How to Talk to a Conservative About Social Security (If You Must)
How to Talk to a Conservative About Social Security (If You Must)
[Printable PDF of this post HERE]
The White House and their deep-pocketed allies have launched a $35 million public relations effort to spread misinformation about President Bush’s Social Security Privatization scheme. This fact sheet will arm you with all the facts you’ll need to take them on.
FISCAL OUTLOOK
CLAIM: “By the year 2042, the entire system would be exhausted and bankrupt.” [President Bush, 2/2/05]
FACT: In 2042, enough new money will be coming in to pay between 73-80 percent of promised benefits. Even with this reduction, new retirees will still receive more money, in inflation-adjusted dollars, than today’s beneficiaries. [WP, 2/5/05]
CLAIM: “In the year 2018, for the first time ever, Social Security will pay out more in benefits than the government collects in payroll taxes.” [President Bush, 12/11/04]
FACT: “In 14 of the past 47 years, including 1975 to 1983, Social Security paid out more in benefits than the government collected in payroll.” [MSNBC, 1/14/05]
FACT: Under Bush’s plan, expenditures will begin to exceed revenues even earlier, in 2012. [New York Times, 2/4/05]
CLAIM: “Under the current system, today’s 30-year old worker will face a 27% benefit cut when he or she reaches normal retirement age.” [GOP Guide to Social Security Reform, 1/27/05]
FACT: According to the Congressional Budget Office, younger workers would receive better benefits from Social Security as it exists now, even if nothing changes, than from President Bush’s private accounts plan. [EPI, 2/05]
THE PRESIDENT’S PLAN / PRIVATE ACCOUNTS
CLAIM: “As we fix Social Security, we also have the responsibility to make the system a better deal for younger workers. And the best way to reach that goal is through voluntary personal retirement accounts.” [President Bush, 2/2/05]
FACT: Analysis of the plan so far does not prove the accounts would be a better deal for anyone not working on Wall Street. Workers who opt for the private accounts would recover forfeited benefits through their accounts only “if their investments realized a return equal to or greater than the 3 percent earned by Treasury bonds currently held by the Social Security system.” But CBO factors out stock market risks to assume a 3.3 percent rate of return. With 0.3 percent subtracted for expected administrative costs on the account, “the full amount in a worker’s account would be reduced dollar for dollar from his Social Security checks, for a net gain of zero.” [WP, 2/4/05]
CLAIM: “You’ll be able to pass along the money that accumulates in your personal account, if you wish, to your children or grandchildren.” [President Bush, 2/2/05]
FACT: Most lower-income workers will be required to purchase government lifetime annuities, financial instruments that provide a guaranteed monthly payment for life but that expire at death. Money in these annuities cannot be passed on to heirs. [NYT, 2/3/05]
CLAIM: “We must pass reforms that solve the financial problems of Social Security once and for all.” [President Bush, 2/2/05]
FACT: “A Bush aide, briefing reporters on the condition of anonymity [said] that the individual accounts would do nothing to solve the system’s long-term financial problems.” The long-term gap in revenue would “have to be closed through benefit cuts that have yet to be detailed.” [LAT, 2/3/05; WP, 2/5/05]
CLAIM: “A personal account would be your account, you would own it, and the government could never take it away.” [President Bush, 2/8/05]
FACT: Bush’s Social Security plan is a far cry from the private ownership he’s touting, however. For example, instead of private plans that let Americans control their own investments, there are tight restrictions on which conservative stocks and bonds the public will be allowed to buy. And, as the New York Times reports, “the more restrictions there are, the harder it would be for people to achieve the outsized returns the administration has generally promoted to sell the public on private accounts.” [NYT, 2/6/05]
CLAIM: “Best of all, the [private] accounts would be replacing the empty promises of government with the real assets of ownership.” [President Bush, 2/8/05]
FACT: Social Security trust funds “hold nothing but U.S. Treasury securities,” recognized as “the safest, most reliable investment worldwide.” [Century Foundation, 1/26/05]
CLAIM: “The problem that we now face is not one that we can tax our way out of, for a very simple reason: The costs and the current program are growing faster than the underlying tax base. So if we were to raise taxes today to deal with it, and the costs of the program continued to grow faster than the tax base, then in the future, future generations would simply have to come back and raise taxes again.” [Senior White House Official, Press Conference, 2/3/05]
FACT: An alternative proposal by Peter Diamond and Peter Orszag would resolve Social Security’s funding problems directly and permanently through modest tax increases. The Congressional Budget Office states that, “under Diamond-Orszag, the trust fund balance would always be positive and scheduled benefits would be fully financed.” [CBO, 12/22/04]
HISTORY
CLAIM: “Social Security was a great moral success of the 20th century, and we must honor its great purposes in this new century.” [President Bush, 2/2/05]
FACT: Conservatives have been trying to gut Social Security since its inception. Both Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan endorsed privatization in 1964. In 1983, the Cato Institute laid out a privatization plan similar to President Bush’s, stating, “We will meet the next financial crisis in Social Security with a private alternative ready in the wings.” [Miami Herald, 2/7/05]
RHETORIC
CLAIM: “I think it’s important for people to be open about the truth when it comes to Social Security.” [President Bush, 2/4/05]
FACT: The Bush administration has lobbied hard for privatization while being notably closemouthed about the details. [WP, 2/6/05]
FACT: The Wall Street Journal reports the White House is quietly assembling a coalition of deep-pocketed allies “that will privately raise $35 million for an advertising and lobbying effort to push the politically risky measure through Congress.” [WSJ, 2/4/05]
CLAIM: “The role of a President is to confront problems — not to pass them on to a future President, future Congress, or a future generation.” [President Bush, 2/4/05]
FACT: Dick Cheney admits trillions of dollars in future borrowing will be necessary to cover the cost of establishing private accounts. This deficit would have to be repaid by today’s younger workers. [NYT, 2/6/05]
Topic Cloud
Thanks for this…I can wait to pass this to a few people.
February 9th, 2005 at 9:01 pmThese are the kind of talking points we need- great stuff!
February 9th, 2005 at 9:58 pmThanks this is helpful and important. I wasn’t sure, however, how to get a printable version of this from your site. We need that. And, finally, let’s start emphasizing that communal nature of SS. This is something we do as a community for each other — a safety net. It is not now, was not at its inception, nor should it ever be a private or personal account. It’s only one part of a retirment plan that ought to include other, private, sources.
February 10th, 2005 at 2:00 pmagreed. please create a printable copy of this!
February 10th, 2005 at 2:14 pmIt is nice to see an intelligent response from jbradlyfuehrer. I am shocked to see someone with Fuehrer in their name supporting Bush.
February 10th, 2005 at 3:46 pmIt infuriates me that republicans persist in breaking social security and have done so since its inception.
February 10th, 2005 at 3:46 pmIt is the only thing that keeps a great majority of retirees from abject poverty and literal starvation.
“If you must” ?! Get a grip, people. If you don’t stop being AGAINST everything and start being FOR something, we’re doomed to repeat the last election over and over. Stop alienating conservatives by using the language of conflict. Being “right” will continue to not matter to the majority of Americans, because they won’t listen to us unless we treat them with respect. I’m a leftie – and I’m starting to get disgusted with the arrogant tone of the left myself. Those conservatives that we “must” talk to are our friends, family, and co-workers – let’s treat them with love and respect if we want the same back. Stop acting like every conservative is Bill O’Reilly or George Bush or some other obnoxious neocon – they aren’t. They are our brothers and sisters. Liberals should stand for unity and tolerance and practice what we preach – headlines like the one for this post demonstrate how we are NOT doing it.
February 10th, 2005 at 3:55 pmBlake, since you didn’t know this, the “must” in the title that you are disgusted with is a play on a book by the illustrious Ann Coulter entitled “How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must).
February 10th, 2005 at 4:21 pmPlease include fact about the claim that there is a Social Security Trust fund that holds US Treasuries bonds.
February 10th, 2005 at 4:26 pmI must concur with Blake Beltram. Part of the conservative rights strategy is to alienate the middle right from the middle left. There was a time in American politics when it was normal to see republicans and democrats working together. As a voice of reason, we must find some way to reduce the bi-partisan nature of our government. The only way to effect true change is together. And frankly that is the last thing the conservative right wants. I also want to say that the information on this page is great, if possible could you provide links to when you got the info, I would like to read from your sources.
February 10th, 2005 at 4:27 pmYour wish is our command. Printable PDF now linked at top of page.
February 10th, 2005 at 4:53 pmI Want Private Accounts for my Children & Grandchildren. BUSH IS SMART
February 10th, 2005 at 5:16 pmThanks SO much for this kind of rational, researched information. I really appreciate it!
February 10th, 2005 at 5:39 pmShredding Social Security is just one part of a Conservative “grand scheme” to deconstruct the federal government, one program at a time. They’ve waited a long time to do this, and now, the only people who can stop them, really, are…the people — some of whom voted for all this nonsense back in November. We need to shout it from the mountaintops that we are a national community, that we all hang together or we all hang separately. The Republicans want us to hang separately. We need to show the Great Middle that we’re all better off when we stick together and support each other through effective, non-wasteful social programs — like Social Security.
After all, when you’re old and frail and can’t earn a living any more, all you’ve got in your pocket is all you’ve got in the world. Who wants to be destitute in their old age? Even red-staters will find it difficult to fault the collective funding of a monthly pittance for frail, defenseless elderly who have had their savings stolen by con artists, stock swindlers, deficit-driven inflation, and Bush’s fraudulent “Medicare reform”.
February 10th, 2005 at 5:57 pmIf people really think that private accounts are so wonderful than I suggest they read about the folks in Chile and Great Britain who did just that. The majority of them have lost 2/3’s of their retirement through bad advice, declining stocks, and broker fees. Those who stayed in the old system will realize their full benefits, those who tried the private accounts will have about zero to 1/3 the amount available compared to those who stayed in the old system. Great Britain has admitted that the private accounts don’t work and, surprize! surprize! are looking into the SSI system we have in place here. There are two simple ways to “save” Social Security. Roll back the tax breaks for the wealthy and raise the FICA cap to $120,000. Problem solved.
February 10th, 2005 at 6:12 pmThe White House plans for Social security will hurt middle class Republicans and Democrats. If this was not true they would not be working in secretly.
February 10th, 2005 at 7:10 pmThis Administration has always been short on facts. The Democrats in both the House & Senate no longer can afford to give in to this Administration for all there deception.
February 10th, 2005 at 7:24 pmI agree with Blake Beltram — you should get rid of the “if you must” from your title. Regardless of why you put it there, it is devisive and insulting. I thought you were trying to bring together the middle left and middle right…..
February 10th, 2005 at 8:00 pmSince 1983, members of the ‘baby boom’ generation have been paying increased payroll taxes to create a surplus in the SS trust fund to help mitigate the impact of our retirement surge on the system. The current administration is draining the trust fund to cover its monstrous deficit — a significant portion of which is the result of tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest (viz., those with income well above the payroll tax cap). Essentially, this administration is taking money that we have been contributing toward our own retirement through increased payroll taxes, and redistributing it to a wealthy few through tax cuts heavily skewed in their favor. In the business world, I believe the term for this is: EMBEZZLEMENT. This administration is robbing Peter and Paul (and me) to pay King George and his courtiers.
February 10th, 2005 at 8:02 pmRich, The trust fund money is spent by Bush’s government as soon as the Special Issue bonds are issued — which is the same as with regular Treasury bonds.
February 10th, 2005 at 8:49 pmWindolyn, the Trust Fund bonds can be traced a teh SSA website — http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/ProgData/transactions.html
Bush and the Neocoms are engaged in an effort no less ambitious than to dismantle the New Deal. First, force cuts in social programs by reducing revenues, then pick off New Deal programs one by one. The Bushies convinced the gullible about WMD by repeating the same lies over and over; now they’re doing the same in regard to the “crisis” in Social Security. Democrats need to think less about being right on this issue and more about being effective. Instead of simply trying to repudiate Bush’s nonsense, liberal advocacy groups and polititians need to admit that the SS program has room for improvement, come together on a reasonable plan to improve it, and then promote the “Democratic Plan” in every possible venue, over and over and over, only in this case it won’t be lies.
February 10th, 2005 at 9:12 pmYou mention 2042 as the time when the SS Trust Funds will be depleted, however the Congressional Budget Office puts the year at 2052. You should state that.
February 10th, 2005 at 9:59 pmSomeone please post a response to the statement: “There used to be 16 people paying in for every 1 person drawing benefits. That ratio has decreased and now there are only 3.”
February 10th, 2005 at 10:42 pmKKT…what’s your point about the change in ratio?
February 10th, 2005 at 11:30 pmI would really like a definition of SI certificates and SI Bonds that are currently in the trust fund. I am under the impression these are mostly “IOU’s” from current and past pilfering of the trust fund. I tend to agree with Bush there is a problem with the trust fund, but disagree to its cause.
February 10th, 2005 at 11:58 pmThe fact the current budget proposal incorporates 170 Billion dollars “Borrowed” from the Social Security Trust fund to prop up the 2006 budget and also does not have allowances in it for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which in the past those costs have also been “Borrowed” from the Trust fund, leaves me to believe that the disaster for our Social Securtiy has less to do with managing the fund and more to do with what will happen when the Government cannot repay what they have “Borrowed” from the fund. I think both sides of the aisle are smokescreening the public as to what the crisis really is facing Social Security. The fact that the fund is basically nothing but government “IOU’s” instead of over 1.5 Trillion dollars in Government Bonds, and no one in the Government can explain how these “IOU’s” are going to be paid back.
what is this “WP” that is mentioned as the source for so many of the “facts”?
February 11th, 2005 at 12:36 amI see one pro scam comment here – “I want private accounts for my kids and grandkids. Bush is smart”. Honestly, I almost never hear a rational comment from the folks that worship Bush. It’s either an expletive about libruuuls or some empty phrase like “BUSH is smart”. Just sad that so many republicans either outright lie or gibber nonsense.
February 11th, 2005 at 1:56 amKKT – The decrease in the ratio of payees to beneficiaries was expected and is less of a problem than it appears on the suraface. There has been a dramatic rise in worker productivity from when Social Security was created in 1935. It now takes fewer workers’ payroll taxes to support each beneficiary. The aging population was addressed in 1983 by raising payroll taxes to prepare the system for the aging of the population. If the economy continues to grow at the rate of the past decade, Social Security would not need any changes. If growth slows, the system would need modest adjustments (eg, raise the cap on taxed income from $90,000 to $140,000 or cut scheduled benefits)
Keith K – The Treasury bonds in the trust fund are just as real as the bonds you or I could purchase and in which Bush has invested most of his wealth. The US Constitution specifically states that the Treasury bonds must be honored. Social Security has had a deficit in 11 years since 1970, and in each case it redeemed bonds from the trust fund. The problem now is the record general account deficit run up by Bush, not the trust fund surplus built in preparation for demographic change.
“In only 15 years, the government will have to start repaying its debt to Social Security. It will be able to do so. If need be, it will borrow, as it has borrowed for many purposes since 1776. The amount of borrowing, which could very gradually scale up to 1 or 2 percent of the country’s gross domestic product, will be far smaller than the present federal deficit, which is just under 4 percent of G.D.P.”
February 11th, 2005 at 2:42 am- NY Times Magazine, 1/17/05
I am 25 and finishing my MPA coursework. I work full-time as a bartender until the time I am able to find a position where my education will be appreciated. Why is it that I am able to realize that individuals who have personally saved towards retirement share more favorable lives after there work has ended while others are incapable of acknowledging this? With or without Bush’s plan people must realize that those who actually enjoy there retirement have worked towards it by saving and not by banking on their extra $600 a month. Anyone who wishes to keep their money in social security should be allowed to, but if and when I get the opportunity, I will happily find other ways of saving my retirement nest egg.
February 11th, 2005 at 2:55 amYou make a good point, Michael King, about people needing to take some responsibility for their own retirement support. However, the SS system was never intended to stop people from saving or providing for themselves. As you note yourself, the benefits are hardly luxurious. What makes SS so vital to our nation is that it protects those who HAVE worked hard all their lives from facing poverty and destitution no matter what. At 25 a citizen is naturally optimistic and may not be facing or thinking about all of the many circumstances that can occur to thwart your plan to work and save despite the best of intentions and preparation. No one has forgotten about individual responsiblilty – but at the same time we should never forget about our responsibility as a workforce to provide not only for ourselves but also for our less fortunate and yes, sometimes less prepared neighbors who also worked hard and paid into the system. Remember, SS benefits are supposed to be EARNED – you work and pay into the system, you get a guarantee of a minimum return. In these days of slashed corporate benefits, dwindling and pilfered pension funds, CEO and CFO dishonesty, and all the other hazards workers face more today than they have for the past 70 years – SS is even MORE vital to us than it was for our grandparents. Saving is much harder than it used to be, work is more scarce, education is vastly more expensive, we work longer hours for far fewer benefits, predatory credit practices are legal, and medical costs can quickly strip a lifetime of savings from the growing millions of uninsured. We are up against a whole lot of obtacles and active opposition. Let’s not make society’s senior members vulnerable to a disgraceful death in the street if we have the power to prevent it – and we do.
February 11th, 2005 at 4:24 amThank You Susan! What Mr. King seems to forget that millions of workers in theUSA do not have the luxiory of the time to wait for their talents to be appreciated. They must work to feed and house themselves and thier families. Time and money is not available for them to break out of their life status. Some do not have bank accounts. They take thier $200 paycheck and cash it any way they can and pay their rent, lights, foodand bus fare in cash. At 55 I have saved and invested, but not early enough or as much as I should have.I hope that SS will be the base for my retirement and that what money that has been saved and invested will allow me conforts. many will not.
February 11th, 2005 at 6:29 amI appreciate the many arguments made already that deal with the factual issues of Social Security. However, the Bush approach has nothing to do with facts, and everything to do with FEAR. We should have learned from the change in the reason for the Iraq invasion from “Hussein having WMD’s” to “Hussein is an Al Queda supportor” to “bringing democracy to Iraq makes us safer”, that the facts don’t matter in justifying an action, only the perception. As a consequence any argument against the Bush private savings plan needs to be based on getting people to recognize how dangerous the Bush plan is. Economists should be able to project what would have happened to a retiree’s Social Security income in 2003 (after the stock market crash) if the Bush plan had been fully operational 30 years earlier. How much would someone who was earning $50,000 prior to retirement have received under those conditions? I bet it’s a pretty small check when compared to the present benefit. The average citizen ought to be able to recognize the difference in the size of the benefit, which should scare them enough not to buy into it, in spite of the desire to “own” something.
February 11th, 2005 at 8:17 amThe problem with Social Security is much worse that portrayed. How can it be said that the Social Security Trust fund is solvent at all? The government has borrowed the entire fund and continues to take any excess monies, above what is directly needed to pay out current benefits, and replace it with “special” securities worth an equivalent amount. Therein lies the problem: In order for the securities to be redeemed, the taxpayer will have to come up with the money to do it. There’s no magic entity to pay back what Uncle Sam has spent. And we’re talking about an awful lot of money, something like 1.5 trillion dollars or more. But just when that “reserve” will be needed, the already over burdened taxpayer will have to be asked to spring for enough additional (huge) tax increase to redeem enough of the securities to keep the system going. And the further out you go, the worse it gets.
I suspect that the administration is motivated by this issue, however since it’s been a bi-partisan scheme over the years, no one wants to point fingers or take the blame. The bottom line is that the government needs to STOP using our retirement money to cover the budget! You just can’t borrow money from yourself, spent it, and assume that someone else will get it back for you. The net result is that the “Trustâ€? fund doesn’t exist! Isn’t anyone paying attention?
Richard Cron
February 11th, 2005 at 9:19 amClifton, Colorado
970-248-7632
I disagree with Blake about using the words, “if you must.” Generally speaking the conservatives use deceit, name calling and very strong derisive language. These quips tend to get repeated in the media which has a tendency to fog up the very issue that is being debated. They wish to debase the very origin of differing thoughts with this denigratory use of language, especially aimed at those who are in the middle who are trying to figure out the truth in the issues. For me, this retort was in very good taste and hits the right spot right on (as a response to Ann Coulter’s book title). We should never get into the lowest depths of the deceit, name calling and denigration used by the other to propagandize and cover for their lack of forthrightness, but at the same time we cannot be bowled over by their strategies to have Dems appear to be whimpering non-fighters. Sen. Reid seems to have a good sense of balance in this regard. After all, we are in a great battle, with the future of this country in the balance. Truth and zstrength will bring this party and America back on its feet.
February 11th, 2005 at 10:12 am2 points. Does anyone know how many people are being paid under the table, thereby reducing the number of people{legal or illegal} who are paying into SS. 13 million illegals ,paid at minimum wage should contribute {with employers contribution included} about 41/2 Billion dollars to SS.
2. How can Bush say that you would earn more if you had a private account. Think about this, most people by the time they retire have contributed enough to cover about 8 years of SS checks. If you live longer than that and many people are recieving SS for 20 years. So checks for even 12 years above your contributions would earn you far more that the scam private accounts would. What about survivors benefits?
February 11th, 2005 at 10:14 amFirst of all I agree that Bush’s plan to privatize SS is not the right direction.
#1- Would someone please tell me why Bush and the Republican party are trying so hard to push this plan. What are the benefits to them? Is there something behind this? Is this just based on an ideological belief that big governement is bad? If this is so clearly a bad plan then why are they pushing it?
#2- What is the Democrats alternate plan? Other than just disagreeing with Bush, what should be done?
February 11th, 2005 at 10:43 amThe whole claim that there is no crisis is ridiculous. You keep saying how there are treasury bonds in the “trust fund” but never talk about what has to happen for SSA to cash those bonds. Do you think the rest of government is going to cut spending? If they try to borrow that much money interest rates will skyrocket as will the costs of maintaining the national debt, so that’s out. All that is left is raising taxes, either FICA or income.
The average SS check is $960 a month. We are approaching 2 workers per retiree. That means the AVERAGE worker will be paying $480 EVERY month of EVERY year for 50 YEARS! That’s a crisis!
I realize a lot of the folks over 55 don’t really give a damn about saddling their kids with the equivalent of a high end Lexus car payment every month for the duration of their work lives. But those of us facing that crushing burden are very concerned.
February 11th, 2005 at 10:47 amBy the way, how is it “social and economic justice” to:
1. take money from 18 years, before they’ve had a chance to live life, and give it to 68 year olds who (a) have a higher standard of living and (b) have had 50 years to prepare
2. take money from black men and give it to rich white women
3. take 12.4 cents of every dollar the minimum wage worker earns such that it is impossible for them to save, buy a home, or build assets for their own children
4. create a state of dependency for seniors who become beholden to politicians for their income
5. take money from the unfortunate who die young and give it to the fortunate who are long lived
Why is it unjust to have people get out of retirement what they’ve put into retirement?
February 11th, 2005 at 11:04 amThe republicans have got to go!
February 11th, 2005 at 11:09 amI could not agree more strongly!!!
February 11th, 2005 at 11:32 amYou can read American Progress’s alternative plan here:
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=289151
There are several alternatives floating around out there: another is the Diamond-Orszag proposal which you can read about here:
http://jollybuddah.mydd.com/story/2004/12/31/181720/31
But repealing the tax cut for the top 1% of the wealthy should be priority number 1 in facing the country’s budget shortfalls in *any* program.
February 11th, 2005 at 11:35 amStop complaining about “if you must.” Like it or not, we are ALL in a cultural, humanistic, war. It is a war of progressive (libs, moderates, etc.) good vs right wing conservative evil. We did not choose this war, it was chosen for us. The left, center-left, and center right disagree at times but we must all unite to permanently vanquish conservatives once and for all and return them to 4th party status. Conservatives are destroying our country, economy, and constitution. Either you recognize your enemy (the 20-25% of Americans who r RW) and fight your enemy or you lose everything America stands for.
February 11th, 2005 at 12:09 pmLiberals have a rather strange concept of money and debt. If I borrow $100 from a bank, and they expect the money to be paid in 5 years, and I am unable to pay it, I will likely declare bankruptcy. Are you people so foolish to believe that a system you acknowledge can’t even pay benefits, is worth keeping. Social Security should be able to promise 100% of benefits, not 75% or 80%. When you cannot keep your finanicial promises, that it is bankrupcy. The President wants all Americans to own their retirement, not liberal or conservative spendthrift politicians. That is a far better solution than turning the system into a welfare program where the wealthy pay more than they receive (by the way, they already do). Think outside the prospects of tax increases for once. Please, I would like an open discussion of dynamic ideas between the two parties. Why is it that libertarians and conservatives are pushing innovative reforms such as personal accounts, Health Savings Accounts, and fundemental tax reform. All the left offers are proposals for tax increases and class warfare. Please become the part of ideals and innovation again. I am tired of getting so drunk every election night watching conservatives beat the hell out of flacid pantywaste liberals. No one likes a blowout. It has been a decade. Come on. Will it take eight years of another Bush in the White House to whip you losers into shape!
February 11th, 2005 at 12:42 pmThis is good information no matter who you are talking to! I have a few more comments. Remember that SS benefits are guaranteed,unlike private accounts or any one’s investiment portfolio.
February 11th, 2005 at 12:48 pmSS is also one of the most efficient programs out there, distributing benefits at about the cost of 3 cents for every dollar distributed. By law the trust fund is separate from our goverment’s budget and according to OMB can continue to pay full benefits until 2052, a few adjustments can keep the program going beyond that date. Today’s eighteen year olds will be collecting by then. SS also covers benes for the disabled and families who have lost their major breadwinner.
As someone said it was never meant to be a retirement account but a way to protect older Americans from dying in complete poverty as they did prior to the program. It is not our money really. If you have the extra money to invest on your own go for it…no one is stopping you. I think any attempt by the goverment to create so called private accounts to ’save’ SS will cost us more money in the long run and cut benefits for those that need them. It will hurt all generations to come.
Here is what Cato thinks:
The 6.2 Percent Solution: A Plan for Reforming Social Security
by Michael Tanner
Michael Tanner is director of the Cato Institute’s Project on Social Security Choice and editor of Social Security and Its Discontents: Perspectives on Choice (forthcoming).
Executive Summary
For the past several years there has been a growing consensus about the need to reform Social Security. Now, however, the debate has advanced to the point where it becomes important to move beyond generalities and provide specific proposals for transforming Social Security to a system of individual accounts. The Cato Project on Social Security Choice, therefore, has developed a proposal to give workers ownership of and control over their retirement funds.
Under this proposal:
Individuals would be allowed to divert their half (6.2 percentage points) of the payroll tax to individually owned, privately invested accounts. Those who chose to do so would agree to forgo all future accrual of retirement benefits under the traditional Social Security system.
The remaining 6.2 percentage points of payroll taxes would be used to pay transition costs and to fund disability and survivors’ benefits.
Workers who chose the individual account option would receive a “recognition bond” based on the accrued value of their lifetimeto- date benefits. Those bonds, redeemable at the worker’s retirement, would be fully tradable in secondary markets.
Those who wished to remain in the traditional Social Security system would be free to do so, accepting a level of benefits payable with the current level of revenue.
We expect this plan to restore Social Security to long-term and sustainable solvency and to do so at a cost that is less than the cost of simply propping up the existing program. And it would do far more than that.
Younger workers who chose the individual account option would receive benefits substantially higher than those that could be paid under traditional Social Security. At the same time, the plan would treat women and minorities more fairly and allow low-income workers to accumulate real wealth.
Most important, this proposal would reduce Americans’ reliance on government and give individuals greater ownership of wealth, as well as responsibility for and control over their own lives. It would be a profound and significant increase in individual liberty.
February 11th, 2005 at 12:49 pmFools! Social Security benefits are not guaranteed. The Supreme Court, on two separate occasions (see: Flemming v. Nestor, 1962). The court said that Social Security is a tax, not an entitlement. Politicians can cuts benefits at any time. Remember people, they already have. The government does not think that it is your money. It is. It should be. If the President suceeds, it will always be yours.
February 11th, 2005 at 12:53 pmPeople, look at all the Democrats who currently support the Presidents plan. The strange fact is that if President Clinton pushed this proposal during the waning years of his term, he would have suceeded. Senators Moynihan, Robb, Kerrey, and Breux all supported the establishment of personal accounts. If they were in the Senate now, the prospects for change would be much brighter. We have over $20 trillion in long-term financial obligations, let us at least address Social Security. To conclude on a callous note, I look forward to another drunken 2006. 60 votes in the Senate, 240 in the House. Medicare is next.
February 11th, 2005 at 12:58 pmSober Security: Personal Retirement Accounts are Pro-Black, Too
by Deroy Murdock
Deroy Murdock is an advisory board member of the Cato Institute’s Project on Social Security Choice.
How raw a deal is Social Security for black Americans? Citing research by Harvard professor and former Clinton Administration official Jeffrey Liebman, President Bush’s Commission to Strengthen Social Security concluded last August that blacks “receive nearly $21,000 less on a lifetime basis from Social Security’s retirement program than whites with similar income and marital status.”
Largely due to differences in life expectancy, Social Security essentially pumps money from the pockets of blacks into those of whites. Having survived childhood diseases and youth violence, 25-year- old black men starting work in 1999 could expect to live to 70.2 years versus 75.9 for white males, the National Center for Health Statistics reports. Black women could expect to reach 76.4 years compared to 80.8 for white females.
