill McKee wrote:
What about that 10-20% down? On what? DSK |
You cut the 30 year home loan. The bank does not worry about you paying.
They have inflation and points and at least 10% up front. "DSK" wrote in message ... Bill McKee wrote: What about that 10-20% down? On what? DSK |
Bill McKee wrote:
You cut the 30 year home loan. The bank does not worry about you paying. They have inflation and points and at least 10% up front. Financed a house lately? Down payments are like the American work ethic, a thing of the past. Of course, if you're smart, you'll realize that 'no down payment' is just a nice way for the bank to say 'we're going to take all that, and more, out of your hide over the next few decades.' But one can easily buy a house with no down payment. Of course it is true that if you do have a big chunk of change up front, it's a lot easier to get favorable (to you) financing. DSK |
Kubez wrote:
Proven incontestably wrong by every study conducted. Really? How about a few references on that? Or can you truly not find your way back to the real world? Sorry, but YOU are the one who made the ridiculous claim. No, I made a perfectly reasonable claim that is true... translation, that's the way it is in the real world. "True" seems to have a different meaning for you. ... Here, let me quote it for you: But if you live to be 100, you collect a lot more than you paid in, more than you'd have if you invested that same money wisely... Back it up, big boy. Back. It. Up. My my, you are an immature jackass, aren't you? OK, look here. http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/...p_sid=ApUjUUbg But golly, the Social Security Administration doesn't know a darn thing about benefits payouts, do they? And what if you retire the day after a stock market crash? You still come out better. That's a ridiculous claim. Care to back it up? You know, like with facts? .. Obviously you know jack**** about the stock market (not surprising), otherwise you'd know that despite the "crash", the general market was FLAT in 1987. Really? Then how come the Dow and the S&P took until about 1992 to catch up to 1987 levels? How come profitability (reflected in average P/E ratios) still hasn't caught up to pre 1987 levels (although it was close in the mid 1990s)? In other words, you're wrong. Again. Try looking at facts instead of just making up some impressive sounding BS. ... And let's consider someone who DID retire the day after the crash of '87. They started working right after WWII. Look at where the market was in 1946 and where it was in 1987. Now it's easy to see what an absolutely ignorant fool you truly are. How many stock market crashes were there between 1946 & 1987? How many years of bear markets & flat markets? How many highly recommended stocks went down? The historical average for the stock market is 12%, which is why no-load wide-base index funds (such as I invest in) are the smartest long term investment. But they're hardly bullet-proof. Guess why retirees in Great Britain and South America who opted for a stock investment based retirement plan 10+ years ago are unhappy now. But hey, that's the real world again, doesn't affect you... Social Security *is* bulletproof. You pay in, you get money back. Barring, of course, the extremely unlikely circumstance of U.S. default ....which Bush & Cheney are working hard to make more likely... and would bring on a world wide economic crisis that would make the Great Depression look like a church picnic... DSK |
NOYB wrote: I hate foreign aid. That's because you're quite hateful. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:32 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com