These were among the sobering facts discussed at a recent conference on black Americans and Social Security at the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington. Key socio-economic distinctions between average black and white Americans explain why Congress urgently should adopt President Bush’s plan for personal retirement accounts. Such a reform would promote the general welfare and dramatically advance the financial prospects for black Americans in particular.
Despite the civil rights establishment’s fealty to Social Security, rank-and-file blacks support privatization. A February 2001 Zogby survey for Cato revealed that 53.5% of blacks favor personal accounts. President Bush should rally black Americans as his secret weapon once this battle is joined.
He also would be wise to stump with Herman Cain. The chairman of Godfather’s Pizza is a prominent black business executive and one of Social Security modernization’s most persuasive and entertaining advocates. Cain says that at age 56, he already has paid $161,000 into Social Security. In the next 10 years, he expects to add another $74,000 to the system. “If that’s going to be a transfer from me to white people,” Herman Cain wonders, “can’t I at least give it to white people I like?”
This article originally appeared on Nationalreview.com on May 14, 2002.
February 11th, 2005 at 1:00 pmBriefing Paper No. 61 February 5, 2001
Disparate Impact: Social Security and African Americans
Executive Summary
by Michael Tanner
Michael Tanner is director of the Cato Institute Project on Social Security.
Perhaps no group has as much at stake in the debate over Social Security reform as do African Americans. Elderly African Americans are much more likely than their white counterparts to be dependent on Social Security benefits for most or all of their retirement income, yet the current system often works to their disadvantage.
Despite a progressive benefit structure, Social Security benefits are inadequate to provide for the retirement needs of the elderly poor, leaving nearly 30 percent of African-American seniors in poverty. Moreover, because African Americans generally have shorter life expectancies than do whites, they receive less total Social Security payments over the course of their lifetimes.
Social Security also contributes to the growing wealth gap between blacks and whites. Because Social Security taxes squeeze out other forms of saving and investment, especially for low-income workers, many African Americans are unable to accumulate real wealth. And, since Social Security benefits are not inheritable, that wealth inequity is compounded from generation to generation.
Traditional Social Security reforms such as raising the retirement age, cutting benefits, or increasing taxes would only make the problem worse. On the other hand, African Americans would be among those with the most to gain from the privatization of Social Securityâ€â€transforming the program into a system of individually owned, privately invested accounts.
February 11th, 2005 at 1:00 pmMarch 28, 2003
Senator Moynihan’s Last Legacy
by Michael Tanner
Michael Tanner is director of health and welfare studies at the Cato Institute.
With the fighting in Iraq winding down, President Bush and Congress are returning to domestic concerns. They would be well advised to put Social Security reform at the top of their agenda.
Last month, Social Security’s trustees released their annual report on the system’s finances. Since it fell in the middle of the Iraq war, it was overlooked by most of the media and public. But it confirmed that the national retirement program is facing a financial crisis that demands immediate attention.
According to the trustees, Social Security will start to run a deficit — spending more money on benefits than it takes in through taxes — in just 15 years, by 2018. The so-called Social Security trust fund, which is supposed to help pay benefits until 2042, in reality contains only government bonds, essentially an IOU. While few observers doubt that those benefits will be paid, the federal government will still have to find the money to pay them.
And a lot of money it is. In 2018, the first year that Social Security faces a shortfall, the cash deficit will exceed $17 billion. That’s as large as the budgets for Head Start and the WIC nutrition programs combined. By 2022, the annual Social Security deficit will have grown to roughly $100 billion, as large as the combined budgets for the Departments of Education, Interior, Commerce, and the Environmental Protection Agency. By 2027, with the annual deficit approaching $200 billion, you can add in the NASA and the Department of Veterans Affairs. And so it goes. Overall, Social Security now faces unfunded liabilities in excess of $6.4 trillion, that’s an increase of more than $1.37 trillion since last year.
Not that this is the only problem with Social Security. The program already provides today’s workers with a low, below-market return on the taxes that pay for Social Security. The program unfairly penalizes African-Americans, working women and others. Workers don’t own their money or have any guaranteed right to their benefits. In short, it is a program crying out for reform.
The president and at least some in Congress understand this, and they understand the limited options for reform available. It was former president Bill Clinton who laid out the possibilities: raise taxes, cut benefits, or try to earn a higher rate of return through private investment. The tax increases would be huge, a 50 percent increase in the payroll tax or the equivalent. The second alternative, a 25 percent or more cut in benefits, would fall hardest on the elderly and those in need.
Fortunately, President Bush is committed to the third alternative. He would allow younger workers to privately invest a portion of their Social Security taxes through individual accounts.
We have just come out of a war, and there are many issues fighting for congressional attention. The war’s aftermath and the fight against terrorism will remain our top priorities. The sputtering economy needs a boost, and the president will continue to push for tax cuts. Congress is trying to find a way to add prescription drugs to a Medicare program that is already hemorrhaging money. That’s a full plate for anyone.
But Social Security reform cannot be allowed to languish. Every two-year election cycle that we delay adds an additional $320 billion to the cost of reform. No one pretends it will be easy, but we have seen that President Bush is not easily deterred. If he is prepared to bring his resolution and determination to Social Security reform, he will, once more, be able to drag along a reluctant Congress. That will be another victory for the American people. In the long run, maybe even a bigger victory than the one in Iraq.
February 11th, 2005 at 1:01 pmSSP No. 33 February 24, 2004
Social Security Choices for the 21st-Century Woman
by Leanne Abdnor
Leanne Abdnor, former vice president for external affairs at the Cato Institute, is president of For Our Grandchildren, a grassroots advocacy organization that supports Social Security reform. She was a member of the President’s Commission to Strengthen Social Security.
Executive Summary
Since 1935 millions of elderly Americans have relied on Social Security for their retirement income. However, the program is now both structurally and financially unable to meet the needs of today’s workers, especially women.
Although there has been much public attention paid to Social Security’s looming financial crisis, even more important to women may be the clash between the current benefit structure and the socioeconomic changes that have occurred since 1935, such as the great increase in the number of women in the workforce, women marrying later or not at all, and the doubling of the divorce rate. By failing to keep pace with the changing nature of American families, Social Security’s outdated benefit structure results in single women and dual-earner couples subsidizing the benefits of wealthier single-earner couples, which creates a sharply regressive element to the current benefit structure.
Social Security reform not only must restore the system to solvency, it should also address the program’s other inequities that disadvantage women. The best way to do this would be to allow younger workers, including younger women, to privately invest at least a portion of their Social Security taxes through individual accounts. Not only would individual accounts help to solve Social Security’s financial problems by taking advantage of the higher returns available to private capital investment, they would give women greater ownership and control of their retirement income and create a benefit structure far more in tune with the needs of the modern family.
Everyone who truly favors giving women more choices and control over their own lives should champion such a reform.
February 11th, 2005 at 1:02 pmGot it…Good. Do not take down my postings, or I shall become more powerfull than you can possibly imagine.
February 11th, 2005 at 1:03 pmFrequently Asked Questions:
1. Isn’t SS an insurance policy? Isn’t it unfair to compare it to retirement programs?
Ans: While SS was originally devised as an insurance program for mostly elderly workers whose finances had been decimated by the Great Depression, SS has grown over the years to be virtually unanimously expected and treated as a retirement savings plan. It is no longer insurance because (a) insurance is used to cover the expense of unforeseeable events and (b) insurance only pays to people with a valid claim while SS pays everyone (who paid “premiums�). Many folks would like to create means test such that SS would become more of an insurance program but it is very unlikely that means testing is politically viable.
2. Isn’t SS okay because it has the trust fund?
Ans: No, the trust fund is composed entirely of US government bonds. The SS surplus has long been stolen and spent by both parties for decades for other government spending. In order for SS to redeem the bonds in the trust fund the federal government will either have to raise taxes, borrow money, or slash SS benefits: exactly the same options available without a “trust fund�.
3. Wasn’t the system design to have 3 workers per retiree?
So if the average SS check is $960 a month then the system was “designed� for the average worker to pay $320 a month, every month for the duration of their work lives?
So 50 years times 12 months times $320 is $192,000 (assuming no growth whatsoever). If I had that in a personal account I could draw 5% for retirement income in perpetuity or about $800 a month plus I would have the $192K at my death to give my children and charities.
With SS, however, IF I’m lucky to live that long I might draw 10 years of benefits on average or 10*12*$960 = $115,200. I lose $76,800.
Now let’s see if my contributions are invested and allowed to compound.
$320 x 12 months x 464 = $1,781,760. If I draw 5% of that for retirement income I get $7,424 a month!
The 464 is the factor that 7 percent growth compounded over 50 years produces. See http://www.moneychimp.com/calculator/compound_interest_calculator.htm.
4. There are 3 workers per retiree now so what’s the big deal about having one few worker per retiree in twenty years?
Ans: This represents a 50% increase in FICA taxes! Instead of three people paying $320 a month to provide the average $960 SS check to day, each of two people will have to pay $480. Often the two workers will be man and wife. This amounts to saddling our working families with the equivalent of an extra mortgage payment every month for the duration of their work lives. Instead of 12.4 cents of every dollar earned going to SS it will be more like 18 cents. This neglects the fact that Medicare and other government is expected to rise substantially during the same period of time and the SS surplus will no longer exist for the politicians to spend on other obligations.
5. Isn’t SS privatization really just about greedy rich people not wanting to “share� with the poor?
Ans: Absolutely not. Most reform advocates object to SS because is financially and morally bankrupt. Many of the staunchest advocates admit to being willing to forego participation in the new plan in exchange for getting it passed because they know private accounts will lead to greater wealth creation among the lower income which will increase income tax revenues, supply capitol for expansion and growth of the economy, and reduce dependence on government services.
6. I’m retired or retiring soon, want SS reform reduce my benefit?
Ans: Absolutely no one anywhere is suggesting changing SS for people over about age 55.
7. Won’t private accounts leave people stranded if there is a downturn in the stock market near their retirement?
Ans: No, first, no one would ever advise a person to be heavily invested in individual stocks when they are close to retirement. All responsible financial advisors say to move money towards bonds the closer one is to retirement. Second, as the analysis sections show the growth in private accounts is so much greater than what SS provides that an individual could suffer a 50% decline in the stock market the day before he retires and still have substantially higher income than SS provides. Third, all reform plans have some form of guaranteed benefit for the elderly poor. This will exist as some form of welfare program similar to what is provided to families with dependent children now.
8. Won’t a transition to private accounts cost at least $2 trillion? Where will this money come from?
Ans: Yes and no. The current SS program has about $150 billion surplus per year that is currently being siphoned off and spent by politicians. Most reformers want to take that surplus and give it individuals to build personal accounts. Since technically, the government has no right spending the surplus, transitioning to private accounts would cost nothing. Practically, however, the political reality is other government spending would have to be cut by $150 billion or taxes and borrowing would have to be increased. According to the CBO, the federal outlays increased by about $140 billion between 2002 and 2003. In other words, a single years growth in the federal budget is sufficient to pay for the privatization plan.
9. But doesn’t my employer pay half of my FICA tax?
Ans: Technically, yes, but as we all know if your employer did not match you FICA contribution the free market would demand that he raise your wage by the same amount. There is no free lunch. If there were, we would just require the employer to pay all the FICA and get SS for “free�.
10. Doesn’t SS also provide survivor’s benefits and disability insurance?
Ans: Yes, but it is a terrible vehicle for providing these objects. Regarding survivor’s benefits, most people without minor dependents don’t need it. Most people with minor children are young enough to get a $250K life insurance policy for about $25 a month. This is a tiny fraction of the $320 a month the average worker pays in FICA. Plus with a real life insurance policy instead of just a few years of SS survivor’s benefits your kids will inherent the large lump sum and have real money to pay for college and start out in life.
Regarding disability insurance, if private disability insurance fraud is any indication the current SS disability programs have widespread abuse and fraud. The government is unable to properly police this program. At any rate, disability does not belong in a retirement program and vice versa. Disability should be funded and administered separately.
11. How can people who make minimum wage afford to save in a private retirement account?
Ans: They already are! 12.4 cents of every dollar the minimum wage worker earns is being confiscated as SS tax. Mostly it is dispensed to people who have far higher standards of living then they do. A full time minimum wage earner pays $1277 a year in SS tax. If this money were invested at 7% compounding for 50 years they would have a nest egg of $593,000 at retirement. At even 3% they would have $154,000 at retirement with about $7000 a year (70% of their pre-retirement income and approximately the same that SS provides) in income forever and a large sum of money to leave there children who would then have money to buy a home or use to save for their own retirement.
February 11th, 2005 at 1:05 pmNow I know how Galileo must have felt. The facts are the facts yet in these times, there is glaring evidence that there exists a type of citizen who is politically, emotionally, socially and intellectually devoid. Thank you.
February 11th, 2005 at 1:48 pmI love it! If you’re going to quote the Cato Institute, why not also quote the Heritage Foundation? They’re both tools of the Neoconservative movement and have the same reespect for the truth as the Bush administration, i.e., zero!
February 11th, 2005 at 2:01 pm//I Want Private Accounts for my Children & Grandchildren. BUSH IS SMART
Comment by Tracy  February 10th, 2005 @ 5:16 pm//
I think it’s wonderful that you want private accounts for your grandchildren, and I strongly encourage you to set them up for them.
I would also highly recommend that you purchase modest whole life insurance policies, with options to add addition insurance later on, as well. The purchase of decent, permanent insurance policies is a wonderful way for Grandparents to offer their grandchildren a bit of a legacy, and, given the fact that one can purchase these policies so cheaply for very young and healthy children, it really makes no sense to NOT do so.
You can, if you choose, purchase a form of permanent insurance that would offer a variable account that either you or eventually your grandchildren could put money into. Check with a licensed agent for details on these types of policy options.
However, what you must realize, that seems to be getting lost in this discussion from both sides, is that social security is not, and was never intended to be an investment vehicle. It is a testament to the dishonesty of the Bush adminstration and the neocon movement in general that so many people have been convinced that they aren’t getting a “fair return” for their investment on Social Security.
Social Security is merely an insurance policy to safeguard ourselves and our fellow citizens against abject poverty. It’s not a retirement plan. It’s a safety net.
Nothing and nobody is stopping you or anybody else from establishing private accounts for your grandchildren. By all means, do so as soon as possible. However, let’s inject some honesty into the discussion on Social Security, shall we? Let’s not compare Social Security with a 401K or a pension plan, because it’s simply not that at all.
It’s also something that we should be very, very proud of. It is the most successful program of its kind ever instituted in any country during any time in history. It has been remarkably successful at lifting people out of poverty, providing critical needs to the most needy, helping families with difficult situations rise up, and helping to educate our youth. As government programs go, it simply doesn’t get any better.
The system is not broken, nor is it in danger of being bankrupt at any time soon, and quite possibly, at no time ever. Let’s not forget that the projection that foresees a future depletement of reserves also makes that projection on the assumption that the economy will never post economic growth larger than 1.8%. I suspect that even a Bush could muster more growth than that over multiple years.
Let’s just call this attack on social security what it really is. A group of neocons who’ve been salivating for the opportunity to kill this FDR program ever since its inception. They’re about to let a little thing like facts stand in the way of their golden opportunity, and all they’ve got to do is convince enough people that they’re right, even though they’re not.
This is being sold much like the illegal war in Iraq was….simply lie outrageously, and repeat that lie over and over and over and over again until there is a critical mass point reached, at which time they feel they can successfully move to kill the program altogether.
Let’s not kid ourselves….this really is a plan to kill social security, not save it. Even Bush himself admits that his plan won’t solve the potential fiscal issues with the program, and Cheney finally admitted the other day that it will cost “several trillion dollars” to institute their plan. Need you be reminded that we don’t have “several trillion dollars” with which we can play this game at this time, thanks to some rather irresponsible mismanagement of our national treasury over the past four years?
Given that the system is NOT currently broken, nor is it likely to be at any time in the near future, and given the fact that Bush’s plan will NOT strengthen it (by their own admission), and that it will cost several trillion dollars to impliment (also by their own admission), I would offer that a far more sensible solution to any potential future shortfalls would be to simply raise the income cap on the tax to $120,000, instead of $90,000.
That way, SS will remain solvent forever, barring anything unforeseen, and you will still have the option to suppliment that system by investing in your own private accounts as you see fit.
Btw, for those of you who may have been deluded into buying into the “personal account,” or “personal ownership” lines touted by the right, be aware that you will NOT have full access to these funds, nor will you be able to choose any company that you wish to invest in. You will be given a list of “Government approved” companies that you can choose to invest in. Some ownership society, huh?
Also, in order to take part in this program, you’ll have to agree to forfeit a large portion of your guaranteed SS amount in future years. That done, there are so many fees (read: TAX INCREASE) built into the plan that IF you were fortunate enough to have fostered growth in your “personal account” beyond 3.3%, you will have to relinquish this amount to your friendly neighborhood federal government. My, how quaint and “ownership-like.”
IF you manage to grow the account beyond that magical 3.3% mark, and you’ve paid your rightful dues to your benovolent, wonderful, fully deserving federal government, you will end up with what you would have ended up with, had Bush and the neocons left the system alone. Except that you, your kids, your grandkids, and their kids will all be stuck with the bill of several trillions dollars that it took to get you to exactly where you would’ve been had they just left it alone.
What if you DON’T manage to earn at least 3.3% in this “private account?” Too bad. You’ve already forfeited your guaranteed SS benefits, remember? Oh, and btw, EVERYBODY will now get less under this plan whether they choose to have a private account or not, because Bush is going to have to lower the guaranteed benefit amount as well. Sweet dreams.
See, this is the crux of rightwing economics. It’s all a big shell game. They TELL you that you’re going to “take ownership,” and that they want “smaller government,” and that you deserve to “keep your own money,” but then they turn around and hand SO much money to their uber wealthy friends that you’re forced to face higher interest rates, higher state, county, and municipal taxes, and far less services in order to subsidize this upper 5% of the nation.
Smaller government? Hardly. Bush has massively expanded the size of the federal government. Since 2000, our government has grown by 30%, after Clinton shrank it to 1950’s levels.
Personal ownership and accountability? Hardly. You won’t get to choose any companies to invest in other than what your nanny government TELLS you to.
Lower taxes? Not on your life. Unless you’re in that upper crust of 5%, earning more than $250k per year, you simply have no viable reason to be voting republican, because the rest of the 95% pay dearly for their errant, failed economic policies, through higher “fees” (read: TAXES), higher state, county, and municipal taxes, lesser services, higher crime, a lesser educated society, fewer jobs, degradation of infrastructure, etc., etc., etc.
All of the public commons that republicans have such a violent aversion to are precisely what the uber wealthy have used to create their uber wealth, yet they don’t feel as though they should have to pay for the use of it. That cost should be shouldered by the middle and poor classes, not the aristocrats.
All you red staters, I hope you’re prepared for this new budget, because it’s coming at you like a steamroller. Don’t say we didn’t warn you. We’ve been trying to tell you since Redink Ronnie that neoconomics don’t work for anyone but the uber wealthy, and at the expense of all others, but you refused to listen. You chose instead to listen to play the rightwing shell game. Fasten your seatbelts, kids. Things are about to get a tad rough in Bubbaland.
This SS plan is a horrible idea that is simply unnecessary, and it’s being sold to you red staters on deception and lies. Don’t buy it for a second. Go do some research for yourself and see. Don’t listen to what these rightwingnuts on TV and the radio are saying, because they only want to destroy the system, and they’ll say ANYTHING to get that done. Go read up on this yourselves and make your own conclusions.
February 11th, 2005 at 2:38 pm1. SS will never run out of money unless we suffer a nuclear 1st strike. We are approximately as rich as god at the present time, and per capita income doubles every generation or so. Can’t happen, so relax.
2. Assets in the SS trust fund are indeed “just IOUs”; they are Treasury securities, backed by the full faith & credit of the US govt.; the probability of default is as close to zero as no matter. Anyone that believes otherwise should contact me and I will be happy to take any spare T-bills / notes / bonds that you might have cluttering up the house. Glad to help.
3. WRT 2. above: read the text of the 14th Amendment. Is shrub as dumb as he sounds, or is he just a traitor that plans to violate his sacred oath of office requiring him to defend the Constitution from ALL enemies, both foreign and republican? There are no other alternatives.
February 11th, 2005 at 4:04 pmKKT:
Especially the “16″ workers used to pay in for each beneficiary is an example of scare tactics. The year quoted for that figure is 1950–ONLY 15 YEARS after Social Security came into existence, and hence few were eligible! Also, 1950 saw important amendments to SS.
Also, the 2:1 ratio is supposed to refer to the time when todays young workers will retire, not an imminent situation.
The dramatic sequence 16:1–>3:1–>2:1 is a misleading rhetorical exaggeration of the urgency of the problem.
February 11th, 2005 at 4:14 pmI cannot imagine the poverty that would ensue the rollback Bush is proposing. As it is, Social Security is the air in the lifeboat for millions of our seniors, disabled, widows and widowers and surviving children. I wonder what it is exactly that Bush sees as so objectionable in the current plan? It cannot be its efficiency or effectiveness. It must be that he objects to the idea tha government can do good for people.
February 11th, 2005 at 4:21 pm//I wonder what it is exactly that Bush sees as so objectionable in the current plan?//
Not to be completely cynical and narrow, but I seriously believe that these neocons are just dead set on destroying any and every program ever supported by or created by a democrat, because, at the core, they are determined to flat out destroy the democratic party altogether and end the two party democratic system in America.
If you examine their policies, the things that they support and oppose, the countries that they support and oppose, etc., the only real consistency that exists is that everything that they do seems to be for the cause of undermining democracy somewhere, either here or abroad, in order to facilitate and ingratiate corporatism/fascism.
It’s unfathomable to them that the masses would be good for any purpose other than to serve the corporate masters, much as the serfs lived only to serve their lords in feudal times. This is a modern-day feudalism.
Read some of Thom Hartmann’s brilliant articles and books on the subject. He’s certainly cornered more information on this than anyone else, and brings his arguments forth with great clarity and intelligent thought.
I can’t help but wonder what they intend to do with the dead, rotting bodies that will begin to pile in the streets after they’ve pulled away these safety nets, but then again, I suppose that’s where the constitutionally shaky “faith based” programs come in. What better way to recruit new minds to brainwash towards your new theocratic fascism than to first make them destitute and desperate, and then force them into your religious institutions for indoctrination and “loyalty programming.”
Scary stuff lies ahead here. We’re clearly treading into Christio-fascist/American taliban territory that bears no semblence to our former democracy whatsoever.
What really disturbs me is how much the former conservatives have lost in allowing themselves to blindly follow this corrupt, morally bankrupt administration and political party. They used to actually stand for some pretty good ideals, and whether you believed in all of them or not, the one thing that you could say about them was that they were principled. That is sadly no longer the case. They have sold their souls for absolute power, and in doing so, they’ve also sold out their nation, their democracy, their national treasury, their jobs, their integrity, their values, their ethics, their religion, and humankind in general.
Imagine Mr. Christ coming back to visit today and seeing what the republican (you know, the “Christian party”) is supporting these days. Endless war without cause, all-out class warfare to massively shift all wealth to the already wealthy at the expense of all others, lying, cheating, stealing, torturing, abusing, raping, drug abuse, gambling, womanizing, divorce, murder, etc., etc., etc. These are all things that today’s republicans are forced to support in order to provide cover for their ethically challenged, morally bankrupt party.
Jesus wept.
February 11th, 2005 at 5:01 pmSocial Security is merely an insurance policy to safeguard ourselves and our fellow citizens against abject poverty. It’s not a retirement plan. It’s a safety net.
Comment by Jeff  February 11th, 2005 @ 2:38 pm
So why are benefits given to everybody? If SS only paid out to the 20% or so of retirees that would be below the poverty line without it, there’d be no problem.
February 11th, 2005 at 5:29 pmThe dramatic sequence 16:1–>3:1–>2:1 is a misleading rhetorical exaggeration of the urgency of the problem.
Comment by Mischa  February 11th, 2005 @ 4:14 pm
Its a rip off at 3:1! Let alone 2:1. So is it social justice that some people have to pay 2 and 4 times as much as other people for the same benefit because of the demographics when they were born. Baby boomers got to share the load with lots of other workers. Its those of us coming after that are getting crushed.
February 11th, 2005 at 5:36 pmI cannot imagine the poverty that would ensue the rollback Bush is proposing. As it is, Social Security is the air in the lifeboat for millions of our seniors, disabled, widows and widowers and surviving children. I wonder what it is exactly that Bush sees as so objectionable in the current plan? It cannot be its efficiency or effectiveness. It must be that he objects to the idea tha government can do good for people.
Comment by Mark T  February 11th, 2005 @ 4:21 pm
Can you point me to anything, anywhere that states Bush or SS reformers are talking about survivor benefits or disability? How many times do we have to say it?:
SS will not change for those over 55.
Reform is aimed only at the retirement portion of SS.
Quit trying to fear monger the elderly poor and disabled!
This is about whether 18 year olds should be allowed to let the 50 years between when they start working and when they retire work for them or whether they should be forced to make up the 50 years of growth and inflation today’s retirees would have gotten had they invested their fica tax. Period.
February 11th, 2005 at 5:42 pmIt’s unfathomable to them that the masses would be good for any purpose other than to serve the corporate masters, much as the serfs lived only to serve their lords in feudal times. This is a modern-day feudalism.
Comment by Jeff  February 11th, 2005 @ 5:01 pm
Its, apparently, unfathomable to you that I wasn’t put on this earth to serve YOU. Its not MY job to pay for YOUR retirement or anything else. Yes, we have an obligation to provide for those who can’t but you all seem to believe that you are entitled to take whatever you want from your friends and neighbors, I assume, because you believe that you’re more special, or more rare, or more deserving than they are. Now that’s hubris!
February 11th, 2005 at 5:53 pm//So why are benefits given to everybody? If SS only paid out to the 20% or so of retirees that would be below the poverty line without it, there’d be no problem.
Comment by Joe  February 11th, 2005 @ 5:29 pm //
That’s a great question, and I have long thought that the answer to making SS solvent indefinitely was in curbing or severely limiting it’s payout to those Americans who quite clearly are not in need of it.
Actually, far more than 20% of American retirees would be below the poverty line w/o it. The rate for seniors before SS kicked in was 50%.
February 11th, 2005 at 6:02 pm//This is about whether 18 year olds should be allowed to let the 50 years between when they start working and when they retire work for them or whether they should be forced to make up the 50 years of growth and inflation today’s retirees would have gotten had they invested their fica tax. Period. //
You need to study up on what this bogus proposal is all about, and what it will do to the current system in transitioning. You’ve been misled. Those 55 and over may well be safe from cuts, but trust me, everybody else will be cut.
And, I’ve yet to see anyone explain what the justification for this bogus plan is if the BA itself admits that it won’t make SS more solvent. Why is that? See, it’s not really about “saving SS,” nor is it about allowing “ownership.”
If it were about saving SS, they’d simply rollback benefits to wealthy Americans and/or increase the payroll tax cap.
If it were about “ownership,” they would be merely adding a “social security PLUS” plan that would allow a worker to take ADDITIONAL money from his payroll to put into a nanny government money transfer plan. They wouldn’t have to touch SS at all in that case. All they’d have to do is build another program entirely, completely seperate from SS.
Also, how can you justify the discussion of this bogus plan knowing that the government will pilfer any amount that’s earned over 3.3%, and that even if you reach that goal, you won’t be earning any more than you would be without the nanny government/fascist money transfer/ponzi scheme that they’re pushing for?
This entire thing is bogus. The discussion is bogus, the plan is bogus, and most of all, the republicans pushing this are bogus. They’re lying to us once again. Let’s not all be so stupid this time, ok? Last time we fell for their lies, it cost over 100,000 lives.
This is purely about dismantling a very successful DEMOCRATIC program. Period.
February 11th, 2005 at 6:09 pmThanks for the comments on the ratio. I actually came across the answer after I wrote this.
To Kevin who asked what my point was … I have a conservative friend who made the argument that this decrease in the worker to payor ratio proves that the system was “broke” … so I guess my point was that I didn’t have a good answer to that.
February 11th, 2005 at 6:21 pmActually, far more than 20% of American retirees would be below the poverty line w/o it. The rate for seniors before SS kicked in was 50%.
Comment by Jeff  February 11th, 2005 @ 6:02 pm
During the depression probably half of ALL households were in poverty. Recently the elderly standard of living has been increasing faster than the rest of the population. Plus, they own their cars and houses, don’t have work expenses or education loans to pay, or children to provide for.
The definition of poverty has to be redefined for the elderly. Many have high wealth but little income.
With regard to SS reform you have to compare the poverty rates that would exist had their FICA contributions been given to them as a lump sum at retirement. You can’t say your going to take 12.4 cents of every dollar a person earns for their entire life such that they’re not able to have personal savings then when they retire tell them they’d be poor if you didn’t “give” them this benefit.
If people have private accounts and are required to save 12.4% of their income I guarantee that far less than 20% of the future elderly will be poor.
February 11th, 2005 at 6:30 pm//Its, apparently, unfathomable to you that I wasn’t put on this earth to serve YOU. Its not MY job to pay for YOUR retirement or anything else. Yes, we have an obligation to provide for those who can’t but you all seem to believe that you are entitled to take whatever you want from your friends and neighbors, I assume, because you believe that you’re more special, or more rare, or more deserving than they are. Now that’s hubris! //
So, America means nothing special to you at all then? You don’t see any reason why America is held up as a shining example for the rest of the world, other than that our leaders are beholden to their corporate masters, they make great bombs, and they can’t seem to keep any other kind of manufacturing base.
Here’s a little clue for ya, sparky. America is great because of things like SS. We don’t let our downtrodded die and rot in the streets. If you don’t like that plan, I could suggest probably 150 other countries that you could move to where you could step over these rotting corpses every single day, rather than have to pay to have them removed or to prevent them from dying there in the first place.
America is DIFFERENT than MOST other nations on the planet because we CARE. Not because we’re arrogant a$$holes who say “I’ve got mine, screw you.” That is a patently republican ideal, but NOT an American ideal.
What kind of nation do you think this is? Do you REALLY think we’d be better off just letting 50% of the population suffer, die, and rot in the streets than to all pitch in to prevent that curse? I can’t even imagine where you people get this line of subhuman thinking. How can you justify this? Are you a satan worshipper or a full out athiest, because you certainly cannot be a Christian and say things like this.
We build roads, schools, police and fire stations, an army, telecommunications lines, electrical grids, laws, monetary systems, etc., etc., etc. because it benefits ALL of society to do so. Same with SS (and healthcare for that matter). It behooves us economically, socially, morally, ethically, and spiritually to prevent the masses from dying and rotting in the streets, capice?
SS is NOT a retirement plan. It is a failsafe. Get that through your head. Two things to practice now…..Iraq had NO WMD and did NOT cause 9/11, AND social security is NOT an investment vehicle. Got it? Practice that over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. And then practice it some more.
Yes, we should ALL be contributing to our OWN retirement plans, whatever that may be. HOWEVER, we should NOT be disemboweling a proven successful government safety net in order to carry it on.
If you feel so strongly about needing your nanny government to launch your retirement plan private account for you, so be it. Push your legislators to create a NEW program for that. But tell them to LEAVE SS ALONE.
First, what they are proposing will NOT enhance the program, it will HURT IT, if not completely destroy it (which is, as I said, what they really want anyway).
Secondly, they will NOT be giving you personal control, as you’ve been misled into believing. This is nothing more than yet another grandiose republican massive expansion of the federal government through yet more irresponsible republican borrow and spend policies.
Third, stocks are RISKY, even when your nanny government is the parental figure that helps you choose them. Remember ENRON? That was your president’s close personal pal Kenny Boy that created that disaster. ‘nuf said. You CAN lose EVERYTHING in this venture. Past performance does NOT guarantee future results.
Fourth, if you’re STILL convinced that big government is the answer to all of your ills, take a peek at what happened in Great Britain and Chile when they did this very thing. Ironically, Great Britain is RIGHT NOW considering scrapping their failed privatized system and replacing with a system modeled after OURS. Go figure.
Social security is NOT broken, and, even if it WERE, Bush himself has admitted that his proposal will NOT make it any more solvent. In fact, it will excacerbate the fiscal problems considerably, by dramatically moving the time period at which SS will have no further trust funds available, from a projected date of 2052 to a projected date of 2018. Hardly what anyone with a working brain would call a “solution” to the fiscal solvency of the program.
Bush’s plan is bogus, top to bottom, and it should be a non-starter. In fact, it SHOULD become a political liability for him and any republicans foolish enough to latch onto it. Had they started from a point of honest discussion, and had they not presented a plan that very clearly does not do what they proposed it would do, they may have had some area for discussion. As it is, they’ve opened things up with deception and fraud, and, coming from an already discredited, fraudulant, dishonest administration, they’ve got a VERY steep climb to even come CLOSE to the realm of what one might call “credibility.”
Peace out, folks. Have a nice weekend. Don’t let the rightwing talking heads rot your brains too much. Read a book. Kill your TV. Play with your kids. But don’t keep swallowing the tripe that these snakeoil salesmen are pitching.
February 11th, 2005 at 6:34 pmAlso, how can you justify the discussion of this bogus plan knowing that the government will pilfer any amount that’s earned over 3.3%, and that even if you reach that goal, you won’t be earning any more than you would be without the nanny government/fascist money transfer/ponzi scheme that they’re pushing for?
Comment by Jeff  February 11th, 2005 @ 6:09 pm
The specifics will come from congrees. Bush has only painted the broad strokes. I think this 3.3% claim is bogus.
But, yes, the point is to have recipients get benefits from the growth of their personal accounts rather than from the taxes of their grand children. In that respect, the goal is to cut government supplied benefits understanding that they will be replaced plus with personal account earnings.
February 11th, 2005 at 6:36 pmSo, America means nothing special to you at all then?
Comment by Jeff  February 11th, 2005 @ 6:34 pm
America means opportunity. It means personal responsibility. It means sacrifice to ensure that YOUR CHILDREN have a better life than you. It means FREEDOM and INDEPENDENCE.
America was formed over revolt of a 1 cent tax on tea. What do you think our forefathers would say about a 12.4% tax on every dollar most workers earn for their entire life.
What do you suppose the folks who settled the west would think about today’s welfare queen/farmers? What do you suppose the immigrants that left distance lands and risked death and disease just to get here for a chance to work would think of today’s workers?
February 11th, 2005 at 6:45 pm“I’ve got mine, screw you.� That is a patently republican ideal, but NOT an American ideal.
Comment by Jeff  February 11th, 2005 @ 6:34 pm
You’ve got yours and you want mine?!
What does retirement planning have to do with welfare? You can provide for the elderly poor AND allow young workers to benefit from the time value of money.
The only way that SS survives to 2042 is if the AVERAGE worker is forced to pay $480 a month for the retirement portion of FICA. You see no problem with that?
February 11th, 2005 at 6:52 pmSo, America means nothing special to you at all then? You don’t see any reason why America is held up as a shining example for the rest of the world, other than that our leaders are beholden to their corporate masters, they make great bombs, and they can’t seem to keep any other kind of manufacturing base.
Comment by Jeff  February 11th, 2005 @ 6:34 pm
America was a “shining example” long before the explosion of the federal government?
I guess you would say that mexican immigrants are coming to the U.S. for our welfare benefits not our work opportunities?
February 11th, 2005 at 6:58 pmThe Swift Report has a great online quiz for kids that explains Bush’s social security plan quite well.
February 11th, 2005 at 7:15 pm#49 Comment by Louis Varnson  February 11th, 2005 @ 1:00 pm
Disparate Impact: Social Security and African Americans
Executive Summary
by Michael Tanner
THIS IS A LIE!
Editorial: Social Security/Blacks get more, not less, from it
January 17, 2005 ED0117
http://www.startribune.com/stories/561/5187689.html
Bush repeated last Tuesday “African-American males die sooner than other males do, which means the [Social Security] system is inherently unfair to a certain group of people. And that needs to be fixed.” That is an entirely phony assertion; it has been debunked by the Social Security Administration, by the Government Accountability Office and by other experts. Bush and those around him know that. For them to repeat what they know to be a blatant lie is despicable fear-mongering.
Bush didn’t make up this phony line on his own; it comes from the Heritage Foundation, which a number of years ago did a study purporting to show that because African-Americans have a shorter life expectancy than whites, they get less in return for the taxes they pay into the Social Security system.
February 11th, 2005 at 9:11 pmHeritage failed to factor in the progressivity of Social Security benefits; on a taxes-paid to benefits-received ratio, those with lower incomes get more back. Blacks tend to earn less than whites, and thus their Social Security benefits are larger in comparison to taxes they pay.
• Social Security is more than retirement benefits. It also includes survivor and disability benefits. Blacks benefit disproportionately from those programs. While blacks are 11 percent of the workforce, for example, they are 18 percent of those receiving disability benefits. Almost half the blacks receiving Social Security — 47 percent — are getting disability benefits or survivor benefits.
The Social Security actuaries found that Heritage had exaggerated substantially the amount blacks pay in Social Security taxes and low-balled the benefits they receive. “In fact,” the actuaries said, “results from more careful research reflecting actual work histories for workers by race indicate that the non-white population actually enjoys the same or better expected rates of return from Social Security than for the white population.”
The GAO reached the same conclusion. It said that, “In the aggregate, blacks and Hispanics have higher disability rates and lower lifetime earnings, and thus receive greater benefits relative to taxes [paid] than whites.”
#53 Comment by Joe  February 11th, 2005 @ 1:05 pm “Ans: This represents a 50% increase in FICA taxes!”
According to SSA, this shortfall can be made up by increasing FICA by 15% or decreasing benefits by 13% or some combination of both.
February 11th, 2005 at 9:18 pm#72 Comment by Joe: “The only way that SS survives to 2042 is if the AVERAGE worker is forced to pay $480 a month for the retirement portion of FICA.”
That is a LIE. SS will draw on the Trust Funds through 2042, perhaps later. There will be no need to increase FICA.
February 11th, 2005 at 9:23 pmON MICHAEL TANNER
Tanner is a biased LIAR* and Cato is just another cog in the Republican Lie Machine.
*”Last year, Tanner of the Cato Institute wrote that ”over the worst 20-year period of market performance in U.S. history . . . the stock market produced a positive real return of more than 3 percent.” Actually, the market has done worse than 3 percent per annum in nine different 20-year periods. “
February 11th, 2005 at 9:26 pmJust got around to reading the entire thread. Thanks also to Mischa for the answer to my question.
February 11th, 2005 at 9:41 pmYou righties have got your numbers all skewed and your information is off target. Not surprising, considering that your talking heads and leading politicians are experts at deception and dishonesty. One cannever forget that nearly 3/4 of you still thinks that Saddam caused 9/11.
#1 SS is NOT broke, and it is NOT in danger of going broke anytime soon, if ever. The most CONSERVATIVE estimate by the GAO suggests that, if economic growth NEVER budges above 1.8% annually, the trust fund will be depleted by 2052.
#2 Bush’s plan does NOTHING to enhance the strength of the program, and will more than likely break it, as Great Britain’s privatization plan is doing to theirs.
#3 You cannot possibly guarantee that a person putting 5%, 10%, 15%, or even 50% of their income into variable accounts will retire with anything at all, let alone more than they would on SS alone. How quickly you folks forget ENRON. “Past performance is no guarantee of future results.” Never forget that.
#4 SS is not an investment vehicle. It is a bare essentials program to keep people out of abject poverty. It is also the most successful government program EVER.
#5 Bush’s plan will not give you ownership of jack squat. It will “allow” you to gamble with a portion of your SS payroll taxes, but only in the accounts approved by big nanny government. If you “win,” you will pay up to 80% of your “winnings” to your nanny big government. If you lose, you get nothing, and you’re left to die and rot in the streets, left to be eaten by roaches, maggots, and rats.
#6 This program will MASSIVELY explode the size of the federal government. I thought you righties hated large government?
#7 Name one instance in which privatization of the public commons has resulted in better management and more successful operation than public oversight. I can name several cases of utter failure of the private sector in this regard.
#8 If we can justify the “several trillions” of dollars that this ponzi schem will cost us, why can we not justify just making the very minor adjustments required to maintain the system as is, indefinitely, such as raising the salary cap ever so slightly?
#9 Let’s not forget that President Pinnochio has yet to put this program cost, his illegal war in Iraq, and the REAL cost of his bogus medicare drug plan into his budget. Nor has he bothered to include the $700 BILLION that will be required in order to shut down the out of control AMT, which is a priority. Luckily, his rich buddies won’t have to worry about those bills. It’s your kids, your grandkids, their kids, and their kids who’ll be paying it for generations to come. Do you realize that we STILL have $1 TRILLION in Redink Ronnie debt on the books?
#10 Not ONCE have I heard one of you righties discuss WHY social security is facing potential fiscal issues. Why? Because the fiscal issues are a direct result of the malfeasance and mismangement of this republican president and congress, spending money that they don’t have like drunken pigs and handing out massive welfare checks to their wealthiest pals.
Your side has no argument in this discussion, because you’ve begun your debate on dishonest, fraudulant grounds. If you cannot accept the facts in this discussion, you cannot hope to debate or discuss it intelligently with a rational person, because you will be reduced to pulling out nonense gibberish and bogus numbers that your rightwing talking heads have concocted. The simple fact is that your president is once again trying to sell us a failed plan based upon lies and deception. I, for one, am not buying. I didn’t buy his unnecessary, illegal war, and I’m not buying his unnecessary, fraudulant theft of SS.
As I said before, I urge everyone to take part in private investment accounts to suppliment their retirement. It’s part of the opportunity that America allows us. But, what makes America TRULY unique is not this opportunity (these opportunities exist all over the world, not just in the US) is that we are a society that doesn’t just throw people away because they’re poor or in need. We’re a nation that is benevolent and caring enough to pony up collectively, so that we all can benefit from knowing that the lowliest and most needy amongst us are not castaways left to suffer in agonizing poverty.
THAT, my friends, is the part of America that I think Mr. Christ would be proud of. Not the warmongering, hate-filled, bigoted, judgemental, violent, dishonest, manipulative, greedy, uncaring, uncompassionate, evil America that the “moral Christian values” republicans seem to represent.
February 11th, 2005 at 11:17 pmGood job, Jeff – but don’t let people like Joe distract you from the goal. He seems to thrive on confrontation and would likely go at this for days. You see, he feels that he is right and nothing you or I say will change that. The only thing that might make him change his mind is if he had to live through the scenario that Bush and his horde have in mind for us. Even that might not do it, though. So don’t waste your time on people like him. He will either come around on his own or suffer like the rest of us when the trillions come due so that he could pull down an extra 1-3% and live a little higher on the hog than the rest of us poor slobs.
Something that hasn’t been mentioned is the debate over the declining input:payout ratio for workers and retirees. The decline from 16:1 at one point to a future 2 or 3:1 is based on static, present population trends. This scare tactic conveniently overlooks the annual and future influx of immigrant workers – who are not all illegal- and will contribute payments to the system.
So keep hammering the point that the right is trying to mask- this is NOT a retirement account, but a social safety net designed to protect not only the elderly and the impoverished, but also the disabled (like the returning vets, Joe) and others who are unable to make it. Unfortunately, in our market-based society, it is not possible for the dream to come true for all, and the terms “winner” and “loser” are not associated with investments for nothing.
If Joe loses his shirt in poor or mismanaged investments (think Enron), at least for now, he will have that safety net to fall back upon.
Even if Joe doesn’t realize it, his payments into the SS system (even if it is to -gasp- help someone else right now) benefit him as well. Poverty has a way of creating bad ripples – and with an impoverished elderly population that ripple would be even higher medical and insurance costs for all of us. The strain that would be placed upon the medical and insurance system would be unimaginable if tomorrow’s even larger senior class was forced into emergency room care instead of the routine doctor’s visits that they can barely afford now.
What if Joe’s parent’s lost their SS benefits? Would he provide for them as they provided for him? It is a mark of civilized and compassionate countries that they collectively care for the least of their brethren instead of allowing them to drift and die. So remember Joe, helping others can actually save you money and benefit you here — and after if you believe in that kind of thing.
My name is Brad and I approve this message…
February 12th, 2005 at 12:14 amJeff made a comment in defense of continuing Social Security that went like this, “Are you a satan worshipper or a full out athiest, because you certainly cannot be a Christian and say things like this.” I am an Atheist who has opposed the attack on our civil liberties by the faith-based Christian Bush Administration and its legion of right-wing Christian supporters. As an Atheist who realizes that we have only this life to live and that since their is no god or gods to help us, it is up to us to do what we can to help our fellow man right here, right now. So I would appreciate not lowering Atheists to the level of those who use faith in the supernatural to excuse their attacks on the sick and the poor in order to fatten their portfolios. Remember, it was a faith-based attack that America suffered on 9-11 and it has been a faith-based response by the Bush Administration to subvert the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in order to pursue their crusade to force their faith-based agenda on the citizens of our nation and the rest of the world. We could use much more critical and rational thinking (par for the course when you are an Atheist) by our citizenry to thwart the brainwashing in the name of “God” by Bush and his minions. Compassion for my fellow man is a part of being a secular humanist whereas western religions have a long and dark history of abusing individual rights in the name of “God.” Bush and those who support him are yet another fine example of the absurdity of compassionate conservatism.
February 12th, 2005 at 1:09 amhttp://www.texasobserver.org/showArticle.asp?ArticleID=1175
…According to Gary Ott, who was then a reporter for the Plainview Daily Herald, Bush stopped by the paper’s little office “maybe five or six times. He’d sit down at my desk; he was a fun guy. He was very outgoing, very friendly, and we would argue politics since I was a liberal. We’d argue over Carter policies.” Bush criticized energy policy, federal land use policy, subsidized housing, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (”a misuse of power,” he said), and he warned that Social Security would go bust in ten years unless people were given a chance to invest the money themselves. None of this really distinguished him from Hance, though, so in the end Bush simply argued that a Republican could better represent the district: “If you want a chance in the way Congress has been run, send someone who will be independent from those who will run the Congress.”
This was in 1978. How long an someone say the sky is falling before people realize he’s either a nut or a fraud?
This was also reported in the July 28, 2000 edition of USA Today (”The evolution of George W. Bush” by Jill Lawrence, page 8A).
February 12th, 2005 at 1:20 am#72 Comment by Joe: “The only way that SS survives to 2042 is if the AVERAGE worker is forced to pay $480 a month for the retirement portion of FICA.�
That is a LIE. SS will draw on the Trust Funds through 2042, perhaps later. There will be no need to increase FICA.
Comment by Steve J.  February 11th, 2005 @ 9:23 pm
You don’t get it. The only way to redeem those bonds is to raise taxes. Yes, I doubt the FICA will be raised by the 50% needed, but this will be little solace to the workers in 2030 who will see the extra 50% come out of their raised income tax.
February 12th, 2005 at 5:20 amMy name is Brad and I approve this message…
Comment by Brad  February 12th, 2005 @ 12:14 am
Why are elderly welfare AND investment accounts mutually exclusive to you people? Every system that has been fielded has some minimum income guarantee. We provide welfare for every other age group, why do you think we wouldn’t for the elderly?
February 12th, 2005 at 5:25 amComment by Jeff  February 11th, 2005 @ 11:17 pm
#1 SS is broke to those of us looking at $480 a month to support it.
#2 Bush’s plan saves SS by reducing the unfunded benefits in the out years. Instead of taxing grandchildren, these people will draw benefits from there private accounts.
#3 There will always be welfare for the small fraction of people who lose money.
#4 Then why are so many people treating it that way?
#5 The final details aren’t done. One ground rule is that people will own the accounts and be able to pass it on.
#6 the program will be no bigger than the curren SSA
#7 See John Stossel report from about a week ago. There are all kinds of examples of the “public common” is improved by personal ownership. Why are public parks and greenways always littered with filfth yet people’s front yards are always clean? Personal ownership!
#8 those under thirty are already looking at a negative return on their contributions. Raising taxes, wage limits, or retirement age takes a rip off and makes it a felony theft.
#9 The real cost is one year’s growth in federal spending. Isn’t it worth that to save social security?
#10 SS is in fiscal crisis because it is based on a mathematically ridiculous notion that today’s workers can make up for the 50 years of growth and inflation that current retirees FICA taxes would have earned had they been invested.
Gee you’re not at all bitter about the Iraq war. I’m sure you’re maintaining your objectivity on SS depsite you blinding hatred for Bush and all republicans.
Question for you: Are Bill Clinton and Harry Reid and Sen. Moynihan warmongering, hate-filled, bigoted, judgemental, violent, dishonest, manipulative, greedy, uncaring, uncompassionate, evil democrats because they each endorsed private accounts?
February 12th, 2005 at 5:43 amand he warned that Social Security would go bust in ten years unless people were given a chance to invest the money themselves.
This was in 1978. How long an someone say the sky is falling before people realize he’s either a nut or a fraud?
Comment by Bubba Ram Dos  February 12th, 2005 @ 1:20 am
SS was going bust in 1978! That’s why they raised the FICA taxes and retirement age in 1984?
February 12th, 2005 at 5:46 amNothing and nobody is stopping you or anybody else from establishing private accounts for your grandchildren.
Comment by Jeff  February 11th, 2005 @ 2:38 pm
Yes they are. The 12.4% FICA is preventing millions of people from having enough extra money to save on their own.
February 12th, 2005 at 5:58 am. So remember Joe, helping others can actually save you money and benefit you here – and after if you believe in that kind of thing.
My name is Brad and I approve this message…
Comment by Brad  February 12th, 2005 @ 12:14 am
I am helping others. I’m helping the low wage workers build assets and have a stake in the system.
I can’t believe we are debating whether saving and investing is a good thing or not. What do you tell your children? “Well, son, you really need to spend every dime you get the second you get it because after all you never know what will happen tomorrow. If you don’t spend it right now you might lose it.”
I will gladly forego participation in private accounts if that’s what it takes to convince the opponents that its not about personal gain.
February 12th, 2005 at 6:09 amI am a diabled 50 year ols man who depends on my SSD check.
February 12th, 2005 at 11:29 amPrivatizing Social Security will only cause problems for younger workers as many of them earn wages so low that it would be impossible for them to live if they needed to ‘bank’ somme of their hard earned money and put their uncomes to the poverty level.
There is ‘upper class’ and the rest of us. Whatever happened to the ‘middle class?’
Comment by John Luedtke  February 12th, 2005 @ 11:29 am
They are already paying 12.4% SS tax on every dollar they earn? By the time they retire they will have sent in 6 years gross wages into SS. So they are saving, a lot, they just aren’t getting credit for it and they aren’t being allowed to reap the benefit of the growth on those contibutions had they been invested.
BTW, nobody is talking about survivors benefits or disability.
February 12th, 2005 at 12:12 pmIt is depressing to encounter the continuing confusion of the Treasury Bonds (i.e., IOUs) in the spurious Trust Fund with genuine assets. The Federal government may be alone in the universe in being able to spend surplus payroll tax income, write an IOU payable by itself, then treat it as an asset. Don’t try that at home.
February 12th, 2005 at 3:31 pmOn numerous grounds, the privatization plan amounts to snake oil:
February 12th, 2005 at 4:52 pm. On average, the wealth that can be extracted from the stock market is dependent on the growth in the economy. A mass entry by Social Security participants would merely have the effect of dividing that finite sum among a larger number of players, with less for each. This would inexorably manifest itself in lower capital gains and dividend rates. It is simplistic (simple-minded?) to assume that the market would maintain historic patterns at a vastly higher scale, particularly since the new entrants would lack the flexibility of earlier players in when they would choose to buy or sell.
. It is almost a cliche by now that in the future, the declining percentage of producers will be oppressed by the share of GNP – from all sources! – they are called on to contribute to the growing percentage of retired. That brute fact is not altered by recasting the contribution as stock market profits (if they ever materialized), redemption of private savings, real estate sales as the elderly downscale, etc.: none of these changes the share – i.e., the burden, such as it may be.
. Therefore, any proposed manipulation is inherently deceptive except insofar as it changes that share by lowering relative payments to the elderly.
. Nonetheless, by 2050 or thereabouts, our productivity may have improved to the point where such payments could provide a comfortable and secure existence without proving unduly burdensome to the payers.
. The situation in 2050 is virtually impossible to predict with any degree of accuracy; the Administration is presumptuous in claiming otherwise – particularly since there will not be any “crisis” or “bankruptcy” at that time, the Social Security shortfall already having been financed out of general revenues for about 35 years (in redeeming the “Trust Fund.”)
.Further, since the Treasury has no mechanism for saving money (short of using the current surplus to buy Swiss bonds, instead of spending it – which might not be a bad idea), it can dispense nothing but advice to the taxpayers of that distant date.
In short, there is no crisis, and future taxpayers will have several decades to make whatever adjustments are required. There is nothing the current government can contribute. Privatization will merely undermine the system, which I believe is the Administration’s ultimate goal.
Comment by Henry Schneider  February 12th, 2005 @ 4:52 pm
First, nobody says it all has to be invested in domestic stocks. China is growing at 8% a year and needs lots of capitol. There are several other developing nations in need of capitol. Nevermind bonds, reits, etc.
Second, it isn’t a zero sum game. New capitol creates new businesses and industries through discovery and innovation. If the wealth in the stock market were finite then the returns people are seeing would have dropped precipitously because of the ten fold increase of investors over the last 50 years.
February 12th, 2005 at 5:00 pmMy conservative, fiscally responsible Republican family member have always said not to invest money in the Stock Market you cannot afford to lose.
February 12th, 2005 at 9:06 pmJust remember you “liberals” if my wife pays in over a million dollars before she retires and dies all that money is GONE. If she is able to set aside her own account , that money will go to me and our children. Please comment liberals ????
February 12th, 2005 at 11:24 pmI suspect the real motive for the Right’s crusade against SS is the relieve the employing classes of their share of the FICA tax to the greatest degree possible, if not altogether. Comments made about the privitization scam fail to ask what becomes of the empoyer’s mtaching FICA contributon for the those amounts of empoyee wages diverted into the private accounts. If empoyers are being exempted from matching those diverted contributions, as I suspect, then the real motive for wrecking SS become clear: tax avoidance!
February 13th, 2005 at 3:12 amComment by R Bruce Tuttle  February 13th, 2005 @ 3:12 am
Corporations are accounting procedures, nothing more. Accounting procedures don’t pay taxes, people do. YOU are paying the FICA match along with unemployment insurance, worker’s comp, corp income tax, and all the other taxes that the politicians have hidden from you to keep you from realizing how much government is costing you.
This is the same principal they used when they lumped life and disability insurance into a retirement program. The goal is to totally obfuscate the cost versus the benefits.
February 13th, 2005 at 8:04 amI find this discussion interesting. Although, I can’t help but think that this plan on Social Security of the Presidents’ will go down in flames when it gets to congress and if any of it survives, it will be a frail semblance of what it was meant to be. I believe this is a strategy by the administration to distract us from something else that is in their agenda that they are going to sneak through while everyone is up in arms about Social Security.
February 13th, 2005 at 10:27 amDave K
1) I’ve been paying higher payroll taxes since 1983 to build up enough of a trust fund to fix Social Security for the baby boomers. I will retire after the baby boomers (rob me once).
2) Bush gave away the surplus in tax cuts to the super rich (rob me twice).
3) By running up a skyrocketing national debt, Bush is not cutting taxes, but raising taxes on future generations. As with all previous administrations, the Social Security surplus is used as an accounting gimmick to hide irresponsible fiscal policies (rob me thrice).
By the time I retire, I’ll have paid for my retirement three times.
February 13th, 2005 at 12:19 pmCan joe come offer me ways to save for my disabled (and non-disabled) kids’ futures without losing the SSDI my child who will never walk now receives? If my savings grow beyond a certain point, even if, converted to cash (usually witha penalty loss factored in,) that amount cannot feasibly buy medical insurance for any of my kids. And before going on the bandwagon of “personal responsibility,” bear in mind that until this administration had firmly entrenched itself in office, I did have benefits, savings and *gasp* medical insurance for which I paid myself.
It’s not the future benefits cuts this 34-year-old woman fears; it’s the idea of dying in poverty well before I hit retirment age because this administration thinks that it needs to legislate my savings. If I could “have,” a job other than caring for my disabled son full-time without going broke paying for the joke that is “tax-deductible” child care, I’d be a “have,” not a “have-not” again.
Let’s not punish those who planned and were thrown a loop by keeping them from conceivably having a future of, well, life.
February 13th, 2005 at 1:22 pm2) Bush gave away the surplus in tax cuts to the super rich (rob me twice).
Comment by Brian Denzer  February 13th, 2005 @ 12:19 pm
So an across the board income tax cut is a “give away” to the rich? Nevermind whether its possible to “give” people their own money, the top 1% pay 33% of income taxes and have only 17% of the income. The bottom 50% pay almost no income tax at all.
Maybe you’d prefer we just confiscate all the income of the “rich” because after all we are more special and rare and deserving than they are? How dare they spend decades working 16 hour days trying to get a small business off the ground. The nerve of these people to spend 80 hr weeks studying medicine, or law, or engineering. These dirt bags who create jobs and put food on the table of dozens if not hundreds of families tables! The world would really be a better place if we could just get rid of these rich parasites?
February 13th, 2005 at 1:44 pmComment by Mamatat  February 13th, 2005 @ 1:22 pm
NOBODY is talking about disability. What does your situation have to do with allowing young people to save for their own retirement?
There’s no doubt that a small percentage of people under any plan will need some form of welfare. But you don’t set POLICY based on the rare exception.
By the way, if your not employed now, then your not paying FICA and therefore won’t qualify for the existing SS plan, let alone a privatized plan. Second, the current proposal makes private accounts OPTIONAL, so if you don’t like them you don’t have to take them.
February 13th, 2005 at 1:57 pm3) By running up a skyrocketing national debt, Bush is not cutting taxes, but raising taxes on future generations. As with all previous administrations, the Social Security surplus is used as an accounting gimmick to hide irresponsible fiscal policies (rob me thrice).
Comment by Brian Denzer  February 13th, 2005 @ 12:19 pm
You’re absolutely right! That’s why I hope you’ll join me in a call for one year’s zero growth in the federal budget. We’ll take the 2004 budget, mark out the date, and write in 2005. Problem solved.
February 13th, 2005 at 1:59 pmIf my savings grow beyond a certain point, even if, converted to cash (usually witha penalty loss factored in,) that amount cannot feasibly buy medical insurance for any of my kids.
Comment by Mamatat  February 13th, 2005 @ 1:22 pm
What does this mean? Are you saying your benefit gets cut off if you make/save too much money? If so then are you criticizing the current system while arguing that you want to preserve it?
February 13th, 2005 at 2:03 pmBy the time I retire, I’ll have paid for my retirement three times.
Comment by Brian Denzer  February 13th, 2005 @ 12:19 pm
So because you got screwed you want to make sure that you grandchildren get screwed to? Ponzi would be proud.
February 13th, 2005 at 2:04 pmComment by Mamatat  February 13th, 2005 @ 1:22 pm
One more thing: Seems like your same agument could be made against IRAs or 401Ks. Why should some people have IRAs when there are people who can’t afford to save?
February 13th, 2005 at 2:17 pm“I can’t help but think that this plan on Social Security of the Presidents’ will go down in flames when it gets to congress and if any of it survives, it will be a frail semblance of what it was meant to be.”
– Dave K
Not anymore. Both the Republican controlled House and the Senate have gotten spooked by the current floundering attempts to sell the president’s plan, so they’ve asked the White House to offer only vague ideas while they craft the legislation. Congressmen have characterized this as recapturing their responsibility to make legislation (didn’t seem to bother them on many other initiatives), but what they are really doing is taking over control of this policy. If SS reform works, Bush gets the credit. If SS goes down in flames, the House faces a bumpy 2006 election cycle. With little to gain and much to lose, the House Republican caucus will have a very large hand in the crafting of this legislation. Or, more to the point, of quietly letting it fizzle out if too many red flags keep popping up.
February 13th, 2005 at 3:21 pmSo many predictions, graphs, and so-called facts are making the rounds concerning social security, some favor the republicans views and some support democratic views. I can safely say that a point and counterpoint can be made by both parties on all of the issues. But I would have to align myself with one true fact, that I should have a CHOICE on what I would like to do with MY money that I EARN. Whether it be private accounts, investments or government. Some people have had their hands held by the government for so long that they would rather give the responsibility of THEIR own retirement to the very same government, rather than doing a little investment research that would benefit them much better in the future than forced income redistribution.
February 13th, 2005 at 3:26 pmComment by Skot  February 13th, 2005 @ 3:26 pm
Its worse than that. The AARP and all the people over 55 which won’t be affected whatsoever are dictating to those of us under 55 what we can do collectively with OUR SS system for OUR future.
They think its a mistake, fine. Its OUR mistake to make, not theirs.
February 13th, 2005 at 5:01 pmThis push to declare a “crisis” in Social security is really the Great American Rip-off. Social Security only goes into “crisis” the moment it will (in 2042) stop SUBSIDIZING the General Fund as it has done for many years. The “crisis” will be that of the wealthiest beneficiaries of the top-heavy tax cuts â€â€you remember, the ones that we were told we could afford because when they were passed we also were told they were going to expire who will have to start PAYING BACK some of the money that THEY received from Social Security in the form of subsidies to the General Fund. The answer to the Social Security “crisis”, therefore, is to restore something like normalcy to our tax structure, and return money FROM the general fund â€â€that’s the good old progressive income tax, folks to the hardworking people on whose backs the wealthiest minority have been living like kings.
Meanwhile, the privatization plan is simply a smokescreen, a magician’s trick to get us to look the other way while the money that is OWED to those who have been paying into SS is stolen from them by the means of substantial cuts in benefits all while the wealthy recipients of the “tax cuts” laugh all the way to the bank.
February 13th, 2005 at 9:13 pmThis push to declare a “crisis� in Social security is really the Great American Rip-off.
Comment by Bob  February 13th, 2005 @ 9:13 pm
So having the AVERAGE worker pay $480 a month, every month, for their entire work life isn’t a crisis to you?
When Clinton, Reid, Gore et. al. called it a crisis what were they making a “smokescreen” for?
February 13th, 2005 at 9:44 pmRe Comment #94 by Joe the Ubiquitous:There is no shortage of capital in the U.S. In fact, there are hundreds of billions of dollars overseas waiting for repatriation as soon as Treasury grants the expected windfall by eliminating most taxes. The economy can’t absorb unlimited investment; close to full capacity, it results merely in spinning wheels (inflation.) Re the tenfold increase in stock ownership since 1950 (your figure), the GNP has increased twentyfold since 1960. Nonetheless, in any given year, average stock (and bond) prices are the products of simple supply/demand equations.A sharp rise in demand will result in lower-quality stocks and bonds commanding higher prices at lower yields. (Starting with a P/E Index already grossly inflated from historic values.)
February 14th, 2005 at 12:16 amTo rephrase an earlier important point which appears still to be largely overlooked or misunderstood: Future generations of producers may find the percentage of GNP claimed by the retired (from all sources, not merely Social Security) to be insupportable. Even with the best of wills, the system may require some adjustment to reduce that percentage. However, the proponents of private accounts assert that they will increase that percentage, by improving the return over Social Security — thus exacerbating the problem!! The logic is underwhelming, and in the case of Bush’s legions undoubtedly merely duplicitous.
February 14th, 2005 at 12:40 amComment by Henry Schneider  February 14th, 2005 @ 12:16 am
All your same arguments can be made against 401Ks, IRAs, and private pension plans? I think you make an assumption that the growth of the U.S. stock market depends solely on the economic growth of the U.S. You don’t imagine U.S. companies expanding their market shares in developing economies? China GDP is growing at 8%. I’m sure the final plan will have international stocks mixed in to for diversity just as any 401K.
The amount in private accounts would be approximately the size of the SS surplus. This is about $150 Billion on a $12 trillion dollar economy. (Assuming everybody who can Opts for the private account) Hardly a flood. It’s also likely that the SS private accounts will displace non-SS private investment. For example, some people may contribute less to IRAs and 401Ks when they know their private SS account can’t be taken away and they can reliably factor it in to their overall retirement planning. I, personally, would certainly save less if I thought I’d ever see a SS check.
You also forget the return on the investments is almost irrelevant. For those under 30 the return on SS is negative. This means these people do better with private accounts even with MM account returns. All the people who die before age 67 currently get -100 percent return from the retirement portion of SS. But most people will be able to get the 5 or 6 percent over time needed to provide higher income than SS and still have the large asset to pass on.
BTW, I’ve long advocated that participants be able to use the private accounts toward their primary residence. (With the understanding that a reverse mortgage is expected in order to supply retirement income if needed.)
February 14th, 2005 at 4:52 amHowever, the proponents of private accounts assert that they will increase that percentage, by improving the return over Social Security – thus exacerbating the problem!! The logic is underwhelming, and in the case of Bush’s legions undoubtedly merely duplicitous.
Comment by Henry Schneider  February 14th, 2005 @ 12:40 am
But that money will be supplied by personal investment rather than the taxes of the children and grandchildren. Isn’t that a lot more fair than stealing money from 18 year olds?
If we’re able to become a creditor nation again and buy other countries debt in these accounts rather than being beholden to China, Saudi Arabia, Japan, et al. then we could have the citizens of other countries paying taxes to support our retirees.
If nothing else we can buy up our own debt and make sure that 8% of the federal budget in interest costs stays in the country.
February 14th, 2005 at 5:01 amIf anything needs to fixed about social security it’s the cap on contributions. This make it an extremely regressive tax. Currently you don’t pay any Social Security tax on anything above about about $90,000 in wages. This means I pay 15% of my income toward this tax but a person making a million a year pays less that 1.5%.
February 14th, 2005 at 8:16 amThis means I pay 15% of my income toward this tax but a person making a million a year pays less that 1.5%.
Comment by Bob Boersma  February 14th, 2005 @ 8:16 am
Is the millionaire going to get 10 or 20 thousand dollars a month back in benefits to recoup their contributions or do you want SS to be a straight welfare program?
February 14th, 2005 at 8:36 amto joe:
I hope you’re not doing this for free..I hear the goverment pays guys like you pretty well to do this sort of thing
February 14th, 2005 at 11:26 amI hope you’re not doing this for free..I hear the goverment pays guys like you pretty well to do this sort of thing
Comment by al  February 14th, 2005 @ 11:26 am
Its my pleasure to try and save my children from the crushing burden this bankrupt system represents.
Your comment is interesting, though, in that it falls into category one of the no-crisis crowd arguments:
1. Attack the advocates personally and ascribe all sorts of secret, sinister motives to try and discredit them. The “black helicopter” approach.
The other categories are:
2. Bring up disability or life insurance or health care or anything you can to skirt the issues with the retirement function of SS that is to be reformed.
3. Generic calls to make SS a straight welfare system.
If I were undecided, and I saw one camp talking voodoo and paranoia and obfuscation while the other side was imploring people to do their own thinking and their own math, I know who I would side with.
February 14th, 2005 at 12:04 pmJoe, I’m not really suggesting that you are getting paid to do this, just that you probably should, since you are doing such a yeoman job presenting the case for social security reform. Lesser voices than yours have been paid well for similar work.
February 14th, 2005 at 12:15 pmComment by al  February 14th, 2005 @ 12:15 pm
Sorry, guess I’m a little defensive. :)
February 14th, 2005 at 12:24 pmOMG, Joe has drunken gluttonous amounts of the Kool-Aid!
Seriously, you’re not engaging in this discussion from a position of honest debate, because the information that you’re basing your comments on are simply false. It’s sort of difficult to engage in any semblence of rational debate with someone who has taken a position based upon fraudulant information, and flatly refuses to acknowledge that fact.
Btw, even Bush himself has announced that his plan will not “save” SS, as you suggest. Please refrain from spouting this as an argument for this bogus, fraudulant plan.
Also, the system is not going broke, and may never go broke. The very conservative GAO projections are based upon the unimaginably low GDP growth of 1.8%.
At the present time, the best course of “action” for social security would be no action at all. There is no dire emergency, only a handful of corrupt, fraudulant politicians who’re speaking on behalf of the multi billion dollar companies who fund their campaigns and expect something lavish and oppulant in return.
This is precisely the type of payola scheme that this corrupt administration attempted to hand over to their energy company buddies in their first term of destruction. You don’t still think it’s a coincidence that Kenny Boy was helping to craft energy policy while at the same time gutting CA’s economy and raping his shareholders, do you? Did you ever wonder why Unkle Dickie has never turned over the notes from those public meetings?
In fact, right after that energy policy was written, I read an article stating that the lobbyists for banking and wall st. firms were already lining up to take part in the gutting of SS. That was four years ago. They’ve been waiting patiently for this opportunity.
Btw, I’ve yet to see a public park that wasn’t meticulously groomed and cared for, while on the other hand, I can’t even count the number of shoddy, terribly kept private yards I’ve personally seen. So much for your “proof.” Meanwhile, the most generous estimates for administrative costs for Bush’s fraudulant SS ripoff plan is 20%, vs. the current system, which is clocking at well under 1% for management costs. Uh-oh.
February 14th, 2005 at 1:23 pmListen, I think what Joe is saying, and saying quite eloquently, is that the system as it stands now is just plain unfair. How ticked off would you be if after paying into the system your whole life you hit 65 and died, just as you became eligible to collect. Meanwhile some broccoli-lover who “jogs” collects for 30 years.
What would be a lot more fair is this: The broccoli guy gets a lower monthly check upon retirement, whereas the red meat eating smoker would get a much higher monthly check, as he most likely won’t be collecting for as long. A promiscuous junkie with violent tendencies could start collecting much earlier, like at age 15.
February 14th, 2005 at 1:42 pmBush IS smart! Just look at how many of us he has fooled. Johnny gets a private account and Joe Black gets early retirement age…
February 14th, 2005 at 3:16 pmBut seriously, could someone please explain to me how the SS “Trust” fund can be drawn upon since it only exists on paper? And if it’s by the sweat of the tax payer, isn’t it the same as no trust fund at all? Should we not all be SCREAMing at our representatives to STOP spending the SS surplus NOW and put it in (AL Gore’s) lock box or invest it elsewhere? If there really was 1.6 trillion saved, we might actually make it to 2042 or so but…
Comment by Jeff  February 14th, 2005 @ 1:23 pm
Please list my supposed falsehoods.
NOBODY is saying private accounts will totally solve the problem. They will restore some semblence of fairness in the system and they will reduce the unfunded liabilities in the out years. Even if only half the people get the very conservative projections on the private accounts that reduces the unfunded liability by half, halves the burden on our grandchildren, and leaves more resources for the other half with weaker returns.
The prospect of the AVERAGE worker paying $480 a month to support the system is no cause for concern for you?
You’re spouting black helicopter/tin foil hat conspiracies theories about poltical cronies, but I’m the kool aid drinker? I’m convinced that if a doctor tells the average democrat he needs to exercise more the democrat will come away cursing the doctor talking about how that evil dirty doctor is in cahoots with the gym owners trying to scam them into paying gym fees.
The expense ratio on most mutual funds is less than 1%.
If your life experience is that public parks and shared walk ways are cleaner than private yards I’m not sure I can converse with you. We obviously don’t live on the same planet. BTW, how many of the shoddy, terribly kept yards were renters?
As another example, every year the government managed forests damn near burn down but the private forests have far fewer fires.
Please cite a reference for you claim that the management of private accounts will cost 20%? The figure I’ve seen is 0.3%.
February 14th, 2005 at 4:54 pmComment by Jeff  February 14th, 2005 @ 1:23 pm
Another thing, Jeff, your fundamental problem is that Bush is not saying anything different then what prominant democrats have been saying for years and years. So you either have to explain what scam they were running or concede that Bush is sincere.
In the end, I suppose, no one can know the personal motivations of any politician. I can tell you that I believe in personal accounts because I sincerely believe that they are more fair and more financially sound than pay-as-you-go. There’s no wall street lobbyist paying me. Nor are they paying the millions and millions of other people supporting reform. Bush exists because reformers supported him, not the other way around.
February 14th, 2005 at 6:14 pmJoe, in comment #120, said:
“If I were undecided, and I saw one camp talking voodoo and paranoia and obfuscation while the other side was imploring people to do their own thinking and their own math, I know who I would side with.”
Weird, but from your other posts I figured you for a Bush supporter, but this statement makes it clear that you are really against privatization. Or else just confused.
“Voodoo” definitely describes the concept of so-called “personal accounts” that include a claw back provision, basically making the account a government loan and certainly a gamble.
“Paranoia” is a little weak to describe what Bush is trying to engender in the American public, “panic” or “fear” are probably better terms to describe the use of outright lying by the regime.
But I agree, “obfuscation” perfectly encapsulates the Bush strategy of supplying little detail along with the lies in order to mask the reality of his plan. Thankfully, there appear to be enough people on the inside, from the White House to the Social Security administration, who are finally starting to blow their whistles and call attention to the man behind the curtain.
And luckily for us, there are economists like Paul Krugman who are indeed imploring us to do our own thinking and our own math and figure out what’s going on here – a wholescale plunder of the most successful assistance program in US history.
February 15th, 2005 at 3:48 pmComment by Bear  February 15th, 2005 @ 3:48 pm
Voodoo = reliance on the supernatural such as claiming that in 2018 we’re going to suddenly find a way to buy back the “trust fund” IOUs without raising taxes, despite never having paid down the national debt ever before.
Paranoia = irrational fear such as claiming that SS reform is a “smoke screen” so that Bush can achieve some secret, sinister objective.
Obfuscation = injected irrelevancies and other diversions such as talking about disability or survivors benefits or health care; everything but the retirement income function of SS.
February 15th, 2005 at 5:40 pmHow to Talk to a Liberal about Social Security (And you must, because why would you want to talk to somebody that already agrees with you?)
Step 1: Innoculate them against the fearmongering lies of the opposition to SS reform:
NOBODY is talking about disability.
NOBODY is talking about health care.
NOBODY is talking about survivor’s benefits.
NOBODY is talking about people over 55.
NOBODY is suggesting that the safety net for the elderly poor be eliminated.
NOBODY is talking about forcing people to do anything. Personal accounts are optional.
NOBODY is suggesting that personal accounts solve the SS problem by themselves.
Step 2: Explain how the retirement portion of the current SS system works:
The SS system is pay-as-you-go. Each month your employer withholds 6.2 percent of your wage, adds a matching 6.2 percent, and sends it to the SSA who uses the money to immediately send out checks to current retirees (and recipients of the disability and life insurance functions of the program). The money does not go into an account with your name on it. There is no guarantee that your contribution will have any relationship to your benefit. Congress can decide tomorrow to not allow people with red hair to collect benefits and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. If you die before the politicians tell you to all of your contributions are lost.
In 1984 the FICA tax was increased in order that system could build up a reserve in preparation for the retirement of the baby boom generation. However, instead of saving and investing the SS surplus, it has all been spent on other government spending. Everything from “bridges to nowhere”, $400 toilet seats for the military, and $1 million dollar out houses at the parks department. Because stealing the money out right was not politically viable, the politicians invented the so called “trust fund” which contains government bonds worth the amount of the SS surplus that has already been spent.
Step 3: Explain why their is a crisis:
Ultimately, there are two components of the crisis. The first is political. Because SS is so complicated and the average American is so financially illiterate it is virtually impossible for either party to discuss SS at a sufficient level to overcome the demagoguing of the other party. The last opportunity was 7 years ago with Clinton in 1998. Next year congress will be too consumed with their reelection. After the mid-term Bush will be a lame duck with little power. In 2008 a new president takes office and will not endanger their reelection prospects by tackling SS reform. The next political opportunity will probably be 2013. In 2018, the SS system starts to pay out more benefits than it takes in by taxes. This is essentially the point of no return and the options become very limited.
The second crisis is that of demographics. The current average SS check is $960. There are a little over 3 workers currently paying taxes to support each retiree. This ratio is projected to drop to 2 to 1 around 2030. At that point the average worker will be paying $480 a month, every month, for the duration of their work life. If the two workers are man and wife then $960 a month will be coming out of their household. This is expected to occur at the same time that (a) general government spending will no longer be able to use the SS surplus as a crutch and (b) medicare and medicaid programs are projected to explode with the aging population. The result is a crushing and unsustainable burden on our children and grandchildren, who after contributing an average of $300,000 over their lifetime will end up with no retirement benefit if the system is allowed to collapse.
Step 4: Appeal to the Liberal’s since of economic and social justice with a few questions:
Is it economic and socially just to:
-take money from black men to fund the retirements of rich white women
-take money from children(18 year olds) who’ve not even started out in life and give it to people who have a higher standard of living than they have
-take money from the unfortunate(die young) and give it to the fortunate(long lived)
-tax low income workers to the point that they have nothing left to build personal savings or wealth or have anything to give their children
-require some people to pay 2 or 4 or 5 times as much in SS taxes for the same benefit just because of the demographics of when they were born
Step 5: Encourage them to do their own research and math:
There is a FAQ and responses to many other questions on this blog.
A simple calculator for computing compound interest is at http://www.moneychimp.com/calculator/compound_interest_calculator.htm
A useful exercise is to see what one dollar invested at 7% over 50 years produces. (Ans: $29.46)
Another exercise is to see what a full time minimum wage worker would have from his FICA tax over 50 years. 2000 hrs X $5.15 X 0.124 = $1277 per year contributed. (Ans: $593,096)
A good reference for a description of one plan is at http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp-32es.html
February 15th, 2005 at 6:40 pmNobody knows what congress will hammer out as the final plan, although President Bush has sketched the broad principals. So beware of anybody claiming to know for certain about the low level details of “the plan” because it is still too early.
// Joe says: Paranoia = irrational fear such as claiming that SS reform is a “smoke screen” so that Bush can achieve some secret, sinister objective//
February 15th, 2005 at 10:02 pmIt is not secret, sinister objective.
It is very clear to me.
We are taking a secure financial engine from the hands of responsible caretakers who have a track record of managing that money and distributing that money BETTER than any other like financial engine in HISTORY, so much so they are looked at as a model to bail out other plans that have partially privatized and failed like in England, Chile, and Sweden, and he wants to give part of that money instead to self serving money hungry people in the private sector to manage it for “Us” for a fee, a fee that has not been disclosed at all. We have no idea if this fee will be performance based or flat, all we know is that BILIONS of dollars will be siphoned from the public fund to the private sector to pay these fees. Also it is quite plain and NOT secret there is going to be a “Government List” of companies and securities the “Government” deems as “Safe” investments. One like me wonders with Bush trying hard to lobby legislation that forbids people from bankrupting their Credit Cards if the Credit Card companies securitize portfolios of debt on Wall Street in order to raise capital AND if these same securities will be deemed by the Government as “Safe” investments.
Listen, MANY deals are done behind closed doors between Government and Business that we may not be aware of, or our Vice President refuses to disclose transcripts of these meetings, but as far as a “Secret, sinister objective”, to me this plan Dubya is pushing through mongering fear and doubt is as transparent as they get.
In the end, because of the system setup, leaving it alone and raising the cap to 120,000 to 150,000 dollar limit before they can stop paying the tax is the best method. Neither I or the Government should be concerned about what is fair, but instead what is BEST for our country, and having a safety net for our elderly to prevent them from slipping into poverty is BEST for many reasons ranging from financial to ethical to socialogical to religious. Please wake up and look at the Medicare “Reform” pushed through by this man and tell me once his plan for SS takes affect it will be any different. I think not. Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice….well you know.
Comment by Keith K  February 15th, 2005 @ 10:02 pm
So let’s say Bush is the anti-christ as your rantings allege. What does that have to do with me or the millions of pro SS reform supporters? I’ve supported reform for 15 years. I supported it when Perot then Clinton proposed it and I’ll support it long after Bush is gone.
Some simple questions for you:
1. What is the typical expense ratio on the garden-variety mutual fund?
2. At $90,000 a worker will pay in $558,000 over 50 years into this system at $2K a month in benefits they would have to leave about 25 years past retirement or about 15 years past life expectancy to recoup their taxes, let alone the millions of dollars that money would have grown to be had it been invested. You want to take a terrible deal and make it miserable?
Oh, that’s right, you don’t care about fairness.
February 15th, 2005 at 10:33 pmI’d like to know how I can send emails to my Congressional representatives supporting the views you expressed above.
February 16th, 2005 at 11:59 amtry:
http://www.house.gov/writerep/
and
http://www.senate.gov/
February 16th, 2005 at 12:27 pmGreat site. I loved seeing in print that conservatives have been trying to gut Social Security since it’s inception in the 1930’s. I’ve always thought this but never saw it said plainly. Thanks for a good site.
February 19th, 2005 at 1:25 amI appreciate what you’re trying to do, but please work with George Lakos and advise people to apply his ideas if they want to talk effectively to conservatives. Lakos understands how we progressives can communicate clearly, persuasively, with those who don’t know that they hold our values.
February 19th, 2005 at 12:55 pmReading Lakoff’s work, and hearing him speak, has enabled me to discuss issues with conservatives in a way that leaves their mouths hanging open, because they realize they agree with me. Pretty amazing.
I keep reading all the republican arguments here telling us that Clinton suggested private accounts. So let’s set the record straight. Clinton proposed, in order to encourage thrift among the working folk, that tax incentives and matching funds be paid to workers who opened savings accounts. His plan had nothing to do with social security. He intended to save social security with the budget surplus.
I’ll give you three guesses which republican controlled congress wanted to use the surplus to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy. Can you say Newt Gingrich?
There was another Democratic plan floated about that time. It would have opened a “Savings Trust Account for each child in America. Various sums were mentioned. $1000 per child was one, with yearly deposits of $500 or so per year until a goal of $3500. That money would be held in trust, at compound interest, until the child retired. Talk about a nest egg!
But guess where the surplus went under GW? If there is any blame to be attached for the state of Social Security today, it rests right square on the conservative republican.
Dick G
February 19th, 2005 at 3:42 pmFor those who have listened to all the propaganda about private accounts in Texas. Here is a good, non-partisan study done in 1999 by the GAO.
United States General Accounting Office
GAO Report to the Chairman and Ranking
Minority Member, Subcommittee on
Social Security, Committee on Ways and
Means, House of Representatives
February 1999 SOCIAL SECURITY
REFORM
Experience of the
Alternate Plans inTexas
GAO/HEHS-99-31
GAO United States
General Accounting Office
Washington, D.C. 20548
Health, Education, andHuman Services Division
B-279337
February 26, 1999
It is a long and tedious document to read but it draws the following general conclusions.
1. Privatization does NOT favor the lower and middle income groups. Social Security is better for them,
2. It does tend to favor the upper income group and proves better than Social Security for them.
Boy, what a suprise! Read it for yourselves and see what you find.
I have to admit that I tend to be a bit distrustful of pundits and groups that are trying to further an agenda, but I do trust our ‘bean counters’, especially as this study was done years ago, before the privatization scheme of GWB and the republican right wing.
February 19th, 2005 at 6:50 pmComment by Dick Garrecht  February 19th, 2005 @ 6:50 pm
Let me guess, the report makes no mention about the fundamental fatal assumption that because benefits have been promised that the benefits will actually be paid. Kind of hard to do a comparison when what’s being compared to is a complete fiction. Oh sure, we’ll pay off $10 trillion in bonds starting in 2018. Its no problem. We would have paid off that pesky national debt thing sometime in the last 230 years but we just never got around to it?
Why does every program have to “favor” this group or that group over the other group, anyway? Whatever happened to basic fairness?
February 20th, 2005 at 12:34 amI’ve just spent the last couple of hours reading all 139 posts here. Being a lifelong Republican that switched sides under Bush all the questions I have had about ss have been answered. I guess many of us have a fatalistic outlook because we want to trust this administration. Someone made the comments earlier about being fooled once etc. I to was excited in 00 but soon learned how anti-American this administration is. If you are wealthy they kiss your a– but if your are a hard working Joe we are going to take advantage of you. I can honestly say this is not the America I grew up in it has been overtaken by the greedy. A few years ago I kept hearing about the “ME” generation. If this is the result then I hope nothing ever goes wrong in their life because God forbid they would have to depend on society. The bottom line is if you read their fine print you should be scared very scared as they resemble something that has lost their humanity. God help America we have lost our way. I for one intend to go down fighting. One more promise I will never vote Republican again as they have abandoned honesty, principals, integrity and civil discourse. Never realized how much power corrupts.
February 21st, 2005 at 6:31 pm/ Whatever happened to basic fairness?/
SS Tax is the only flat tax we have.
Your benifits are figured from you deposits into it over a period of “X” amount of years.
This is the closest thing, besides flat consumption taxes, to a “Fair” tax that I can think of.
February 21st, 2005 at 7:49 pmThe only “unfair” part of it is how long you live.
And Hodobe (post 140)….amen! Funny how it has turned from “Thank God” to “God help us!”, isn’t it?
If you are wealthy they kiss your a– but if your are a hard working Joe we are going to take advantage of you.
….
One more promise I will never vote Republican again as they have abandoned honesty, principals, integrity and civil discourse. Never realized how much power corrupts.
Comment by Hodobe  February 21st, 2005 @ 6:31 pm
I think you need to read the posts again. First, most “rich” people are hard working too. Second, in regard to SS its the “hardworking joes” that are being hurt the most by the current financially and morally bankrupt system. 12.4 cents of every dollar they earn their whole life is being confiscated such that they never have enough left over to buy a stake in the system or have anything to leave their children. The “rich” will be fine either way. Third, how is it taking advantage to let individuals have control over their own future?
Maybe you can cite some examples of abandoned “honesty, principals, integrity and civil discourse”. From what I’ve seen Bush has done precisely what he said he would do including cut taxes, remove saddam, reform education, and now tackle SS.
February 21st, 2005 at 9:53 pm/ Whatever happened to basic fairness?/
SS Tax is the only flat tax we have.
Your benifits are figured from you deposits into it over a period of “X� amount of years.
Comment by Keith K  February 21st, 2005 @ 7:49 pm
So the folks paying in $12k a year now are going to receive $55k a year back in benefits for their 10 years after retirement?
The benefit formula is very progressive. I will agree with you, though, that SS rips off everyone. But some get a rawer deal then others.
February 21st, 2005 at 9:58 pmsave social security. we don’t want your way or the highway. listen to america.
February 21st, 2005 at 10:56 pmAlright, listen up. America is not a Democracy with majority rule, it is a Constitutional Republic where the property rights of the individual are to be protected by the government. Should anyone so choose to partake in a social savings pan such as SS, they should certainly feel free to do so. However, since freedom of choice and property rights are supposed to be prevalent in this country (and morally so), an individual should have a choice of whether they would like to participate in the savings plan or not. I would prefer not to participate and save my money the old-fashioned way… and since I won’t be putting money in, I won’t be allowed to take money out. Who is anyone to tell me I can’t save myself $4300 a year the way I want to? You want to argue statistics, find another guinea pig. You want to argue morals and constitutionality, email me hootie361@vzavenue.net.
February 22nd, 2005 at 3:56 pm/ Joe said:
Some simple questions for you:
1. What is the typical expense ratio on the garden-variety mutual fund?
2. At $90,000 a worker will pay in $558,000 over 50 years into this system at $2K a month in benefits they would have to leave about 25 years past retirement or about 15 years past life expectancy to recoup their taxes, let alone the millions of dollars that money would have grown to be had it been invested. You want to take a terrible deal and make it miserable?
Oh, that’s right, you don’t care about fairness./
OK Joe, let me answer your question.
First look here:
http://money.cnn.com/pf/101/lessons/18/page3.html
It is short and sweet and applies to the VAST majority of citizens in this country. You seem to be stuck on this 12.4% that is stolen from us a squandered while if you just had it, you could make a fortune off of it. This percentage, as you can see is the full percentage payed into the system. If you are a salaried worker, you are responsible for 6.2% of this tax, while your employer is responsible for the other half. Your employer writes this off as a “Cost of doing business” therby actually contributing less by virtue of Tax writeoffs and the increase in costs of goods or services to cover this, as does any self employed person. We all know the sun does not rise in the west, just as we know that the employer contributed side will never be available to us at all, so that never is, and never was our money. Given these numbers (actual ones that apply to the “working Joe”) and using a normal calculater, not a Bush calculator, and figuring in your salary of 90K per year for 50 years, which I am sure is your “Mean” average of what all of us can expect to earn over our working careers or something (Oh, the sun does not rise in the West? Silly me!), that means total contributions of 279K which is paid off by retirement. At 2K a month ( this is incorrect, I think these are more numbers from the “Bush” calculator just from that incredible number you tossed out because SSA calculators show benefits based on that income starting this year with a start age of 16 and retiring at 66 will be $12415.00 per month…..see for yourself: http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/AnypiaApplet.html ) you will recoup that money in 11 years and 8 months. If we actually use the SSA calculator and the real benefit amount adjusted for inflation, your recoup time is 23 months. Had you taken your real yearly contribution of $5580.00 per year and invested it in a non-risk 7% per annum return, you would personally have made $2,427,221.63 in this time. At a monthly rate of $12415 per month, you would spend it in 16 years and 4 months.
“But what bout all the extra compound interest I coulda made?” you might moan. Since this money provides for the total fund, you can actually have a good feeling in your heart that also from your contributions Disability, Health Care and Survivors benefits for those that truly needed it were paid for from the interest you “Might” have earned had you had your way with the tax. Should you pass away before you get even close to “Your fair share”, your spouse will get it while he/she lives if your married, and people like my mother who was crippled by polio at the age of 4 and cannot work do not ever have to worry about health care or having enough to get food and a roof over their heads. Try to think of your contribution as a contribution to your society, which is the most affluent in the world and the most affluent in history, arguably with programs like this as a factor for this vast wealth because the redistribution of a small amount of everyones money raises the standard of living for the entire society, and that society does not incur the burden of paying the greater price had the overall standard of living been lower (Basic socio-economics Joe, they teach it in institutes of learning here in the states). This is of course assuming you will not make it 16 .3 years into retirement Joe and get “Ripped off” by dying with no survivors before you saw all “Your” money that you “Could” have invested in iron-clad gurenteed 7% per anum return private accounts that have no management fees at all.
Allow me to show one more error in your “Bush” calculator Joe, before I wrap it up.
/Joe said:
Another exercise is to see what a full time minimum wage worker would have from his FICA tax over 50 years. 2000 hrs X $5.15 X 0.124 = $1277 per year contributed. (Ans: $593,096)/
OK….with those numbers if I run it through a normal calculator….hmm….let’s see…
1277 x 50 at a 7% per annum return (The sun DOES rise in the west…oh wait…sorry) is:
555,477.06 considering you start with 0 in the account (it is simple “Bush” calculater function to insert money where it never was, it’s OK Joe) to begin with. Now let’s factor in the REAL contributions and we have based on employer contributions and the equation now is:
638.6 x 50 at a (cough) 7% per annum riskless return and the answer now is: 277,782.03
A fine number anyway you say!
Now, let’s insert this same wage into the SSA Calculator and calculate your benefits like they do, not the “Bush” calculator and see what our monthly benefit will be adjusted for inflation based on a job at 5.15 and hour for the rest of your life, shall we Joe?
February 23rd, 2005 at 1:11 amThe answer is…………$3742.00 per month at age 66. Your retirement under your own plan of “Investing YOUR money at a 7% return” will run out in roughly 6 years and 3 months. The “Broken” system that is taking money “You” could better invest, and manage with an exponentially higher risk rate, will pay you until you die. If your investments fail, you get nothing, but if you let the SSA take “Your” money, you don’t do too bad, do you Joe?
If I had my way Joe, I would be happy to give you “Your” money to go gamble with, but my families money is going into the system that already works. Expect the annual income cap to be raised for SS due to inflation and be happy to pay it, because if you live past 82, or your spouse does, you effectivly have ripped us all off Joe, and that is a tough pill for me to swallow, you being so “Fair” and all. By all means get your money out, but do not legislate we have to do it with you Joe.
Using REAL math and REAL SSA calculations, we are getting a much better deal than taking the risk you want us to take. Even if we somehow succeed at your risky venture, and it works out that good, which is highly unlikely, if we live past our 70’s we get screwed with your “Successful” investing advice. I wonder what the life expectancy age will be in 30-50 years?
Suppose I could investigate it….Just like I would suggest investigating a bit deeper these things your being told about taking your own risks so you can get MORE MONEY and BE RICH Joe!
God forbid someone else has a chance of getting any of the money your preceive you can make even though given your best predictions right now, they will do far more with it, help more people than just you Joe, AND will most likely give you more money back in the end than you could have made under your BEST predictions.
Where do you people come from…I have heard of gullable and greedy, but my God….how can there be so MANY of you??
Comment by Keith K  February 23rd, 2005 @ 1:11 am
Why do you persist with your totally bogus assumptions:
1. Workers’ WOULD get the 6.2% employer contribution if it didn’t go to SS. It doesn’t matter to private accounts, anyway, because the same 6.2% will go to them if reform is inacted. If you prefer, we can pass a law during the reform that the employer stop paying the 6.2% and immediately increase the worker wage by the same amount to avoid confusion.
2. NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT THE WELFARE FUNCTIONS OF SOCIAL SECURITY! All your rant about social responsibility and safety nets, etc. have nothing to do with reform of the retirement function of SS.
3. Another problem is you act like somebody is forcing you to do something. PERSONAL ACCOUNTS ARE OPTIONAL.
Regarding the SS calculator in your link I don’t know how you could have used it to get the numbers you cite. You would have to take todays full time minimum wage and de-index it for inflation projecting it back 50 years.
But you have ABSOLUTELY LOST YOUR MIND if you believe that SS will be sending out checks in the amount of $3742 PER MONTH to minimum wage workers in TODAYS DOLLARS! All of my numbers are inflation adjusted so that you can compare the investment returns to today’s benefit checks.
I think you need to check your math. Either your benefit numbers are future dollars instead of today’s dollar or you entered future dollars for the contributions instead of today’s dollars. But your at least a factor of 6 off.
BTW, I used $2K/month in my calculaton because that is about the max that SS currently pays. Its very difficult to get min, max, mean numbers from the SSA (I,ve tried). But the agreed average is $960. So how can the minimum wage worker earn 3x what the average current benefit is, as you allege?
February 23rd, 2005 at 8:44 amComment by Keith K  February 23rd, 2005 @ 1:11 am
I think I know what happened. The $3742 is the yearly benefit! That’s $311 a month. And your $12455 benefit was suppose to be $1037 a month.
Thanks for independently confirming my results.
February 23rd, 2005 at 8:48 amNo Joe,
February 23rd, 2005 at 1:39 pmAs stated in my post, both of those benifits are paid out monthly given that both Mr. Minumum wage and Mr. 90K started working this year.
It is not an error. Try it again, it’s easy.
And it is adjusted to “Future Dollars” which reflects average annual inflation. The 6.2% employer met protion of the tax is not a tax on us, we will never see it, and is factored into the employers cost of doing business. This is not Bogus, this is reality in that you will NEVER see this money no matter what, or be able to use it for anything yourself.
February 23rd, 2005 at 2:09 pmAnother part of the formula that is reality is if this money was not taken from the workers half, the 6.2%, the real world dictates that money would just be spent, and not saved by anyone who made so little money they would actually have to rely on SSA retirement in their senior years.
You so viamently state we are JUST going to reform retirement and not touch anything else. I have been around long enough to know that once you open the bottle and let the genie out, everthing is subject to “reform”. I will not even get into showing you the facts about all the other wonderful things your “Stand up” guy in Washington has done as you so proudly assert that he has done just like he “said” he would like remove Sadaam (missed that in the campaign speeches of 2000, but hey, we all miss stuff.), “Reform” Education (you don’t really want to go there Joe), and yada, yada, yada becuase this arena is for SSA.
Unless your a major stockholder or executive in either the firms who this administration has tapped to manage the retirment fund, or the firms the administration has tapped to participate in thes funds, you stand to loose your money. History has shown this will not work in every instance it has been tried, and history to now has shown the existing system is the best system ever devised of its type.
Go drink some more Kool-Aid or something I guess. *Sigh*
It is not an error. Try it again, it’s easy.
Comment by Keith K  February 23rd, 2005 @ 1:39 pm
In today’s dollars or future dollars? Mine are all today’s dollars.
If its future dollars, and you assume 3% annual inflation, than today’s dollar is worth about $4.38 in 50 years. This means you would have to divide your numbers by the same factor.
BTW, how could you use the SS benefit calculator to calculate a future benefit when the last income entry year is 2005? Are you referring to a different link than:
http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/AnypiaApplet.html
Also, what numbers did you enter as income for 1960, for example? If you put in today’s minimum wage then you greatly over estimated the contribution because $10K was a lot of money 45 years ago. I believe the calculator works the same as the benefit estimate statements the SSA sends out which DO NOT adjust for inflation. They do this so people will make the same mistake you did. They’ll look at there 1960 contribution, see $300 or whatever, and think they hardly paid anything not realizing that number is valued at $1200 or $1300 today.
Just think about what you posted. You essentially said that the minimum wage worker making $10K a year while working will get $44K a year AFTER they retire?
Please post what you specifically entered into the SSA calculator and I’ll try to duplicate.
February 23rd, 2005 at 2:15 pmGo drink some more Kool-Aid or something I guess. *Sigh*
Comment by Keith K  February 23rd, 2005 @ 2:09 pm
I think you must be drinking something if you think you can compare SS benefits using 2055 dollars to investment returns in 2005 dollars and not get caught.
February 23rd, 2005 at 2:21 pmJoe said:
February 23rd, 2005 at 5:02 pm/in today’s dollars or future dollars? Mine are all today’s dollars./
Unfortunatly, reality again strikes, and we realize that private investing will always return in todays dollars and never be adjusted up for inflation, where our SS monies WILL be paid in future dollars being adjusted for inflation.
There is nothing wrong with the methodology or the math.
It is what it is.
If you start work today and invest in SSA, or invest in personal savings based on a 7% annual return, your going to end up with the numbers I put forth.
If you start work today and invest in SSA, or invest in personal savings based on a 7% annual return, your going to end up with the numbers I put forth.
Comment by Keith K  February 23rd, 2005 @ 5:02 pm
Please summarize your results. What are you saying the minimum wage investor gets at 7% GROWTH (=Interest – inflation – costs) versus social security.
2000 hrs times 5.15 hr times 12.4 cents/$ earned = $1277 a year. Enter this number into Current principal and Annual addition at http://www.moneychimp.com/calculator/compound_interest_calculator.htm
then enter 50 years and 7 percent growth. I get ~$593K. If we assume you can take out 5% a year that’s $2,470 a month in income in TODAY’S DOLLARS. Compare this with TODAY’S average SS benefit of $960 a month (http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/basicfact.htm) and count the fact that this person would still have the $593K. The numbers just get worse the more you make.
Don’t like 7% try 6% or 5%. I calculated that for minimum wage worker they come out ahead for income even with 3%. If you allow them to spend down the lump sum over the retirement years that can probably get by with 1 or 2%.
By the way, the other fallacy in your analysis is the assertion that promised benefits will actually materialize. A lot of people in 1984 believed the SS promise to let them retire at 65, but that never happened. To be fair you should compare investment returns to the project ~35% cuts in 2042.
Look at it this way. At 12.4 cents on the dollar a worker will have collected in their account about 8 years worth of take home pay even without any growth whatso ever. For all the money its costing us SS is only really giving people maybe a couple years of extra income on average.
February 23rd, 2005 at 6:16 pmComment by Joe  February 23rd, 2005 @ 6:16 pm
Oops I meant 8 years gross wages. Probably about 10-11 years take home.
February 24th, 2005 at 8:33 amComment by Joe  February 24th, 2005 @ 8:33 am
Sorry, right the first time. 50*0.124 ~ 6 years gross or about 8 years take home.
February 24th, 2005 at 8:56 amI hope that those who are still undecided will please contrast my posts with Keith K.
I have:
1. Answered every question put to me.
2. Specified my assumptions, sources of numbers, and calculators used.
3. Conceded the weaknesses in the privatization case, e.g. personal accounts can’t solve the problem by themselves and must be accompanied by reforms to prevent the general government from spending the current SS surplus.
Keith on the other hand:
1. Refused to answer several direct questions.
2. Refused to provide the details of his “calculations”.
3. Has generally focused his entire discussion on everything except the retirement function of SS.
Worse, Keith has implied several falsehoods:
1. He denies that for every dollar a worker earns, 12.4 cents is sent to SSA.
2. He makes the dubiuous assertion that in 2018 the US government can and will start retiring trillions of dollars in debt even though it has never paid down the public debt in the last 230 years.
3. He asserts that SS will pay full benefits without any reform. Even though the staunchest anti-reformers admit that benefits would have to be cut by ~35% in 2042 even if the “trust fund” existed.
Now which side do you think is sincere? Which side is most interested in educating people about the issues?
Please contact your representatives and tell them to SUPPORT reform:
http://www.house.gov/writerep/
and
http://www.senate.gov/
February 25th, 2005 at 12:29 pmComment by Joe  February 25th, 2005 @ 12:29 pm
Correction: Benefit cut in 2042 is 20-27% not 35%.
February 25th, 2005 at 12:35 pmJoe,
There are a few things about your own posts that are misleading:
“1. He [Keith] denies that for every dollar a worker earns, 12.4 cents is sent to SSA.”
True – but not completely. The employer pays half, and I am sure you know this. You are trying to make this look like a 12.4% tax.
“2. He makes the dubiuous assertion that in 2018 the US government can and will start retiring trillions of dollars in debt even though it has never paid down the public debt in the last 230 years.”
The Treasury securities are legal tender. If the trust fund cannot be paid, it would be as if you tried to withdraw your savings account from a bank and they could not pay, because they’d used the money. That would require a lawsuit on your part and a bailout on the bank’s. Or the bank declares bankruptcy. If you’re saying we need to borrow from China in 2018 or declare the USA insolvent, fine, but the problem is not Social Security, it is spending. For more on this, see the White House budgets for 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 & 2005.
“3. He asserts that SS will pay full benefits without any reform. Even though the staunchest anti-reformers admit that benefits would have to be cut by ~35% in 2042 even if the “trust fundâ€? existed.”
Actually, it is 13%. See: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/02/28/social_security_alternatives_emerging/
Or: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7037075/
Here are a couple more points:
The trust fund has always been 30 to 40 years from disaster. In fact, it was only 32 years away in 1994. Today it is 37 years off.
In 1981, benefits paid exceeded tax revenues, and had for 7 years. The tax was raised in 1983 to fix the problem, and it did. It is why we are talking about the long-term burn rate on a trust fund that barely existed for decades before 1983.
Finally, it is fundamentally dishonest to claim that a 40-year economic projection is fact. Most business projections are three-years long, and most businesspeople shrug and chuckle about the second and third year. Even the surest would not make a solid growth claim beyond a few quarters. Can you make a 40-year projection about your business or the nation? Sure. Is it worth the toilet paper it’s written on? No.
“Now which side do you think is sincere? Which side is most interested in educating people about the issues?”
That’s easy – the Democrats.
February 28th, 2005 at 3:08 pmComment by Tom  February 28th, 2005 @ 3:08 pm
Regarding the benefit cut: the first bullet on this page says 20-27% cut. I’ve heard others say as much as 35%.
Regarding the SS bonds: these are intragovernment debt, not public debt. We can default on them without any problem. It’s the left hand owing the right. Which raises the question: If in 2018 we suddenly have all this extra money why would we choose to pay off the intragovernment debt instead of the public debt?
Regarding economic projections: If we can only talk about 3 years economic projections, fine. But only promise people who are 64 or older that they’ll have anything from SS then. Don’t go around telling twenty year olds that they will ever see a single dime back from the 12.4 cents of each dollar they are earning that is being sent to SS.
By the way, its not the economic projections that matter to me, it’s the demographic projections that matter with pay as you go. We know in ~2030 that X million retirees will be expecting some livable benefit from the paychecks of about 2X million workers. Regardless of economic growth or wage growth or any other projection this is an immoral and unsustainable burden on our children and grandchildren.
February 28th, 2005 at 5:19 pmINNOCULATE YOURSELF: HERE IS THE NEXT SPIN:
JUST SAY NO TO ANY KIND OF PRIVATIZATION
from Krugman, NYT: 3.2.05
“some Republicans are reported to be talking about a compromise in which they would agree to some kind of tax increase, probably a rise in the maximum level of earnings subject to the payroll tax. They would offer to use the revenue from that tax increase, rather than borrowed funds, to establish private accounts, thereby assuaging fears about the huge debt buildup that would take place under the administration’s plan. They might even agree to make private accounts an add-on to traditional benefits, not a replacement.
But it would still be a bad deal. Creating private accounts in the current environment, no matter how they are financed, would be a mistake.
First, think about the fiscal implications. We have a huge budget deficit, largely caused by Mr. Bush’s decision to cut taxes while waging war. Any realistic plan to bring the budget deficit under control will have to include tax increases, especially if we want to avoid the harsh cuts the administration is trying to impose on Medicaid and other essential programs.
There may be a place for a rise in the payroll tax maximum in such a plan: AARP, among other groups, has proposed such a rise as one way to improve the Social Security system’s long-run finances. Devoting the extra revenue to the trust fund would also reduce the overall budget deficit.
But if the revenue from a rise in the payroll tax maximum was used to subsidize private accounts rather than to bolster the trust fund, it wouldn’t address any urgent priorities: it wouldn’t help the long-run finances of Social Security, it wouldn’t reduce the budget deficit, and it wouldn’t support crucial programs like Medicaid.
March 2nd, 2005 at 2:42 pmI have read with great interest here – certainly more informative than today’s corporate media sound bites and sketchy newspaper coverage. I claim no real expertise with numbers and everyone here is easily much smarter than me with the math & projections but I would like to throw in a few comments of slightly different view that seem devoid in most discussion concerning Social Security. Basically that would be – history.
Since its inception, SS has successfully raised multi-millions of Americans out of destitute poverty. Most of us born after roughly 1940 only remember our parents and grandparents reference to “the poor house”. Certainly today we have levels of poverty that are unacceptable in this country, but in my lifetime I have never known destitute poverty. I did not grow up privileged, but middle class. I did grow up around some fairly low income people – the kind of people that do live off of their SS in their elder years, but I have never in my lifetime known what it is like, nor have I ever known anyone that has known the distinction of “not having a pot to piss in”.
The Stock market did crash once in our great rich country and that could conceivably happen again. I think this historical significance should be considered when one ponders the “fairness” of a 6.2% (it is not 12.4%) FICA tax deduction taken against a portion of ones total annual income.
Social Security is in my opinion pretty well defined by its name. It is not and never was a retirement program. FDR’s “New Deal” offered every American deliverance from poverty – insurance against poverty – that is what it promises and that is what it has delivered since it’s inception -if you are willing to go to work and play by the rules.
To date, Social Security has yet to miss a payment. There have apparently been a number of “glitches” the like of which we are discussing now that have come and gone. According to a gentleman named (I think Henry Aaron) from the Brookings Institute and another man (name I can’t recall) who was the former director of the SSA until the year 2000 that I saw on CSPAN about a month ago, we have a glitch about 40 to 50 years out. A “glitch” that they and many others say can be dealt with by reasonable and relatively painless means without dismantling a system that turns out to be the marvel of many countries.
I think the discussion warrants some thoughtful consideration for the economic conditions many of us have been afforded, largely as a direct result of FDR’s “new deal”.
Let’s not forget that SS Insurance also covers Orphans and Widows.
What about the 20 year old father of 2 who has only paid into the system for a few years that dies in an accident? His 2 kids get $500 a month until they are 18 years old. How would the private account affect that sort of benefit?
I like the idea of SS being guaranteed insurance – in case my private investments tank – which they pretty much have in the last 5 years by the way! I think Social Security is not in crisis or broken and that there are certain people that would like us to think that it is. I don’t particularly enjoy paying tax nor do I enjoy paying the 6.2% portion of my employees FICA tax. I consider it a privilege to have been born in this Country. Paying taxes is part of that privilege. When the whole country does better – I do better.
It seems to me that we are really are the “meâ€? generation as someone stated here earlier. I think a massive scam is being unleashed on the yuppie “better return for my investment” mentality of America, along with a massive dose of Karl Roveian propaganda. (1 part truth, 18 parts lie, call it……â€?reformâ€?). Remember Enron! Where is Ken Lay anyhow?
I have no objection to private retirement investment accounts. Work hard, save your money and open one. Privatizing Social Security Insurance is a proven failed idea. Ask any retired Englishman or Argentinean.
March 3rd, 2005 at 3:56 amWith all that has been proposed, shoved down our throat, and as well all the blatant lies by the neocons, why don’t we declare war on the rich? This country needs a new revolution, hopefully peaceful. The ballot revolution does not work; they are all greedy, rich, white men no matter who we vote for. We outnumber the millionaires 5000/1. What are we waiting for??
March 3rd, 2005 at 5:48 amWhat about the 20 year old father of 2 who has only paid into the system for a few years that dies in an accident? His 2 kids get $500 a month until they are 18 years old. How would the private account affect that sort of benefit?
Comment by Todd  March 3rd, 2005 @ 3:56 am
(a) nobody is talking about survivor’s benefits (or disability)
(b) This twenty year old’s children would be far, far better off if he would spend the $25 (a small fraction of the $300+ the average worker pays in FICA each month) a month on a $250K term life insurance policy. Then they could have $500 a month for the rest of their lives or use the lump sum to pay for college, buy their first home, or whatever.
>> I like the idea of SS being guaranteed
>> insurance
SS is no more guaranteed than the stock market. If the economy tanks then employment climbs and the federal government won’t have the tax revenue to pay the benefits. You notice that SS was installed at the END of the depression, right? (and covered very few people)
>>I think Social Security is not in crisis or
>>broken and that there are certain people that >>would like us to think that it is.
You don’t think the prospect of your grandchildren paying $480 a month, every month, for the duration of their work lives warrants your attention?
>>I consider it a privilege to have been born in >>this Country. Paying taxes is part of that
>>privilege.
How much in taxes are you paying each month? How much extra did you send in last year? Generally, when folks talk about it being a privilege they’re talking about how provileged someone else is. They rarely think THEIR taxes should be raised.
By the way, I have no objection to SOCIALIZED social security insurance. Work hard, save your money, get a group together and start one. Just don’t force me to join.
March 3rd, 2005 at 8:01 amwhy don’t we declare war on the rich? This country needs a new revolution, hopefully peaceful. The ballot revolution does not work; they are all greedy, rich, white men no matter who we vote for. We outnumber the millionaires 5000/1. What are we waiting for??
Comment by Mark Harvey  March 3rd, 2005 @ 5:48 am
You haven’t declared war already?
How long do you suppose our doctors, lawyers, engineers, small business people, and ceo/founders are going to stand for the persecution of onerous tax rates, hyper regulation, insane legal attacks, and public derision before they decide maybe its not worth living in the U.S. anymore? These people are sending in hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in taxes to educate other people’s children, pay for other people’s retirement, and pay to protect other people’s lives and property all for the benefit of being spit on regularly.
When they finally do leave and take the dozens of jobs that each create maybe then you’ll have a different view.
By the way the ratio is more like 36 to 1. (But what’s two orders of magnitude here or there?) You may even have one of those evil, filthy, bastards living right next to you!
http://money.cnn.com/2004/11/16/pf/millionaire_households/
March 3rd, 2005 at 8:16 am“Every man for himself” has traditionally been the state of affairs in an impending or in-progress shipwreck. Joe and his hero John Stossel apparently believe that this sentiment is a really fine basis for a civilization.
If you don’t accept that notion, there is no common ground from which to begin a discussion.
March 3rd, 2005 at 12:18 pmHow long do you suppose our doctors, lawyers, engineers, small business people, and ceo/founders are going to stand for the persecution of onerous tax rates, hyper regulation, insane legal attacks, and public derision before they decide maybe its not worth living in the U.S. anymore? These people are sending in hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in taxes to educate other people?s children, pay for other people?s retirement, and pay to protect other people?s lives and property all for the benefit of being spit on regularly.
In the words of Harry Nilsson,
“You’re breaking my heart, you’re tearin’ it apart, so FU!”
All those poor, poor, abused CEO’s who make 400 times the income of the guy who’s on the ground doing the work, oh, oh, oh, stop it, I can’t bear the sorrow of considering the plight of those poor, pathetic guys with their golden parachutes and their multi-acre estates in rural Connecticut and their summer homes in Aspen.
How my liberal heart bleeds for them.
March 3rd, 2005 at 12:23 pmHow about if we separate the issues here. One question is if a safety net should be provided to the elderly, to the disabled, and to survivors of workers who die. If one thinks we should provide this safety net, then the question is how to fund it. Should taxes be raised, should benefits be cut, should retirement age be raised, should collected funds be invested in higer-risk, higher-yield (possibly) vehicles?
If one thinks we as a society should not provide such a safety net, then the problem of Social Security going broke is not a serious problem, and the sad talk about it is nothing but crocodile tears.
Another, totally unrelated question is whether to keep all the assets of the program in one basket or to divide them into tens of millions of separate baskets, paying account management fees on each one.
The only way these two issues come together is when we start talking about robbing Peter (the current program) to pay Paul (the privatization scheme). This is where the three-card monte stunts come in.
Then there’s the issue of “ownership.” Doesn’t “ownership” sound great? Wouldn’t it be great if we could all “own” our retirement accounts the way the rich do? If they were just personal assets like any other, and we could will them to our heirs? I mean, it sounds great, doesn’t it?
Unfortunately, it’s a scam. The large print giveth and the small print taketh away. The question of how much “ownership” an individual worker would have seems to be the subject of a remarkable amount of mendacity from the cheerleaders of privatization — apparently the plans put forward so far would require the retiree to purchase an annuity of a minimum size with as much of his (her) account as necessary, and oops, if you’re low-income, you now have squat to leave your heirs.
And come on. Wall Street stands to make out like bandits on this. Haven’t we learned that experts who stand to gain if you take their advice should be regarded with extreme skepticism?
-F
March 3rd, 2005 at 12:44 pmStossel apparently believe that this sentiment is a really fine basis for a civilization.
Comment by Fingal  March 3rd, 2005 @ 12:18 pm
No I think reason and common sense are a “really fine basis for a civilization”. Like, for example, when faced with the choice of allowing the 50 years warning of retirement work for people or blowing it off until the last minute I’m foolish enough to think that’s it worth having people put a little bit away over many years rather than become a burden on their grand children.
What’s so “civilized” about stealing from children anyway?
March 3rd, 2005 at 2:23 pmAll those poor, poor, abused CEO’s…
Comment by Fingal  March 3rd, 2005 @ 12:23 pm
I specifically said CEO/founders to exclude these people you’re referring to. As a stock holder, I probably hate them more than you do. They always take credit whenever the stock ticks up but claim “business conditions” whenever the stock goes down. They sure as heck never give back the bonuses they scammed during the good years so the stock holders can have better dividends in the bad years. I’m with ralph nader all the way on that one.
I also would support a maximum wage of $1 million/year for ceos of publicly held companies.
And I would be happy to see Ken Lay get the death penalty. A judgement in a wrongful death suit may be a couple million dollars. By that standard Ken Lay effectively “killed” thousands of people with his criminality.
March 3rd, 2005 at 2:32 pmComment by Fingal  March 3rd, 2005 @ 12:44 pm
(a) Everybody does agree in a safety net for the elderly, disabled, poor, etc. We are talking about how to provide RETIREMENT income and whether individuals should benefit from the 50 years of growth and inflation on their contributions or whether we should spend the money now and have our grandchildren make up for the 50 years of growth and inflation out of their taxes.
(b) again, what is the expense ratio on the average mutual fund? The estimates I’ve seen are 0.3% management costs for these accounts.
(c) the annuity requirement is a result of Democratic criticism. They’ve been complaining that with private accounts somebody could withdraw all their money and waste it on the lottery. The annuity requirement prevents this from happening.
March 3rd, 2005 at 2:43 pm(a) nobody is talking about survivor’s benefits (or disability)
March 3rd, 2005 at 3:16 pmIf the system is derailed than I would say that we certainly are talking about all benefits.
(b) This twenty year old’s children would be far, far better off if he would spend the $25 (a small fraction of the $300+ the average worker pays in FICA each month) a month on a $250K term life insurance policy. Then they could have $500 a month for the rest of their lives or use the lump sum to pay for college, buy their first home, or whatever.
I don’t think the average 20 year old worker pays $300 a month into SS. That would make the assumption that the 20 yr old makes about $30,000 a year! Even if a 20 yr old did make 30K a year, with 2 kids and medical insurance premiums, I don’t see a whole lot of extra income there for other insurance. Not to mention, you have to qualify for Life Insurance. Rates vary depending on your health status, family history & more. Most 20 year old parents in this country don’t have an extra dime per month. Is Term Life Insurance redeemable after a period of time? Most 20 year olds are working for minimum wage. What if some other financial crisis happened and they couldn’t afford the policy? An unemployed or laid off worker with children today would have guaranteed benefits under current standards of SS. $250,000 of term life insurance costs $25 per month? What if the insurance co can’t pay? I think if you have disposable income and can afford life insurance, and other retirement investments – then you should do that too – by all means go for it – but leave Social Security alone. It works very well for what it is –Social Security.
>> I like the idea of SS being guaranteed
>> insurance
SS is no more guaranteed than the stock market. If the economy tanks then employment climbs and the federal government won’t have the tax revenue to pay the benefits. You notice that SS was installed at the END of the depression, right? (and covered very few people)
It raised 15 million elderly Americans out of destitute poverty. I have no idea how many Americans it helps today. It was started after the great depression because the market crashed! History could repeat! If the market crashed today – your parents SS checks would still be good. Not so if they “privatizeâ€?. It is absolutely guaranteed – at least it is until a projected 2042 – at least, and at that point it is projected that it will potentially have a 20% deficit. Therein lies the problem. Problem not crisis. If our economy took a turn for the better, the problem could actually heal itself! What if we raised the minimum wage? What if we stopped the hemorrhaging of jobs offshore?
>>I think Social Security is not in crisis or
>>broken and that there are certain people that >>would like us to think that it is.
You don’t think the prospect of your grandchildren paying $480 a month, every month, for the duration of their work lives warrants your attention?
Where do you get this number $480 a month? What really warrants my attention is my (as yet unborn) grandchildren’s obligation to service our generation’s national debt. Apparently as of this week the per person portion is at about $37,000. 5 years ago- $0. And don’t even try to tell me that it is because of 9/11. What warrants my attention is the possibility of burdening my grandchildren with my personal health and welfare crisis after the neo-cons bankrupt the general fund with their so called “privatization� plan.
>>I consider it a privilege to have been born in >>this Country. Paying taxes is part of that
>>privilege.
How much in taxes are you paying each month? How much extra did you send in last year? Generally, when folks talk about it being a privilege they’re talking about how provileged someone else is. They rarely think THEIR taxes should be raised.
How much I pay in tax is a private question. But I will tell you that I have seen no change in my tax rates in the last 5 years. I am not wealthy enough to have received a tax cut. I did get a $300 check though for my part in dismantling the 300 billion dollar surplus and further weakening our economy, oh, plus an extra hundred per kid.
By the way, I have no objection to SOCIALIZED social security insurance. Work hard, save your money, get a group together and start one. Just don’t force me to join.
Socialized means it’s all for one, one for all. Yes Social Security is a SOCIAL program – and a good one. It serves to the common good of all Americans – at a cost to all Americans. I think it’s a fair trade off. I happen to think it is good moral practice to look out for each other. SS certainly is facing a problem but privatizing up to 1/3 of the general funds capital investment is not going to fix the problem. It will only worsen the problem. How many trillion dollars did Cheney say we have to borrow to further exasperate this problem? Perhaps if 3 million manufacturing jobs were not handed off to China in the last few years the fund would be a bit stronger. Perhaps if Congress wasn’t raiding the Fund’s coffers on a regular basis the fund would be stronger. In spite of all this, the fund is currently operating at a surplus and still has never missed a single payment.
What?s so ?civilized? about stealing from children anyway?
Ah, rhetoric, isn’t it wonderful?
If you are so concerned about stealing from children, how can you stump for someone (W) whose utter fiscal irresponsibility is going to burden our children basically forever. Again, crocodile tears.
If I wanted to adopt a technique from the other side, I might suggest that if you don’t like the fact that we in this country believe in social safety nets, why don’t you just go to Chile, or Russia, where, if you’re strong enough, you can run roughshod over widows, orphans, and destiture retirees? I think Hong Kong is even a lot like that still, even after the mainland takeover. But I’ll restrain myself.
But “stealing from children,” what a crock. The assumption is, we take care of each other, in an orderly and mutually beneficial way. The current retirees paid in, based on that social contract. I
think this is going to be incomprehensible to anyone who believes in Wild West Rugged Individualism, which has always been a kind of Calvinist mythological ideal, but never really practiced much.
You say you are arguing solely from reason and common sense. No, reason is a tool which can render quite different conclusions depending on what assumptions one starts out with, and common sense is a collection of (usually) imperfectly examined assumptions, which vary from person to person. In your case, one of those assumptions seems to be that we’ll be better off if we see ourselves as rational economic actors, like the abstract atoms in an ideal gas. That community is a fraud, that any social obligation derived from the notion of community is oppression of the individual by the tyranny of the group. Maybe I’m wrong about that, and I’d be happy to hear your correction.
But until then, I can’t be surprised that a program whose goals relate to ideas of community and mutual obligation, perhaps especially since it has been quite successful at achieving those goals, leaves you cold.
-F
March 3rd, 2005 at 4:36 pmJoe, you stated that Bush’s privatization plan guarantees that Social Security disability and survivor’s benefits wouldn’t be touched. Remember when Bush said that the medicare prescription drug bill would cost $400 billion, and now we find out that the real cost is about $732 billion? Remember when Bush said the Iraq war would only cost about $2 billion and that Iraqi oil revenues would pay for the cost of recontruction of that country after the invasion? The total cost to the U.S. taxpayer to date for the Iraq invasion is close to $200 billion. Remember when Bush said Saddam had WMD’s? Do you notice a pattern in George Bush’s promises to the American public Joe? If you do recognize that this pattern is one of deceitfullness, then you know why most Americans don’t trust any of George Bush’s “assurances” about keeping Social Security disability and survivors benefits once his privatization scheme is put in place. Bush and the neocons will say anything to get what they want – to them the ends justify the means. If you don’t see this pattern, then I have a great piece of real estate called the “Brooklyn Bridge” that I would love to sell you!
March 3rd, 2005 at 4:38 pmJoe, one of your earlier posts states that Social Security is not guaranteed. Social Security has NEVER missed a payment to any of its beneficiaries (in the retirement, disability or survivors programs) in its 65 year history. It may not be guaranteed, but its stellar track record is as close to guaranteed as you can get. Social Security’s 65 year track record beats any doubletalk that George Bush and the neocons spout about “saving Social Security.” By the way Joe, if you really want control of “your” money, I suggest you tell George Bush to stop increasing “your” national debt.
March 3rd, 2005 at 5:05 pmI don’t think the average 20 year old worker pays $300 a month into SS.
Comment by Todd  March 3rd, 2005 @ 3:16 pm
The average SS check is $960 a month. There are ~3.2 workers per retiree currently. Thus ~$300 per month on average per worker.
Even at minimum wage, ~$1300 a month is sent in to the SSA for that worker per year. Much more than the $300 for life insurance.
Again, nobody is talking about changing survivor’s benefits. I’m only pointing out that SSA does a pretty miserable job at it given that most people with children are young enough to get cheap term life and most people without children don’t need life insurance.
>>It is absolutely guaranteed – at least it is until
>>a projected 2042
This statement shows an absolute lack of understanding of how the government obtains money. SS is pay as you go. If unemployment were 50% as in the great depression the FICA taxes would have to be cut by 50% immediately. (Unless you believe that a nation in depression will suddenly have world creditors knocking on its door willing to risk there capitol to let the country borrow its way out.)
>>Where do you get this number $480 a month?
Demographic projections say there will be 2 workers per retiree in ~2030. The average SS check is $960, thus $480 per worker.
>>What really warrants my attention is my (as >>yet unborn) grandchildren’s obligation to
>>service our generation’s national debt.
You’re absolutely right! That’s why we should immediately install a zero growth federal budget and set on a path to cut the size of government until balance is restored. I would even support a constitutional amendment saying the government can spend no more this year than it received in revenue last year. (Except times of war.)
>>I did get a $300 check though for my part in >>dismantling the 300 billion dollar surplus and
>>further weakening our economy, oh, plus an
>>extra hundred per kid.
So send it back!
>>I think it’s a fair trade off.
That’s the problem. You lack either the financial or mathematical knowledge to see that it is bad deal for everybody. Even if it weren’t hurdling toward insolvency, nobody in their right mind would ever structure a retirement program this way. In fact, if a private company tried they’d be thrown in jail.
March 3rd, 2005 at 6:10 pmComment by Fingal  March 3rd, 2005 @ 4:36 pm
The system is taking money from current 18 year olds and eventually the children yet born based on a bogus promise of some benefit long from now that everybody knows (including greenspan!) is mathematically impossible to provide. “I’ll happily pay you tuesday for a cheesebuger today.”
The only way those benefits get paid is if the taxes of these kids get jacked up by 50%. That means about 18% FICA. So after 50 years of work they will have paid in about 11-12 years worth of take home pay. Even at zero growth they won’t live long enough to recoup what they paid in and they’ll receive a tiny, tiny fraction of what they’d received had it been invested. That is theft!
March 3rd, 2005 at 6:19 pmRemember when Bush said that the medicare prescription drug bill would cost $400 billion, and now we find out that the real cost is about $732 billion?
Comment by Cindy  March 3rd, 2005 @ 4:38 pm
You’re seriously concerned that the tax payers are picking up an extra $330 billion in the costs of prescriptions for seniors? Why don’t I hear any democrat telling seniors that need to be picking up that extra $330 billion themselves.
By the way, who is the common element between the prescription drug plan and the anti-SS reform movement?: the AARP. If anyone is consistently wrong its them.
Remember when Clinton said there were WMDS?
Rememeber when Al Gore said SS needed to be reformed with a “lock box”?
Remember when liberals said that the whole middle east would erupt into civil war upon an invasion. There’d be a catastrophic humanitarian crisis. The oil fields would burn leaving an earth endangering environmental calamity. Saddam would use his bio and chemical weapons on our troops.
A lot of people have been wrong about a great many things. The best we can do is look at the information available and make our best judgement. That’s what I’ve done on these posts. Have you? Or are you rejecting reform out of hand because your nemesis George Bush will get credit?
I supported reform long before I knew who Bush was. It was a pillar of the Reform party when I supported Perot. I will support it long after Bush is gone.
March 3rd, 2005 at 6:33 pmBy the way Joe, if you really want control of “your� money, I suggest you tell George Bush to stop increasing “your� national debt.
Comment by Cindy  March 3rd, 2005 @ 5:05 pm
I have. And conservatives regularly bash him to reign in spending.
You’ve got an interesting definition of guarantee. Before 1984 people were told that it was “guaranteed” that they could retiree at 65. Oops that suddenly changed.
All through the program people were “guaranteed” to not have their payroll taxes increase. Oops that’s happened a dozen times.
So basically the SS “guarantee” is that the program will either raises taxes, cut benefits, move the retirement age, means test you out, or do whatever it feels like doing.
Congress can decide tomorrow that all red haired people are not allowed to receive SS benefits. There is nothing they could do. Legally, you have absolutely no guarantee whatsoever.
I’m sure Enron paid all of its bills up until the collapse, too. That doesn’t allow us to ignore the $10 trillion in unfunded liabilities looming over our children’s future.
March 3rd, 2005 at 6:42 pmSimple facts that needs to be pointed out, loudly and clearly are:
ENRON and KEN LAY, the personal friend of George W.
A lot of people invested a lot of their “personal account”
in Enron stock and thanks to Mr. Lay, they were wiped out.
What is “W” proposing to prevent this from happening to
people’s “”personal accounts” again and again?
In fact, Social Security was, in part, instituted
to curcumvent this happening.
I’m hearing nothing to believe that it won’t happen again and again.
Does anyone remember the “Savings and Loan” scandle
with Charles Keeting? If memory serves,
“W” and “Jeb” were in on that one, too.
“If you fail to learn from the mistakes of history,
you’re doomed to repete them.”
Lastly, no matter what you manage, or what blows life deals you,
March 3rd, 2005 at 8:29 pmyou’d have some income from Social Security.
Not so, if you’ve gone the “personal account” route,
from what i’m not hearing being said by “W” and cronies …..
you “invest” wrong, (read: ‘guess wrong’) and you’re out. Nada. Zip.
Now,who wants to gamble, “W” style?
What is “W� proposing to prevent this from happening to
people’s “”personal accountsâ€? again and again?
Comment by bruce  March 3rd, 2005 @ 8:29 pm
He is proposing that only diversed stock and bond funds be allowed. Akin to what’s available in the thrift savings plan.
Not to beat up on the enron victims but anyone would tell you that is very very stupid to have your savings solely in one stock and its extra stupid to have it in the company you work for.
Fortunately for you, personal accounts are OPTIONAL. If you don’t feel like you can be responsible for your own choices in life, the nanny government is more than willing to hold your hand. But I don’t want to hear about the evil, rich retirees getting $4000 a month when you’re only getting $900 from SS years from now.
March 3rd, 2005 at 10:22 pmWell, Joe…
yes, things sound good…. but it’s “sound” not reality.
“W” has been lying.. no WMD, no Osama, etc.
What he says and what’s going to happen are not the same. Period.
People do foolish things, all the time.
Ask “W”… he’ll tell you we’re not smart enough to refuse and stop him
from destroying our SS safety net. Unfortunately, he’s too likely to be correct.
The people who most need the money are the ones w/o any insight
to the “market”. For them it will be a true GAMBLE.
Nice of you to think it’s fine to feather your own nest at other’s expense.
March 4th, 2005 at 7:56 pmI’m Christian, i can’t do that.
Comment by bruce  March 4th, 2005 @ 7:56 pm
Yeah right, and Clinton said we’d be out of bosnia in a year… about 8 years ago. What’s you’re point?
By the way, I didn’t realize that being mathematically retarded and financially inept were Chistian values. Seems like Jesus would opt for the system that requires personal sacrifice and personal responsibility over the one where you foist your obligations on children.
But while you’re at it, Bruce, are there any other adult responsibilities you’d like to abdicate? Eating? Bathing? How’s that bathroom thing working out for you? I’m sure there’ll be a government program for that, too, soon enough.
The weird thing is I vaguely remember an America where there was some shame associated with a grown man publically declaring that he is weak and pathetic. My how times have changed.
Sorry if I’m being a little hateful, but I am so tired of hearing excuses from grown people about why they can’t take a little responsibility for themselves that my head is about to explode.
Your children are facing a life altering and near soul crushing burden. They will not be able to afford homes, start families, or pay for their college all because YOU refuse to do what’s necessary to make things right. Yes, SS has screwed you over, it’s screwed me over, the money is gone. Get over it! Do what’s right for once! At long last have we no decency?
March 4th, 2005 at 10:06 pmAnybody watching Meet the Press this morning would have been greatly disserved by Senator McConnells miserable performance. Since he’s obviously uninformed, I will answer Tim’s question for him:
The reason that personal accounts helps with SS solvency is because they convert unfunded liabilities to funded liabilities. Every dollar earned in the investments reduces the liability on the SS system (and therefore our children’s taxes) by a dollar. With personal accounts its very likely that tens of millions of retirees will have accounts so large that they won’t need any benefit whatsoever from the traditional pay-as-you-go SS system. This will leave more resources for other retirees and greatly reduce the tax burden on our grandchildren.
I also expect a similar benefit to the disability insurance portion of SS. Many of the current disabled beneficiaries are effectively early retirees. That is they’ve had a stroke or a heart attack or some other health event that makes maintaining their existing job impossible. Since they are 56 or 60 or 63 rather than train for another job they’re taking advantage of the disability money available to them until they reach SS retirement age. With private accounts many of them won’t have to go through that disability phase as they will have enough in their private accounts to go ahead and retire outright. Here again their absence from the disability rolls leaves more resources for the remaining disabled and therefore STRENGTHENS SS.
March 6th, 2005 at 11:02 amI think we should put to vote 3 options:
1) Replacing SS with a mandatory retirement account that the government cannot touch ever — forcing stupid people to save their money for retirement…
2) Leaving SS alone and adding an “opt-out” category for those of us who want to keep our money.
or
3) Ending the collection of Social Security and paying out what is left.
–
March 7th, 2005 at 2:27 pmIf Social Security is such a good program, how come people in Congress don’t pay into it / don’t use it???
“If Social Security is such a good program, how come people in Congress don’t pay into it / don’t use it???”
they do pay into it and they do use it. They also have a program that they pay extra into, just like we do with 401K plans.
March 11th, 2005 at 3:33 pmjust to add a url to my post 187 to explain what our reps pay into and what they receive:
March 11th, 2005 at 3:37 pmhttp://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blcongress.htm
I agree with Blake Beltram’s comment of February 10th, 2005 @ 3:55 pm. We lose our ability to be heard by those we disagree with if we show less than complete respect for them. I’m sure Blake and I aren’t the only ones, liberal or conservative, who didn’t get the reference to Ann Coulter’s book. Please keep it clean and respectful.
March 11th, 2005 at 3:49 pmEvery SS discussion I see has some Bush shill, like Joe, spreading a bunch of bogus and irrelevant numbers in endless posts. Don’t you guys have something better to do than write lies all day?
March 11th, 2005 at 3:53 pmThey are spending $35 million trying to convince us this is a good plan! This leads me to believe a few things:
March 11th, 2005 at 4:02 pm1) If it costs $35 million to convince people something is a good plan…chances are, it isn’t!
2) The $35 million being wasted is CREATING the very CRISIS it decries.
2) The American government feels it has $35 million of OUR tax dollars to waste.
3) The $35 million should, instead of being wasted on propaganda and brain-washing tours, be invested into the Social Security system.
There’s your solution to the supposed CRISIS!
A plan that is a good plan, should basically sell itself based on its own merits. The fact that the President has to grossly mislead the public in regard to the facts about Social Security is proof in and of itself that this is a bad plan and that there are ulterior motives behind the plan. Ask yourselves, if this is such a great plan then why does the President have to lie about it?
March 11th, 2005 at 4:13 pmHere is a suggestion that I don’t think has ever been considered on how to shore up future benefits. Many folks currently collecting SS checks have enough retirement income that they really do not need them. How about allowing them to pass their benefits on to their children, who probably will need them, thus reducing current payments for another 30-40 years or so and allowing those funds to grow for the future generations? Coupled with some sort of other incentives, this might be an attractive option for some families, and help SS over the baby boomer hump, without costing the taxpayers.
March 11th, 2005 at 4:52 pmi’d like to comment on the use of the rhetoric about african-americans’ stake in all of this. so you want a private account because white people live longer and you aren’t trying to break your back to fill some old white lady’s pocket? i feel that, but this is a social issue and you have to think about this beyond a retirement issue. for starters, why do white people live longer? because of institutionalized differences in access to education, healthcare, jobs, and insurance between the races. don’t allow the gop’s marketing team to sell you on the privatization of social security. a victory there paves the way for the systematic privatization of everything. social programs for all of our citizens (especially our african americans) already suffer from lack of congressional funding at all levels. children, elderly, the disabled- there isn’t enough to go around for these people so they get a spot on a waiting list. i don’t think it’s fair that the people who are supposed to be looking out for our best interests, our “elected representatives,” earn special salaries that come with special benefits for retirement so how can they even pretend to relate to our condition? anyway, my bigger point is that we as a nation are doing a piss-poor job of taking care of home. capitalism and globalism and dare i say fascism are swallowing us whole. the emphasis on the individual has become far too great in an age of technology that has reduced our face-to-face contact with our neighbors to virtually nothing. we no longer trade with eachother, lean on eachother, respect eachother or look out for eachother. that’s what needs to change. the rich long to be richer at all costs without a second thought to the thousands of blue collars that produce the goods and services that bring the riches into the coffers. the middle class think everything is ok because they’re ok, while they feed the system with their acceptance of the status quo. and the poor are just hopeless. there’s more in this group than ever, but due to the restrictions faced by the true workers we won’t be seeing a revolution at their hands for some time, maybe never. government is a mess in my opinion. mostly i think it’s futile because money and media are what sways the masses. bush has an endless supply of both in exchange for favors to the weapons, pharmaceutical, energy and other industries. i hate to sound negative, but the sheep revere their shepherd, and he’s got one hell of a pr/marketing team backing him up.
March 11th, 2005 at 5:08 pmLouis Varnon, take a reality pill. You have no power; you are so obviously an employee of the Republicans – we laugh as we read your propaganda.
Do us a favor, since you’re fooling no one: keep posting. You’re the poster boy for right-wing government control.
Thanx for the laughs.
March 11th, 2005 at 5:19 pmI would like to see a rebuttle from the other side, which goes into as much detail as the above article entitled, “How to Talk to a Conservative About Social Security (If You Must).” No, I’m demanding to see a rebuttle that can adequately respond to each, Claim-Fact, as presented. And every, or any counter argument must be verifiable and according to a scientific (or at least disciplined) writting style.
BECAUSE ASIDE FROM THAT MR. BUSH, YOU’RE A LIAR…
IN FACT, EVERY WORD OUT OF YOUR MOUTH IS NOTHING BUT A LIE…
BECAUSE ASIDE FROM THAT, YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO CREDIBILITY MR. BUSH…
COME ON,
March 11th, 2005 at 5:25 pmBACK UP YOUR RHETORIC WITH FACT!
MR. BUSH…
To those of you speaking of “keeping it clean and respectful” re: the play on Ann Coulter’s book title:
The reason Dems have lost so much ground is that we’re WIMPS – we have traitors like Lieberman getting bussed by President WorstEver, Kerry and Reid voting for the anti-citizen bankruptcy bill, Kerry afraid to say he’d change his vote on Iraq if he knew then what he knew now…
Guess what? We’re NEVER going to win playing nice; why can’t you see that? The Republicans are winning with tons of money, lies, and control of the media – and we sit around talking about “nice”. George W. Bush is a mass murderer of both American troops and Iraqi citizens, after starting a war based on *3* lies – and we talk about being nice.
Americans don’t want to hear nice, they actually DESPISE nice.
Pull you heads out. Open word-warfare is the only way Dems will ever win again. This “nice” crap is about as intelligent and helpful as Neville Chamberlain and “peace is at hand”.
These people are fascists, period. It’s time to get mean, not nice. This ain’t a parlor game.
March 11th, 2005 at 5:29 pmIf the government would borrow the amount of IOU’s owed Social Security and put it in Bonds and leave it alone in the future, and then raise the social security tax on ALL wages the problem would be solved. Why sould someone making $500,000 a year not pay on all of it, the guy making $50,000 pays on all of his. The person making $500,000 can afford to make the payments better than the $50,000 person. I would be glad to trade places with those making millions a year and paying taxes on less than $100,000 of it.
March 11th, 2005 at 5:31 pmBy a vigorous propaganda campaign, President Bush used faulty information to support his plan to invade Iraq. Now we are being saturated with propagande promoting the siphoning off of some of our social security investment into private retirement accounts. The questionable evidence that such a move would improve retirement benefits is far too weak to warrant the level of associated risk. Moreover, the president has yet to provide a detailed accounting of where the money will come from to make up for payments into social security that will be lost to the system if private accounts are permitted.
March 11th, 2005 at 5:42 pmEvery SS discussion I see has some Bush shill, like Joe, spreading a bunch of bogus and irrelevant numbers in endless posts. Don’t you guys have something better to do than write lies all day?
Comment by Bob  March 11th, 2005 @ 3:53 pm
Please cite the “bogus and irrelevant” numbers specifically.
I guess I’m a Clinton schill and a Perot schill and a Gore schill and a Moynihan schill too as I’ve not advocated anything these folks haven’t in some form.
You seem to have enough free time to read my posts? By the way, telling the truth isn’t especially time consuming. It’s lying that takes all the work and effort.
March 11th, 2005 at 6:12 pmThey are spending $35 million trying to convince us this is a good plan!
Comment by Danielle  March 11th, 2005 @ 4:02 pm
How much are the AARP and other anti-reform groups spending?
Yes, its expensive to try and provide remedial math and financial educations to millions of voters. If only the people who knew (a) how to compound interest (b) what a mutual fund is and (c) how the current SS retirement system works were allowed in the discussion private accounts would be winning 80 percent support.
March 11th, 2005 at 6:17 pmA plan that is a good plan, should basically sell itself based on its own merits.
Comment by Thomas Rocheleau  March 11th, 2005 @ 4:13 pm
The plan does sell itself to people with the requisite knowledge. Ask politically minded engineers or accountants or business people what they think. I bet you’ll get 90% plus support for private accounts.
Here’s a litmus test for you. Ask the person if they know the “Rule of 72″. If they do, 9 times out of 10 I’ll bet they support reform. Alternatively, out of all the “do nothings” I bet 9 out of 10 can’t explain it to you.
But I will agree that Republicans have not sold the plan correctly. They should boil it down to one question: Would you rather have $500,000 at retirement that you own and you control or would you rather have a measely check from the government each month for a few years? In other words, do you want the chicken or the eggs?
March 11th, 2005 at 6:27 pmComment by manbags  March 11th, 2005 @ 5:08 pm
Talk about a hard sell. If black men get a fair shake under the retirement portion of SS it should be easy to state/prove?
March 11th, 2005 at 6:32 pmActually the point that everyone is missing is not the SSI system. It is in fact our countrys’ banking system ie: fractional banking and the Federal Reserve, and the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. First of all The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was unconstitutional. Atricle 1 section 8 clearly states” the congress shall coin money and regulate the value thereof” not a PRIVATE company composed of foreign bankers. Who’s interest do they have at hand….certainly not ours.If our congress was doing its’ job of upholding the Constitution by coining money , they would be able to borrow money interest free, thereby getting elliminating a substantial portion of our national debt (wow, what a unique idea…polititians actually upholding their oath of office).President Lincoln knew this and did just that to fund the northern states war during the civil war. At first he tried to borrow the money needed from the bankers, they said “OK you can have the money….@ 39% interest” Instead Lincoln said no we will find another way, and he did he had the congress print paper notes with green ink stamped on the backs( for easy identification after the war ended), and he funded the war without paying one cent in interest to the banks. Of course this pissed the bankers off and ultimately cost Lincoln his life. Second fractional banking…hmmm. This means that banks can loan out 90% more money that they actually have available on account, which may seem ok , but it isn’t because they don’t actually have the money to loan out. The money that the banks do hold ….doesn’t even belong to them…it belongs to US…the depositors. So why are they loaning out our money and making a huge bundle on interest payments…. on our money? I agree that they should be paid for their services ie: arranging the loans, which should be a flat fee….not a interest charge as the money they loaned you was the depositors’ money, not theirs! Third, most people don’t realize that the !4th Amendment put us all under a trust with the District of Columbia (which BTW is a corporation for profit) Under this trust the american people agreed to pay off the governments’ debts no matter what they were for or how much they amounted to…..nice job if you can get it. So, this is how it works: you pay taxes to the Government….they spend it however they please. When they run out of money, they borrow it from 1) the Federal Reserve(which charges them interest on the money) 2) other places that have built up funds (SSI, Medicare Etc.) and put in IOU’s for what they took out. Guess what ? We get to pay back all of the money that they borrowed. That mean’s that WE set aside the money for social services for our peoples betterment….they (the government) and WE have to pay it back……somehow this sounds wrong….a never ending cycle of US paying them ….and them just spending it as if it were a windfall that they (govmnt) just found lying on the street. Wake up people, you are getting screwed!!!!! It seems that the only way to stop this cycle is to say…NO MORE! we have had enough! Voting for them …..only encourages the….Paying the Infernal Reign of Sin… enables them. If you want Peace, Prosperity and the the Rights given to you byYour Creator, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights… STOP DOING THE OPPOSITE! There is a way out ..it is called “15 Statute at Large” signed by the 40th congress in July of 1868….the day before the 14th Amendment was Ratified….illegally I might add, as they did not allow the southern state to vote, even though the war was over and the southern states were again part of the union. !5 statute at Larges says The right to expatriate is absolute”that means that if you do not like what your Government is doing …..you have the right to divorce yourself from it. This country was founded as a Republic….not as a Democracy. As we were all born into (the democracy) the only way to get out ….is to declare it vocally…in print. Unless you do this you are presumed to be part of the democracy and are subject to federal authority and all of it’s laws. As a member of the Republic of these [u]nited States you are no longer subject to either. If you doubt me on any of these points….don’t berate me about them….as I don’t care! Instead get off of you collective complacent arses….and do the research for yourselves….Cut the idiots in D.C. off completely and you will see a change for the better. Complacency is killing this country ,not the Government. They only do what you allow them to do….CUT THem off, then we really can…..MOVE ON!
March 11th, 2005 at 6:34 pmI don’t know what your Rule of 72 is, but as a businessman and professional geophysicist working for a domestic energy company, I trust SS a lot more that I trust Wall Street. Do you seriously believe that by allowing personal accounts you are going to give Americas something for nothing? The something is a mirage and the reality is that the Republicans have wanted to end Social Security since it was created by FDR and this is only their latest attempt. If the word “social” is included in anything, it will be opposed by Republicans. I would rather have the chicken and the egg rather than pie in the sky, and eye.
March 11th, 2005 at 6:41 pmComment by George M. Jimenez  March 11th, 2005 @ 5:25 pm
My posts have rebutted almost everything in that list in some form? But I’ll give you a summary of at least the “Fiscal Outlook” portion:
1. Bankruptcy is declared when you can’t pay ALL your bills.
March 11th, 2005 at 6:43 pm2. The reason that SS paid out more benefits in 1975 to 1983 is because it was hurdling towards insolvency. (As GWB said in his congressional campaign.) In 1984 they raised the taxes and retirement age to “fix” it.
3. (Assuming we can magically pay the bonds) Yes, worker’s will get higher benefits under current SS than private accounts IF their private accounts do well. That is the point of the account: to shift the benefit from worker’s taxes to the gains of investments. If a worker ends up with a $500,000 private account why should they get to take any money from worker’s pay checks when they retire?
Why sould someone making $500,000 a year not pay on all of it, the guy making $50,000 pays on all of his.
Comment by Herb Williamson  March 11th, 2005 @ 5:31 pm
Because that person would have to live to about 158 to have a chance of getting his contributions back. If you want SS to be a straight welfare program then advocate that we eliminate payroll taxes all together and fund SS from the income tax and means test the recipients.
This would at least be more honest than trying to trick retirees into beleiving that they’re just getting their own money back rather than pilfering it from the paychecks of their grandchildren.
March 11th, 2005 at 6:49 pmMoreover, the president has yet to provide a detailed accounting of where the money will come from to make up for payments into social security that will be lost to the system if private accounts are permitted.
Comment by samuel j fomon  March 11th, 2005 @ 5:42 pm
SS is running a $150 billion a year surplus. Most reformers are advocating that this money go to the private accounts. Otherwise it just gets spent by the feds on everything from paper clips to battle ships.
March 11th, 2005 at 6:51 pmDo you seriously believe that by allowing personal accounts you are going to give Americas something for nothing?
Comment by John Preston  March 11th, 2005 @ 6:41 pm
No its not “something for nothing”. It requires sacrifice now in order to get benefits later.
March 11th, 2005 at 6:56 pmI am frustrated with the Deocratic party.I am a lifelong Dem.and will be till i die,I am asked continually to contribute to the party mean while guys like Leiberman support the president and most of his policies.Until we clean house at the top, of all those people who have continued to run losing campaigns i will not give one more cent.I was appalled to watch on C-span a bunch of these so called political advisors talking after we lost the election on how they managed to sink Deans campaigns.They were using money sent in to defeat Bush tothwart Deans run for the presidency.We got rid of Bob Shrum but a lot more have to go.
March 11th, 2005 at 7:01 pmBy a vigorous propaganda campaign, President Bush used faulty information to support his plan to invade Iraq.
Comment by samuel j fomon  March 11th, 2005 @ 5:42 pm
Which is really what all the opposition to SS reform is about: Iraq? The same folks that lost that debate and the election are back now to do whatever they can to prevent Bush accomplishing/getting credit for reforming SS.
This certainly explains why the staunchest, most rabid anti-reformers are generally the least informed about the current SS system, saving and investing, and the current proposals.
I hope your petty, political grudges are worth your children’s future because that is what they are costing.
March 11th, 2005 at 7:08 pmI don’t know what your Rule of 72 .is ..
Comment by John Preston  March 11th, 2005 @ 6:41 pm
Thank you for your honesty and confirming my point.
I expect, henceforth on this blog, folks will be googling the term before posting to me. Which is fine… I want them know what it means.
March 11th, 2005 at 7:13 pmThere’s your solution to the supposed CRISIS!
Comment by Danielle  March 11th, 2005 @ 4:02 pm
The fact that you don’t realize that $35 million dollars only covers about 34 minutes worth of SSAs annual outlays is a good indicator that you’re not the person to offer advice on SS reform:
(35M / 535B)*24*60*365 ~= 34
http://www.ssa.gov/budget/2004bud.html
March 11th, 2005 at 7:30 pmLets despence with the crap. A forth gradeer
March 11th, 2005 at 8:23 pmcould tell, the Bush plan would be just the first
chip at dismantling SS. Reagen tried it but failed.Bush is only a pupet for the Corporate
world who would like to keep the percent they
pay into the fund. Some one should tell Bush he
is not fooling any one by just lieing about it.
President Bush sees Social Security as a band aid for bankrupting our country. Social Security is the tip of the melting ice burg regarding our future, but at least it is a platform for what issues really need to be addressed: We need to ask the President and Representatives if the approach they now employ is out of nihilism: (conscious or unconscious)
a. As James Watt, former Secretary of the Interior said, “They believe the world is going to change soon anyway, (Armageddon, pollution) and “He who dies with the most toys wins”, therefore they don’t need to make environmental laws.
b. The current Administration’s policies follow the Golden Rule: “He who has the most gold, rules”, and “Do one to others before they do one to you.”
c. Are Americans going to stand by while a few who do not need Social Security make decisions for the masses? Congress doesn’t need to worry with their pensions! This is clearly Conflict of Interest.
d. A website should be made public information, also declaring what legal drugs our Reps are taking….like Zoloft to dampen compassion for “collateral damage” and taking away our safety nets.
e. The Military/Industrial complex/marriage needs a divorce. When our great grandfathers invested in the first markets, there was no certainty and there was no Social Security, just as we won’t know if we invest in sustainable commodities. It could become the next dot.com bust! Trust!
f. Creator knows who is greedy or destroying His Creation. Armageddon is man made.
g. “In God We Trust” is on our dollar…. Not in “nihilists”.
h. Do the people voting for this already know what stocks will be invested in, and their private stock holdings will increase proportionately?
i. How can we let a President set so many private agendas and raise money to promote what will affect all of us?
j. Are the privatized stocks for Space StationTechnology or to take a select few to Mars?
We should say that decisions need more consideration and delay the vote. Can it be made that no decision is made until CONFLICT OF INTERESTS is weighed?
March 11th, 2005 at 8:25 pmAm I missing something here?
First the DNC asked its supporters what the important issues are going forward, after the November 2004 loss. Then, numerous 529s also surveyed their membership to get their input as to the direction Dems should take.
The DNC isn’t even listening to those “liberal” 529s, like MoveOn. Why MoveOn even bothered to have house parties and pipe in Dr. Dean, I’ll never understand. Mr. Dean has already been fully ‘integrated’ into the (DNC) party lines/structure. I’m so very, very disappointed in and with Mr. Dean.
Another thing I like to know is why Mr. Kerry, the party’s loser, is even allowed to have any kind of say so into the DNC’s election strategy. That will be one good way to loose again. He and Mr. Dean are now trying to recruit pro-life Dems to run for Congress. That will never fly with the majority of progressive women, including with those from the other (Republican) side! Good luck trying to win them over now!
Why aren’t the 529s and the DNC going after the proposed Bush budget and show the American public that we’re talking about moral values here in deciding what to cut or not! I read somewhere that even the religious groups have a problem with some of the proposed cuts. This would be a great time for the Dems to hook up with these religious groups/churches and work together to show the administration what needs to stay and what can be cut, restored, or denied an(y) extension(s)!
Something tells me this can be a win-win for the Dems. Show they have moral values, have the public (those conservatives that we “must� talk to and that are our friends, family, and co-workers) support the majority of their agenda and use this to upset the apple cart come 2006.
March 11th, 2005 at 8:39 pmMoveOn is looking for you!
President Bush is on a 60 day, 60 stop tour to push his Social Security privatization scam (some call the tour “Bamboozlepalooza”). Bush could arrive in a town near you at any time, and we want to have compelling real stories to share with reporters when he does.
So, we’re inviting you to share your story and help us find Republicans and former Bush supporters against privatization. Please just take a couple of minutes today to click on the link below and write a testimonial about Social Security or forward this e-mail to Republicans or former Bush supporters you know.
http://www.moveonpac.org/socialsecurity/mystory/
We’re going to take all of the comments we receive and share them on the MoveOn website. Members of Congress will read some of the comments into the congressional record and the media will use the stories to explain Social Security and the issues at stake. For example, this Wednesday Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) read letters from her constituents into the record and live on C-SPAN.
Testimonials from Republicans or people who voted for President Bush in 2004 who oppose the president’s Social Security scam are particularly helpful. Those voices are critically important. Nationally, nearly 30 Republican representatives disagree with the president. Please think about how you could help us find them. Please think about who you know, forward this e-mail to them and ask them to complete the testimonial form.
Today’s Washington Post reports that, “President Bush’s bid to add individual accounts to Social Security faces such formidable opposition in the Senate that its supporters may be unable to bring it to a vote.” This is encouraging news, but the president is now in the second week of his Social Security privatization tour. Not since last year’s election has the Bush administration planned such a huge effort and this looks to be bigger even than the sales pitch for the war in Iraq.
We’re working with Americans United to Protect Social Security, a coalition of organizations representing a diverse cross-section of Americans, to greet the president at every stop on the tour. The momentum is on our side but we can’t yield an inch. The Republicans want to cut benefits and explode the debt in order to privatize Social Security.
More than 500,000 have signed MoveOn.org’s Petition to Save Social Security. Many of these comments beautifully express the human side of a complex issue. Betsy from Minneapolis wrote her representative,
“When I was 14, my mother died, leaving my 10-year-old sister and me on our own. An aunt and uncle were able to take us in because they received social security payments to help defray the costs of taking care of us. Without that help, who knows what would have happened to us. Please don’t put future generations at risk by dismantling this wonderful, progressive program just to benefit wealthy Wall Street tycoons.”
While the American people are thinking about their lives and their families, the current debate in Congress and in the media is focusing on lots and lots of statistics. The numbers are important, but we need to remind everybody what Social Security means for tens of millions of people every day and put a human face on this issue.
What’s your story about Social Security?
http://www.moveonpac.org/socialsecurity/mystory/
Please share your story today.
March 11th, 2005 at 8:45 pm“When I was 14, my mother died, leaving my 10-year-old sister and me on our own. An aunt and uncle were able to take us in because they received social security payments to help defray the costs of taking care of us. Without that help, who knows what would have happened to us. Please don’t put future generations at risk by dismantling this wonderful, progressive program just to benefit wealthy Wall Street tycoons.�
Comment by Ingrid M. Kollmann  March 11th, 2005 @ 8:45 pm
A. NOBODY is talking about survivor’s benefits.
B. Betsy and her sister would have been much better off had her mother bothered to buy real life insurance.
So I’m a schill for Bush, but its okay that Ingrid is apparently employed by MoveOn?
March 11th, 2005 at 8:58 pmComment by Laura Drewes  March 11th, 2005 @ 8:25 pm
Nihilism? I want to set up investment accounts that take 50 years to mature because I think the rapture is going to happen next week?
They know which stocks are going to be invested in? How could they know where you will choose to invest or whether you’ll opt for the investment option at all?
I certainly hope that the dems allow your voice to be heard by more people. Your bizarro, wing nut, far left fringe rantings are just what reform supporters need. As soon as middle America understands who is trying to give them “retirement planning advice” the more popular reform will be.
March 11th, 2005 at 9:07 pmPlease share your story today.
Comment by Ingrid M. Kollmann  March 11th, 2005 @ 8:45 pm
Ingrid, maybe you’ll include my story. I’m sure you will because after all the complaining about Bush “hand picking” people to attend his town hall meetings on SS I’m quite certain that YOU would not dare censor YOUR opposition.
Why is Social Security important to you?
When I was two my father died. My mother was left to raise us three children on our own. We received a small (~$200) supplement each month from SS while we were in school.
Now that I’m grown I mostly think about two things. First, why didn’t my father love me enough to buy a real life insurance so that rather than the pittance from SS, we kids could have had a large lump sum to pay for college, buy homes, and generally start out in life? And second, as an adult, I mostly think about how unconscionable it is for a parent to willfully expose their minor children to the hardships I endured because they are too cheap to spend the $25 a month on a real policy.
But more important to me today is the fact that my wife and I (and employers) sent more money into SSA last year then we spent on our mortgage.
What would a 20-45% cut in benefits mean to you?
Absolutely nothing because these figures don’t account for the money that is paid out from the investment accounts. If I have $500,000 in my personal account at retirement you can cut my benefit by 100% and I still will be getting income several times what SS provides.
Why do you oppose the president’s effort to privatize Social Security?
I don’t.
March 11th, 2005 at 9:31 pmThere’s always two sides. I went to FactCheck.org and they discussed the Diamond Orzig (sp?) proposal as well as others. But the point everyone seems to be missing is that according to statistics (how relevant are thos anyway?) Less than 5% of the population contribute to a voluntary 401k. Why? Because they want to spend their money or NEED to.
March 11th, 2005 at 10:03 pmSo people should be encouraged to invest in some “safe” fund on their own and all the advertising dollars being used to push Social Security, and all the other Bush agenda for which it appears we’re paying for the advertising, should be dumped back into the trust fund for future generations. If they want to increase the tax base by a couple points, usually 1 for corporations and 1 for the individual, it doesn’t come out that much when you realize if you personally put that same amount into a savings each paycheck, you’d end up doubling what you’d be getting at retirment. Anyhow, if they want to talk about transition money, maybe instead take a percentage the new tax base monies and put that into more aggressive stock funds versus the safe treasury bills that hold up social security and see if there turns out to be a greater return on those monies which then are put back into the trust fund along with what’s being put in by the worker base. Along with Bill Frist who apparently lost half a million bucks with his investments in 2000, I too lost everything and had to start again with less than my original investment! Cest la vie. I DON’T trust the stock market to provide for my retirment, but I hope it will. But I do not want my social security “security” being the key word here, put to the test in a volatile and unpredicatable money market. Who knows after this huge deficit where money will even be in five years? Nope, I say for the masses, social security is the best way to alleviate senior poverty.
But I do not want my social security “security� being the key word here, put to the test in a volatile and unpredicatable money market. Who knows after this huge deficit where money will even be in five years? Nope, I say for the masses, social security is the best way to alleviate senior poverty.
Comment by Lydia  March 11th, 2005 @ 10:03 pm
There’s nothing “secure” about SS. They change the tax rates, benefits, retirement age, etc. all the time. The pay as you go system is based on the same economy as the stock market. If one falls they both do.
Currently the system is only “secure” if we find a way to come up with about $10 trillion dollars starting in 2018.
Of course, there will always be a need for senior welfare. But you’re saying we shouldn’t even try to save for the future? Let’s say we try privatization and 50 years from now 20% of the people lose every last dime they ever saved(extraordinarily unlikely). So what! 80% won’t need a government handout. With these folks off the dole there will be that much more resources left over to handle the 20%.
You folks just don’t seem to get that the current pay as you go system is the absolute worst way to handle retirement. If we have private accounts and all of the money suddenly evaporates in thin air, where will we be? Exactly where we are now, that’s where!
March 11th, 2005 at 10:49 pmJoe -
You seem to have thought about this quite a lot. I totally disagree with basically everything you’re saying, but you do have a largely self-consistent view of your ideas. Your ideas about what will happen when we hit 2020 or so do seem to be predicated on the assumption that raising taxes on the rich back to, say, the levels we had in the 1990s (which were still historically *very* low, of course) is totally unthinkable, and therefore that SS will dry up and blow away before it happens, but I guess that could be stretched to fit the definition of ‘opinion’.
I just have two questions for you, one general and one specific.
First, the general one: what kind of safety net, specifically, do you recommend for people who elect to use these retirement accounts and then, for whatever reason, end up with dramatically less money in the account than they need to live. (Assume for the moment that by ‘need to live’ I don’t mean ‘have a summer house in Maine and a winter house in Tampa’, but, rather, ‘eat’.) You have said that no one is arguing that there shouldn’t be one (which is disingenuous, because a lot of the more extreme libertarians and Republicans are too arguing exactly that) so I assume YOU think there should be one.
Second, what do you propose to do when half (or however many) of the seniors out there have this sort of account, and a major recession and stock market correction occurs, and, over the (say) two or three years that it lasts, people go through their entire retirement account? Suddenly, the answer to question one becomes important, but it also becomes interesting to see how the Federal government could handle an unforeseen expense on the system, for basically everyone in the program, for the rest of all of their lives.
You don’t seem the type to say ‘let ‘em die’, so I am curious just what you will say.
This is an important point to me because I was socking money away for a rainy day (in mutual funds) when I got laid off and the stock market tanked in 2000. And I burned through my little nest-egg — what had been $50,000 but was now MUCH less than that — in the two years that I was out of work. I was fairly close to ending up on the street when I found my current job.
-fred
March 11th, 2005 at 11:11 pmI guess the first one was more of a specific general question. :-)
-fred
March 11th, 2005 at 11:22 pmSOCIAL SECURITY:
Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years.! !
Our Senators and Congresswo/men do not pay into Social Security and, of course, they do not collect from it.
You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of their rare elevation in society.They felt they should have a special plan for themselves! So, many years ago they voted in their own benefit plan.
In more recent years, no congressperson has felt the need to change it. After all, it is a great plan.
For all practical purposes their plan works like this:
When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die.
Except it may increase from time to time for cost of living adjustments..
For example, former Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may expect to draw $7,800,000.00 (that’s Seven Million, Eight-Hundred Thousand Dollars), with their wives drawing $275,000.00 during the last years of their lives.
This is calculated on an average life span for each of those two Dignitaries.
Younger Dignitaries who retire at an early age, will receive much more during the rest of their lives.
Their cost for this excellent plan is $0.00. NADA….ZILCH….
This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them. You and I pick up the tab for this plan. The funds for this fine retirement plan come directly from the General Funds;
“OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK”!
From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have paid) into,-every payday until we retire (which amount is matched by our employer)-we can expect to get an average of $1,000 per month after retirement.
Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of $1,000 monthly benefits for 68 years and one (1) month to equal Senator! Bill Bradley’s benefits!
Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made.
That change would be to jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and Congresswo/men. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us.
…..then sit back…..
and watch how fast they would fix it.
PS. I don’t work for anyone (retired) and don’t need social security or any other government hand outs. HOWEVER, I do understand the need for some of these programmes for some of our people. Isn’t that being “Compassionate Conservative”?…Care for one and other when in need……?
March 11th, 2005 at 11:39 pmComment by Fred Fnord  March 11th, 2005 @ 11:11 pm
Regarding the first question: I, personally, would allow age to become a qualifying disability such that poor seniors would essentially be receiving their retirement monies under the existing disability portion of SS. The key here is that the disability payments are means tested unlike the current retirement portion of SS. Also, recognize even with the big dips in 1987 and 2000 the market has returned 10 percent plus on average over the last 20 years. The stock market today has recovered most of what it lost after 9/11. People’s retirement contributions during 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 had excellent returns. That’s another key: spread the contributions out over 50 years.
Regarding the second question of guarding against stock market down turns you have to first recognize that we’d only be talking about (a) relatively conservative stock and bond funds (b) its implied/assumed that personal accounts will shift toward bonds and away from stocks as one nears retirement and (c) once retired most, if not all, the account would be in fixed income investments(cds, money market, government or corporate bonds, annuities and so forth).
(BTW, I personally would allow people to invest in there primary residence, too. Not sure how one handles the details, though.)
That said, sure there’s a chance of some people getting slammed all together. But my point is, in that event, we would basically be providing them a benefit the same way we do now: out of taxes on the paychecks of workers. In that case, however, workers would only have to support 10-15% of the elderly, let’s say, instead of 100%.
I never understand, when we have welfare for every other age group, that people can claim that somehow poor old people won’t be taken care of?
March 12th, 2005 at 12:13 amand watch how fast they would fix it.
…HOWEVER, I do understand the need for some of these programmes for some of our people. Isn’t that being “Compassionate Conservative”?…Care for one and other when in need……?
Comment by Ingrid M. Kollmann  March 11th, 2005 @ 11:39 pm
You lost me, Ingrid, I thought MoveOn is saying there’s nothing to fix?
I agree with you regarding congressional retirement perks: they’re criminal.
I think I could also agree with you if pay as you go SS retirement benefits were only paid to people who would be poor otherwise. But that is not what we have now.
March 12th, 2005 at 12:21 amSomeone way back in comments asked what the Republicans have to gain by (let’s be honest) destroying SS. (1) Brokers, private retirement sales scammers, other big-buck folks gain LOTS of $$$ from the privatized citizen and his/her “account.” (2) Dismantling this extremely successful Democratic program will, they hope, create many new little Republicans who “own” stock. It’s a shell game, as so many commentators have said. Fight back by writing letters to the editor in your local newspaper. Read editorial page comments by other citizens and profession writers. THIS IS A REPUBLICAN SHELL GAME, pure and simple.
March 12th, 2005 at 1:41 am… Democratic program will, they hope, create many new little Republicans who “ownâ€? stock….
Comment by Jean Anderson  March 12th, 2005 @ 1:41 am
I think you’re right there. But think about what you said: it’s just a scam to get fees AND its going to be so successful that it will create new rich Republicans.
Obviously, Republicans would have a vested interest in making sure these accounts do well, otherwise, they will end up creating a bunch of broke democrats, right? So why would they dare allow excessive fees erode the funds’ growth?
And, yes, people who own generally have a different outlook in life. It’s hard to demonize nameless, faceless corporations when you’re a stock holder. Private accounts will also induce a wave of consumer/financial education in the country.
March 12th, 2005 at 4:23 amThis is simply a power grab by the Rich. The government would achieve a controling interest in the world markets. This would allow them to change the dirrection of the markets simply by changing the funds the SS accounts are invested in. With this much power smaller economies or countrys can be forced into bankruptcy by a simple shift of large SS accounts. This is not a hard plot to fellow given the players, keep your eyes open you will see.
March 12th, 2005 at 6:33 amIn response to Fred’s comment about the market recovering. For people invested in companies like Lucent, the losses were staggering and did not recover. After losing 97.5% of the value of my 401K, my company opened conservative investments to the employees where returns have lagged. Many of our pensions were frozen. Now we are being asked to forfeit our paid-in social security so that the same people who screwed up their 401Ks can direct their Social Security. If as you claim we will be limited to conservative investments, why change- we are now limited to conservative investments and it won’t cost us a penny extra to continue that path, whereas estimates are that several TRILLION dollars will be spent to change the way Social Security works. I just don’t get that kind of VooDoo economics.
March 12th, 2005 at 8:35 amComment by Dennis  March 12th, 2005 @ 8:35 am
Out of curiousity, did anyone, anywhere, ever tell you it was okay to put your entire 401K in the stock of the company you work for? Was this stock that you had to purchase or was it given to you via profit sharing or some other benefit program? (Because I think it is illegal for a 401K program to require you to buy your own company’s stock.)
Regarding your comment: the “conservative investment” that SSA supposedly has now is treasury bonds. The problem is these bonds only get paid off by taxing future workers who we already know will be strained for cash just handling medicare, debt interest, and medicare. Its an almost certainty that these bonds will never be paid. Since there is no consequence to defaulting on intragovernment debt it would be irresponsible to the highest degree to pay these bonds off before paying the public debt off.
Regarding the transition costs, it will cost $10-11 trillion to do nothing. If we had some politicians with courage enough to immediately stop spending the SS surplus on other government spending there would be Zero transition costs to private accounts.
And, again, personal accounts are OPTIONAL. If you don’t think you can manage it, fine. There are millions of us who have done extremely well in the market over the last few years and we are willing to accept the slight risk that the stock market won’t be substantially higher 50 years from now than it is today.
March 12th, 2005 at 9:41 amComment by Stephen Holbert  March 12th, 2005 @ 6:33 am
I am encouraged by this post. It essentially indicates that reform opposition have run out of legitimate arguments. Time to resort to conspiracy and paranoia.
March 12th, 2005 at 9:45 amI now see why the Republicans are going to get their way on SSI……..We can’t seem to get 10 Democrats together in the same room to agree strongly on any one thing……:-(
March 12th, 2005 at 2:04 pmpulling Congress off their sweet retirement plan and putting them on SS is a great idea, and is more of a rhetorical move. IF SSI is NOT in any danger, once we put Congress on SSI, nothing would happen. IF, however, SSI really IS in danger and we force Congress to live on it, we’ll see it fixed in about 10 minutes.
The entire argument is a red herring, and another brilliant titty-twist of facts, courtesy of J Edgar Hoover, uh, I mean Karl Rove. Theyr’e right when they say young people don’t believe SSI will be around when they get old, I don’t believe it will be myself.
The idea of putting even a portion of SS on the stock market is so incredibly stupid/Machiavellian, it defies words.
Before SSI existed, back in the 20’s, everyone **who could afford it** had “private retirement accounts” that were tied to the stock market. in the 20’s the market did great, and so did people’s retirement. (hence the term “roaring 20’s”) In 1929, when the market crashed (remember Black Friday, anyone?), so did everyone’s nest egg. This is the biggest single reason for the Great Depression—everyone had their lives tied to the stock market, and when it crashed, everyone lost all they had.
—THIS is what Bush is trying to give us again?—the retirement plan that led us to the Great Depression?!?!
It would behoove both sides of this argument to read a little history so we don’t repeat this mistake.
SSI was created SPECIFICALLY so people wouldn’t have to “trust the market” in their old age, so EVERYONE could have a decent life when they retire, not just people who can afford it.
can we argue about relevant things to this argument, like not repeating history’s mistakes, or seeing how the Congress/wannabe royalty likes living like the rest of us? It’s stupid to match the trolls point for point on their idiotic shell game.
March 12th, 2005 at 3:33 pmRe: comment from Stephen Holbert (called “paranoid” by another commentator)
Look where we’re fighting “terrorists” (at zazillions per day, mostly going into the deep pockets of Halliburton and other Big Business and Oil corporations, while all the rest of the world hates us more and more). We are NOT focused on Afghanistan, where we actually let Osama slip away. Instead we’re mired deep to the hips (or chin?) in Iraq (where there’s OIL). It seems to me that Stephen H. is thinking on his feet. Must we sit back and see our nation bankrupted before we wake up to the direction our great leader W. is taking us? Surely all Democrats (and even Republicans who have their eyes open) can agree on that!
March 12th, 2005 at 3:34 pmBefore SSI existed, back in the 20’s, everyone **who could afford it** had “private retirement accountsâ€? that were tied to the stock market. in the 20’s the market did great, and so did people’s retirement. (hence the term “roaring 20’s”) In 1929, when the market crashed (remember Black Friday, anyone?), so did everyone’s nest egg. This is the biggest single reason for the Great Depressionâ€â€everyone had their lives tied to the stock market, and when it crashed, everyone lost all they had.
â€â€THIS is what Bush is trying to give us again?â€â€the retirement plan that led us to the Great Depression?!?!
It would behoove both sides of this argument to read a little history so we don’t repeat this mistake.
Comment by tom  March 12th, 2005 @ 3:33 pm
I think you need to read some history. SS was established at the end of the depression and covered very few people. Had it existed in 1929 it would have seen its income cut in half because unemployment had hit that high.
Maybe you think it could have borrowed its way through? Not likely. Next time you’re unemployed go try to get a home loan and let me know how that works for you.
By the way, who ever said that retired people would be invested in the stock market?Obviously, people will switch to bond funds as they approach retirement. Once retired they would either have an annuity or be solely in fixed income instruments.
The reason you don’t want to “match the trolls point for point” is because you can’t.
March 12th, 2005 at 4:22 pmComment by Jean Anderson  March 12th, 2005 @ 3:34 pm
Are you sure he’s not thinking WITH his feet?
If only Democrats would say publicly what they post on these Internet blogs, the Republicans would be assured a permanent majority for generations.
March 12th, 2005 at 4:30 pmAS A WIDOW COLLECTING SURVIVORS BENEFITS I ONLY GET 70% OF WHAT MY HUSBAND WOULD HAVE GOTTEN AT RETIREMENT AGE (HE DIDNT LIVE LONG ENOUGH TO COLLECT A DIME OF IT) SINCE I WORKED ALL OF MY ADULT LIFE AND PAID INTO THE SS SYSTEM AS WELL ,I’D LIKE TO KNOW WHERE THE OTHER 130% WE PAID IN GOES? I’D ALSO LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMENT THAT SURVIVORS BENEFITS BE DONE AWAY WITH AND THOSE PEOPLE SHOULD GO TO WORK…HOW MANY WELL PAYING JOBS ARE THERE FOR THOSE OVER 60?
March 12th, 2005 at 6:30 pmI’D ALSO LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMENT THAT SURVIVORS BENEFITS BE DONE AWAY WITH AND THOSE PEOPLE SHOULD GO TO WORK…HOW MANY WELL PAYING JOBS ARE THERE FOR THOSE OVER 60?
Comment by BARBARA MASSA  March 12th, 2005 @ 6:30 pm
I don’t think anybody suggested doing away with survivor’s benefits, though I’ve said several times that a real life insurance policy is far cheaper and far more generous than SS.
I don’t recall anyone saying beneficiaries are suppose to “go to work” either? But if there are no jobs for people over 60 then why are democrats talking about raising the retirement age?
March 12th, 2005 at 6:52 pmComment by BARBARA MASSA  March 12th, 2005 @ 6:30 pm
You raise a good point by the way. If you could inherit your husbands personal account (maybe by rolling it into your own) then you wouldn’t need survivor’s benefits, right?
Its already known that a lot of people on disability are waiting it out until they’re old enough to draw retirement benefits. Some of these people would be able to just retire early on their personal account.
So, even though reform is not aimed at survivor’s or disability benefits its very likely that personal accounts will relieve the pressure on these systems too.
March 12th, 2005 at 7:00 pmThe administration and others often use the term, “choice”, in reference to the proposed changes in SS. Why doesn’t the admin. propose a plan that would simplify and expedite the choice to put money into private accounts in tandem to the current SS system, rather than taking a portion OUT of the current SS deductions. Many more people would then have, PERHAPS, a better incentive to save.
March 12th, 2005 at 9:47 pmThese arguments keep going around in circles and making complex, statistic laden quotes. I am broke, my parents are broke and I am a reasonable person. Why can´t democrats get some balls and attack this plan with a reasonable, well planned out alternative. Why do we have to be all for or all against. We have an existing program that has worked, and I believe we can change this program. We won´t necessarily make the right happy but we should be looking for a middle ground. This is what is missing in American politics. Let´s stop the school yard name calling and deal with legitimate facts and solutions. I have lived abroad for two years, and I wanted to literally bury my head in shame over the ¨freedom fries¨incident. First I think every american needs to live abroad for a few months on what is considered a ¨reasonable¨wage in Central America and Asia. You quickly get a more realistic perspective of what real everyday poverty is. It is about living with no electricity, no water, dirt floors, no medicine and no food. I appreciate the working class life I live in the states a hell of a lot more. Lets cut the patriotic, religious, race based, party based angle and deal with the problems directly.
Number 1: Confront the problems with inequality in the system between race and income level. We will never solve the problem if we don´t do this. Any system will still be benifiting a minority of people over the majority.
Number 2¨: Enough number crunching already. It is obvious I will never be rich in retirement. All I care about is that I can meet my needs and those of my parents who will be old and sick when I retire.
Number 3: Let´s get real about investments. Everyone I know lost savings and retirment in the last stock market crash. If I have to have a private account, I want to choose what companies I buy stocks with. I sure as hell don´t trust the government for this. And this is not about Bush, you can look at backgrounds of plenty of people on both sides who have shady coporate friendships trailing behind them.
Number 4: Let´s get a grip about the mine is mine attitude. Again, I am a realistic person with barely two cents to rub together. Living with no health insurance, no investments, no retirement, I´m scared shitless. I will put my money into a social program because at least I know there is something there to catch me. If I win the lottery tomorrow I still will. Because I know anyday you can lose everything. We all hear the rags to riches stories but people often choose to ignore the riches to rags. Upper class people who get terminal diseases, go bankrupt, or are widowed and lose everything. To me social programs are like life insurance. I can´t predict the future so I would rather pay in than take the change of being homeless. People can gripe about not having extra money but living on the street is not an alternative I am willing to take.
March 12th, 2005 at 10:58 pmBy the way, I am a college educated person suffering from the issues with the job market. I have to think, things are tight now but it gives me a pretty realistic view of the future. I´m going to work to pay the bills, to live, to work to pay the bills, to live. Don´t crunch me numbers and tell me glowing fantasies of the freedom of investment. Working class people don´t have time to pour over investments figures and projections, and I sure as hell can´t afford an accountant. If I had a private account, I would´t trust myself. I feel like with the new system, everybody is going to have to get an accounting degree to make sure they can stay on top of their stocks. Sure I will take responsibility for my investments, but I feel like this system is meant to weed out those of us who suck ant math and can´t make heads or tails of interest rates, stock exchanges or coporate outlooks that change daily.
Let´s light a fire under the democrats and straddling republicans to do something. I feel like �´m stuck in contest of annoyance between two kids. All I hear when I watch debates is
¨I know you are but what am I¨
Comment by Heather  March 12th, 2005 @ 10:58 pm
I understand your frustration with not being comfortable with financial matters. I think this is largely a result of the poor curriculum in our schools. They will spend months and years talking about dead poets and dead presidents and then send people out in the world having no idea what a mutual fund is, how insurance works, or even knowing why a pay day lending place is a total rip off.
This is well recognized and a big part of the reason that personal accounts are OPTIONAL. You don’t have to choose them if you don’t want them.
That said, as adults, we don’t get to pick and choose which obligations we want to meet.
Yes, understanding saving and investing requires some effort. You may even have to read a book or take a course at a community college. But how is that any different then any other adult activity. I mean we don’t come out of the womb knowing how to negotiate with roofing contractors, drive cars, tend lawns, work jobs, and so forth. We learn these things because its our responsibility.
I suspect that most of the anti-reformers are similar to yourself in that they have little or no understanding of retirement planning and investing. Unfortunately, they are not as honest as you. To me its relatively simple: I wouldn’t ask William Hung for singing lessons or Joan Collins for marital advise so why would we listen to all these broke people about money matters?
March 12th, 2005 at 11:32 pmWhen it comes to Shrub and the neo-cons, I have to ask: “WHO BENEFITS?”- when you answer that question, you know why they’re pushing their agenda so hard. It works – try it. Apply the same question to the Patriot Act, the Iraqi war, the infamous tax cuts, the “new” Medicare Plan, the new Bankruptcy law, the anti-environmental agenda and so on and so on.
March 12th, 2005 at 11:55 pmJoe, and others commenting above, I suggest you read Paul Krugman, syndicated by the New York Times in many local and regional newspapers. He is an economist and thus surely knows about money management on both a personal and national (and international) scale. He has been writing on Social Security and W.’s idiotic “plan” for months, and he does not agree with ANY of the points you (repeatedly) attempt to make.
(1) The private accounts being proposed will NOT (I repeat NOT) be transferable. This is simply untrue.
(2) Social Security as it exists is NOT (I repeat NOT) in crisis; what problems it has can be fixed in numerous fairly simple ways.
(3) Those who want (and can AFFORD) private accounts can already get them.
Why force venture capitalism down the throats of the poor? It has NOT worked in Great Britain, it has NOT worked in South American, and, according to Krugman and others, it will NOT work here.
Jean Anderson
March 13th, 2005 at 12:27 amThanks, Joan, for keeping the discussion on track. WHO BENEFITS? That is the question, and you’re on track with the answers as well. Thanks, thanks, thanks.
March 13th, 2005 at 12:35 amComment by Jean Anderson  March 13th, 2005 @ 12:27 am
I’ve read Krugman’s syndicated tripe on the subject. Talk about a schill. Krugman, like Molly Ivins, are known Bush haters. You don’t really believe he’s objectively analyzed the economics of reform?
He recently had an article saying that reform would never work because there was no way that the stock market could grow at 10% over the next 75 years. He conveniently forgot to mention that (a) there’s no restriction that the funds be invested in the domestic stock market (b) we’ve had many periods where interest on bonds was that high and most importantly (c) m ost people only need growth in their accounts of a few percent to beat SS.
Regarding your points:
(1) How would he know if they’re transferrable or not? No plan had been written, yet.
(2) He doesn’t believe it’s in crisis because he buys the BS that the “trust fund” exists. Those of us who know how government bonds are paid and that the ratio of workers to retirees is approaching two tend to think that $480 a month, every month, for the duration of ones work life does warrant concern. Especially, since there’ll not be another political opportunity for probably 5-6 years and after 2018 there will be nothing we can do but jack up taxes.
(3) Minimum wage workers can’t get private accounts because 12.4 cents of every dollar they earn is sent to SS. Shouldn’t they be able to save that money for their future and their children’s future?
Nobody is forcing anything on anybody. Personal accounts are OPTIONAL OPTIONAL OPTIONAL OPTIONAL!!!!!
Again, If all the money in personal accounts suddenly evaporated where would be if not exactly where we are now: paying benefits out of taxes on current workers paychecks?
March 13th, 2005 at 4:25 amThanks, Joan, for keeping the discussion on track. WHO BENEFITS? That is the question, and you’re on track with the answers as well. Thanks, thanks, thanks.
Comment by Jean Anderson  March 13th, 2005 @ 12:35 am
Our children and grandchildren benefit. That’s who.
March 13th, 2005 at 4:26 amComment by Jean Anderson  March 13th, 2005 @ 12:27 am
Another one of Krugman’s genius articles was that reform was a sham because SS was using a conservative economic model to project solvency while the administration was using an optimistic economic model to project personal accounts. Nevermind that politicians always put the stats forward that best support their point (OMB vs. CBO and so on), anti-reformers want to use an optimistic economic model to project solvency and a conservative economic model (e.g. 1929 stock market crash) to project personal accounts.
Don’t you think an objective economist/journalist would have split the difference on the models, ran the systems head to head, and reported the results? Krugman will never do this because he knows that personal accounts will clobber the ROI of SS, especially for young people who are facing a negative return from SS.
March 13th, 2005 at 4:37 amJoe, how is it OPTIONAL/OPTIONAL/OPTIONAL to have any earnings your “private” account makes deducted from your social security? That’s the plan as I understand it. Also, how can you defend W.’s plan if, as you yourself say, “it hasn’t been written yet”? Get a life, Joe.
March 13th, 2005 at 6:42 pmComment by Jean Anderson  March 13th, 2005 @ 6:42 pm
That is the POINT of private accounts: to replace benefits paid from taxes on workers by earnings from personal accounts. Of course, you can’t get the returns from your private account AND the original SS benefit. What is OPTIONAL is whether you have a private account at all.
I’m not defending W’s plan, I am defending the call for reform. The state of the union sketched the broad stokes of what may become the plan. But, anybody claiming to know the fine details is lying.
I see its time to attack me personally. That frustration and cognitive dissonance you feel, Jean, is a result of your position being logically inconsistent and indefensible. Maybe if you did your own math and thinking instead of parroting Paul Krugman you’d end up with a position that is rationally satisfying to you such that you wouldn’t need to lash out at me.
March 13th, 2005 at 7:27 pmThis is from the the Congressional Budget Office. If you want to know why the current regime is going after Social Security see the last bulleted line of the page:
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5017&sequence=2&from=0
“DoD’s share of federal spending declines because real increases projected in mandatory spending for programs such as Social Security and Medicare outpace increases projected for defense spending.”
Now I see. “Fixing” Social Security is the best way to fix DoD’s declining share of federal spending. It’s like they say… follow the money.
March 14th, 2005 at 5:04 amJoe this is in responce to my being paranoid. What do I have to be paranoid about? I gave my full name, did you. With your comment 233 I would almost guess your last name to be that of another neo-con Joe who writes your same type of rhetoric on MSNBC. He also defends W and his profitering policies with a passion. He also shouts conspiacy theory about everything he can’t explain, just like true neo-cons. I call it the way I see it. You call it the way you want me to see it. But I’m not buying it. The GOP has been trying to gut the SS system for years and here is another conspiracy for you. When the system fells and millions lose thier retirements, who will they have to turn to for help? The government. Who will gain the power? The government. Again what do I have to be paranoid of?
March 14th, 2005 at 5:52 amComment by Stephen Holbert  March 14th, 2005 @ 5:52 am
If you call replacing the insane pay-as-you-go system with one that actually makes financial sense, then yes, I want to gut SS.
The problem I have with conspiracy, like the post just above yours, is that all rational thinking immediately stops. It absolves you of actually analyzing the facts and making decisions based on what’s in front of you.
You know there’s people making money off the school lunch program, providing mental health services, cleaning up toxic dumps, and so forth. Are you saying we shouldn’t do these things because some company will make money? Again, the expense ratio on an average mutual fund is less than 1%, the expense for an index fund are virtually zero. Its highly unlikely that Wall Street will be any richer than it already is after reform.
Apparently, you didn’t get my point if “the system fells and millions lose thier retirements” where will we be if not exactly where we are now?
March 14th, 2005 at 8:00 amClearly the folks in Congress think it important that people have a reliable source of income in their retirement years, or they would not have voted themselves a pension which is separate from Social Security. With fewer firms providing pensions to their employees, Social Security is the one payment upon which most of us can rely. If our self directed Social Security does not perform well, and we run out of funds, will the government then have to come up with a welfare plan for the elderly or will we simply join the ranks of the people living on the streets?
March 14th, 2005 at 8:44 amIf our self directed Social Security does not perform well, and we run out of funds, will the government then have to come up with a welfare plan for the elderly…
Comment by Barbara Neuman  March 14th, 2005 @ 8:44 am
Yes! We have welfare for every other age group, why would seniors be any different?
You understand its extraordinarily unlikely that an individual would lose ALL their money in a mutual fund, right? If large numbers of people are in that situation it means that the world has just collapsed and we’ll have a lot worse problems then paying SS benefits.
Personally, I’d be fine with a provision that even those that select personal accounts will get at least the inflation adjusted SS benefit if they were to lose everything in their account. (Primarily, because I know it won’t ever be needed.) This would not be as generous as the wage adjusted SS benefit, but there has to be some down side associated or else Dems will say we’re “forcing” people into private accounts.
March 14th, 2005 at 9:32 amNow I see. “Fixing� Social Security is the best way to fix DoD’s declining share of federal spending. It’s like they say… follow the money.
Comment by N.Perry  March 14th, 2005 @ 5:04 am
The purpose of that bullet is to explain why defense spending as a percentage of GDP remains relatively constant while its share of the federal budget drops substantially. Because the federal budget has to explode to cover the baby boomer retirement, defense spending will necessarily be a smaller portion.
There is absolutely no way to connect SS reform with more money for defense as you implied.
But its interesting that libs can post bald faced lies like this, yet Bush is the liar for believing what Bill Clinton and Madelaine Albright and Al Gore said about Iraq’s WMD.
March 14th, 2005 at 9:49 amDear Joe,
March 14th, 2005 at 10:35 amYou don’t know me.
And I didn’t post this lie. The link is to the Congressional Budget Office. The statement is from there. The conclusion is my own.
As regards to your message all I see is willfull ignorance, circular logic and name calling. Back yourself up or back-off.
Comment by N.Perry  March 14th, 2005 @ 10:35 am
The conclusion is the lie. There is no way that you can say that graph implies SS reform will get more money to the military.
Please explain, specifically, what I am willfully ignorant of and where my logic is circular and what I haven’t backed up and I will address them. Unlike most everyone else on this blog I’ve answered every direct question put to me.
March 14th, 2005 at 11:19 amSorry to disappoint you Joe, but I am one of those people who know what compound interest is, who know what a mutual fund is (and who owns a few of those mutual funds inside my IRA, my 403(b) and in a taxable brokerage account), and who knows what the rule of 72 is, and I DO NOT support Bush’s privatization scheme. You see, I have an aversion to people (like Bush) who lie to push through a program that only satisfies his idealogical base and financially helps his campaign contributors, instead of doing what is best for America. Bush’s privatization plan involves adding trillions of dollars to our national debt and does not increase Social Security’s solvency. Here’s a few facts for you Joe: Enron employees HAD to buy Enron stock or they would NOT have received a company funding match. That is why so many employees had so much money tied up in their company stock – not because they were stupid to put so much money in one stock like you said. Another fact: Enron employees were NOT PERMITTED to sell their stock when it was tanking, even though Enron management was allowed to do so. By the way Joe, if the American public heard some of the elitist comments you’ve posted here about how ignorant Americans are (they don’t understand Bush’s privatization plan, they aren’t financially saavy, blah, blah, blah) the Democrats would be the ones in control of the White House and Congress for the next century.
March 14th, 2005 at 5:39 pmComment by Cindy  March 14th, 2005 @ 5:39 pm
I said 9 out of 10, Cindy, blind hate always trumps reason.
Personal accounts absolutely improve solvency because every dollar earned in the accounts is a dollar that doesn’t have to come out of the paychecks of our children (or from cashing in the fictictious bonds in the “trust fund”).
I don’t know how Enron ran things, but I know the first thing my benefit administrator told me when I started my 401K was that I should not put any money into my company’s stock. If the company goes under you lose your job AND your savings. (Stock options and profit sharing plans on the other hand are a different story. You can lose these and you really haven’t lost any of your own money.)
I do remember something about Enron freezing people’s accounts when the stock started to tank. I hope you’ll join in me in calling for Ken Lay to get the death penalty. See my earlier post.
I’m elitist? Because I believe that all workers, minimum wage and up, have the capacity to take charge of their own financial future? I’ve simply stated that the people on this blog, who are effectively rendering retirement planning advice to their peers, ought to have a modicum of knowledge about saving and investing.
I don’t think they’re stupid. I think many of them are ignorant of how SS works, what the “trust fund” really is, and how bonds and mutual funds operate. I think many are wrapped up in a petty, political grudge. But I also think each is perfectly capable of planning for their own retirement given an incentive to do so.
March 14th, 2005 at 6:25 pmJoe you should stop trying to be the smartest blogger on the block and start listening to the other bloggers. What I see here is people who not only distrust Bush, but the government in general. And what I have seen over the years, they have good reason. There are solutions to every problem. but we are just not buying Bushs.
March 14th, 2005 at 6:33 pmWe bought his WMDs and are still paying for it. We have seen his tax relief for the rich and powerful. We have seen his promises to our kids go unfunded. We have seen his hatred for mother earth. We have seen his hatred for America and her freedoms played out all over America throughout his campaign when only those who cheered him was allowed to see him.
You may find many who think the way you, GW, and his base thinks, and with thier billions they may continue to buy presidents and politicians. But as long as there are true patriotic Americans who truly love America and her true freedoms, you will not get thiers.
Comment by Cindy  March 14th, 2005 @ 5:39 pm
Actually, Cindy, I’m glad you’re here. Perhaps you would be so kind as to post the answer to the following questions:
Part 1: How much would an individual earning the median wage have at age 68 in his personal account if he saved 12.4 cents of every dollar starting at age 18? You can assume any growth rates you want but I would suggest trying 0,2,4,6, and 8 percent. (Inflation adjusted results, please.)
Part 2: What would be the monthly income on the account from part 1 assuming the individual can draw out 5% per year? How does it compare to the average SS check of $960/month?
I would post the answers, but I get the feeling nobody here would believe me.
March 14th, 2005 at 6:46 pmComment by Stephen Holbert  March 14th, 2005 @ 6:33 pm
You distrust government in general, yet you want to give it sole control over your retirement?
Don’t you see it as a red flag that the anti-reformers talk about everything BUT the retirement function of SS?
I hate the diversion but briefly:
*Bush didn’t say anything about WMDs that prominant democrats hadn’t already said.
*Bush can’t cut FICA tax because dems would say he’s destroying SS. He, obviously, can’t cut income tax rates on high income people more than low income. And if he weights toward low income people there (a) isn’t enough money to stimulate the economy and (b) millions and millions of voters would be paying no income tax whatsoever making them sitting ducks for the “free candy” the Dems want to pass out. What’s left is across the board income tax cut which naturally goes disproportionately to the rich because they are the ones paying all the income tax.
*I thought you were all deficit hawks, now? How can you be advocating increasing spending on anthing?
*Seems to me the people who “love” mother earth are the one’s whose criminal mismanagement of our forests causes them to damn near burn down each year?
*You’re right Republicans are the only ones who manage photo ops. Clinton spontaneously danced with Hillary when there was no music playing and Kerry just happened to have a rifle and hunting gear in the back of his limo.
Here’s my question to you: at this point, is there anything Bush could do that you WOULD support? I suspect you know the answer is no, which means you’ve abandoned intellectually honesty and all objectivity and therefore have no credibility on any topic.
On the other hand, I happily give Clinton credit for trying to reform government, adding a lot of pro-business programs at commerce, signing the welfare reform bill, and for generally governing towards the center.
March 14th, 2005 at 7:11 pmJoe here is a question for you. What is your retirement. Congressmen have one of the best from what I hear. Is your anything like thiers. I’ll bet it is.
March 14th, 2005 at 7:13 pm…What is your retirement…
Comment by Stephen Holbert  March 14th, 2005 @ 7:13 pm
I have a 401K and personal savings. EVERY worker should have the same opportunities that I have.
March 14th, 2005 at 7:20 pmI would have given him credit for capturing Bin Laden if he had kept that promise. Now I just give him credit for 911.
March 14th, 2005 at 7:23 pmRight, if he caught Bin Laden everything would change for you? I saw that movie. Seems to me for months you folks were busting his chops that he “couldn’t even find Saddam Hussein”. Then he found him and immediately the story changed to “well this really isn’t about one person, we still have the insurgents….”. I supsect the same will happen when Bin Laden is found.
But I really don’t want to get off the SS reform thread.
March 14th, 2005 at 7:30 pmWho will be in control of these private accounts. Will it be the individuals themselves. Or will it be the government. Who will make the adjustment as the market changes. As an individual will I be able to change my investment direction when I feel it needs to be changed or will I have to rely on someone else. These are legit questions.
March 14th, 2005 at 8:05 pmI don’t want the government directing the investments, either. Its a conflict of interest.
The plan should operate like a 401K.
March 14th, 2005 at 8:21 pmJoe, you keep talking about each worker paying 12% of every dollar s/he earns into SS. Someone way back pointed out that EMPLOYERS pay half, or 6%, as required by law. Will you admit this, please?
Second, what about the (MANY, MANY) state operated “private” retirement systems (for state workers, teachers, police, garbagemen, etc., separate from SS) now being threatened by our huge federal deficit. The W. deficit has forced states to take on costs (for education, medical care, road maintenence, on and on) that WOULD HAVE BEEN PAID FOR with national $$$ IF (that huge IF again…) our Dear Leader had not driven a budget suplus into the red, creating the biggest national debt we’ve ever had. (Maybe THAT’S why they’re “red” states, huh? Now I get it!) How secure are these various “private” retirement accounts now? And please don’t give me that usual baloney about “how safe is SS” — “for our children,” etc., etc. How safe is our nation when our overextended credit could be called in at any time (say, by South Korea…) and we’d be bankrupt? What has W. done so far that’s been good for the USA — aside from making his buddies richer?
March 15th, 2005 at 7:24 pmI think you’re angry at the wrong fathers, Joe.
Thank you for those great facts to have close at hand. I don’t know all that much about social security being that I’m only 28 and terrible with numbers, lol, but I do know enough to realize that Bush’s only concern is for himself and those around him that have helped to finance his Presidency. Bush couldn’t care less about working class people like me, so not only does this current idea of his suck, but they ALL do!
March 15th, 2005 at 7:35 pmAnother quick point to consider, re: “our children.” The latest federal government figures indicate that every child born in the USA today takes on, at birth, a debt of $36,000. That’s right: $36,000 per person! (We parents and grands and 20-somethings also owe the same amount, each and every one of us.) And, again, that’s what our current federal deficit amounts to in real dollars, as viewed in the lives of real people, so far — since our Dear Leader took office in 200. Yes, that figure has only come into being in the last 5 years. Clinton (that “tax-and-spend” guy) left office with a federal SURPLUS.
And we’re supposed to believe that W. will actually somehow benefit “our children” with Social Security reform?
March 15th, 2005 at 7:51 pmComment by Jean Anderson  March 15th, 2005 @ 7:51 pm
Yes, 6.2 percent from the worker and 6.2 percent from the employer. But (a) as I’ve posted several times that employer match would come to you as part of wages if not for SS and (b) it’s irrelevant in the context of personal accounts. 12.4 cents for every dollar you earn is sent into SSA. If you want to have an accurate comparison of benefits versus private accounts you have to use that percentage.
Regarding the debt, you’re talking to the wrong guy about being a deficit hawk. I’ll call your bluff. I would slash all government spending in half if I had my way. At a minimum, I think we need a constitutional amendment to limit this year’s federal spending to no more than last year’s revenue except in times of war. The debt is a main reason why I defected to the Reform party years ago.
Your number is totally bogus, see:
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
Actually, its the ~$11 trillion unfunded liabilities in SS that represent a ~$37,000 burden for every person. Does that concern you?
You make an important point about foreigners owning our national debt. Wouldn’t it be nice if Americans held those bonds… I don’t know… perhaps in their personal SS accounts?
For clarafication, you didn’t just say that the entire national debt was produced under Bush? I think you’re confusing debt with deficit.
March 15th, 2005 at 9:11 pmI don’t know all that much about social security…
Comment by Fenria  March 15th, 2005 @ 7:35 pm
But you know you hate Bush, and that’s all that matters?
March 15th, 2005 at 9:14 pmWhat we all are arguing about is numbers. The truth is no one person can, will or does know the real numbers. The future is just that and no one can predict it accurately. Why instead of our government trying to fix a problem that may or may not exist,” depending on who you are talking to”. Why don’t they simply get together with the best economist or math scholars or who ever it takes, and ask them to develope the best system money can buy since we are paying for it anyway.
What I am saying is we cannot believe the fuzzy math the government is using and this is why. The government uses formulas developed to get the results they want to show. When I see that the dollar of 2000 only buys half of what it did in 1980, and the government says thats only 19% inflation I get sceptical. The fact is if our government was serious about fixing anything they would not rely on themselves because they are notorious for overkill.
We the people need to quit arguing with each other over who is right and make our government ours again.We have allowed too much outside influence into our government. We have allowed so many special interest groups into DC that our government is bogged down trying to please them’ that it no longer has time for the peoples problems.
What we need is total government reform, and again someone smarter then me or our government, needs to develope it. To continue debating SS when its just a small part of the overall, or should I say overhaul, to me seems pointless. So to everyone I say goodday.
March 16th, 2005 at 10:31 amGeorge Bush nearly ran an oil company into the ground before he was bailed out.
George Bush nearly ran the Texas Rangers into the ground before he was bailed out.
George Bush was “W�rong about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
George Bush was “W�rong about Saddam trying to buy uranium from Africa.
George Bush was “W�rong about Saddam and a connection to 9/11.
George Bush was “W�rong when he thought the Iraqis would greet us as liberators.
George Bush was “W�rong when he ignored the advice of his generals as to the number of troops required to secure the peace in Iraq.
George Bush was “W�rong about the cost of the war in Iraq.
George Bush was “W�rong when he told congress the Medicare bill would only cost $390 billion.
The unparalleled ineptitude of the people in charge of intelligence in the Bush administration led to a failure to prevent 9/11. See the report of the 9/11 commission, if you don’t believe this. Most revealing is the FAA intelligence reports where ~55 of 102 reports from that year mention bin Laden or Al Qaeda and several of these state that they intended to use planes as weapons, which directly contradicts Dr. Rice’s claim that they had no idea they were going to do this. (So don’t claim that this was a problem left over from Clinton.)
George Bush is “W�rong to try to cut taxes (for the wealthiest) during a time of war and coupled with record deficits. This is gross fiscal irresponsibility.
Etcetera, etcetera,…..
George Bush’s social security plan is based on a fundamental misconception of what social security is.
George Bush thinks that SS is some kind of retirement or pension plan, but it is not. It is a no risk safety net and private accounts do not and cannot fulfill the basic function of social security. In order to have a rational plan for upgrading the system, a basic understanding of the function of the program is a prerequisite.
Think about all the really big and important things George Bush has been wrong about and failed at and then ask yourselves these questions. If George Bush was running a company that handled people’s retirement accounts, would you, knowing that this could be your only source of retirement income, invest your money in his company? Has there been a pattern of honesty or dishonesty with this president and would you trust him to be fiscally responsible with your money? If not, then how can you trust him with something as essential to so many people as social security? How can you trust someone who doesn’t even seem to know what social security is? Finally, do you trust that Bush is trying to fix social security or that he is actually trying to eliminate the program and can you afford to take that risk? Remember a major aspect of social security is that it is intended to eliminate risk.
March 16th, 2005 at 11:43 amGeorge Bush’s social security plan is based on a fundamental misconception of what social security is.
George Bush thinks that SS is some kind of retirement or pension plan, but it is not. It is a no risk safety net and private accounts do not and cannot fulfill the basic function of social security. In order to have a rational plan for upgrading the system, a basic understanding of the function of the program is a prerequisite.
Comment by Thomas Rocheleau  March 16th, 2005 @ 11:43 am
Please read the previous thread:
*SS IS mostly a retirement program
*Pay-as-you-go is no more secure than the stock market
*private accounts can fulfill 90% of the function of SS
*Reformers don’t care about Bush, we supported reform long before he came along.
But your post certainly reveals your strategy. You think that if you can personally destroy Bush that somehow the other 58 million of us will just go away and then you won’t actually have to compete in the arena of ideas.
To adapt a quote from an Isreali Prime Minister: “There will be no social security reform until they love their children more than they hate Bush.”
March 16th, 2005 at 12:21 pmwhat is bush really doing right now? travelling around promoting the death of social security or making sure we are drilling oil in the artic national wildlife refuge? keep your focus. karl rove has several immoral wars going on. don’t focus all of your attention on his right hand. his left hand is doing double damage right now.
March 16th, 2005 at 4:49 pmPersonally I agree with this article from The Moderate Independent.
GETTING IT STRAIGHT: WHAT SOCIAL SECURITY ACTUALLY IS
In Order To Have A Useful Debate On “Saving� Social Security, We Have To First Realize What We Are Dealing With
by Thomas J. Bico
http://www.moderateindependent.com/v3i1ss.htm
One brief quote from the article to get you interested.
” To talk about the program going bankrupt, about setting up some-win-some-lose private investment accounts, or about reducing guaranteed benefits are to misunderstand what is being discussed. The discussion is not about a retirement savings program. It is not about a pension program. It is not about a government entitlement program that can be reduced.
It is a discussion simply about the acknowledgement of a basic moral principle of our nation and how to fulfill it.”
March 16th, 2005 at 5:24 pmWhen young I often heard that SS would not be here when I retired. It still is and I expect it still will be in the future. That is unless Shrub’s scam to destroy SS succeeds.
Private tax favored accounts already exist. They are called IRA’s, etc. Those who can’t or won’t fund these accounts now are not going to do any better with whatever extra they might have from Shrub’s privatization. Some of these accounts are not quite as advantageous as they might have seemed circa 2000. Retires sometimes thru no fault of their own (think Enron, WorldCom) need a safety net to fall back on. For this reason retirement SS needs to exist. (I am not yet in this situation but will be if the market collapses.)
About 1/3 of SS funds non-retire benefits (ie survivors. disability, etc). Joe and his ilk claim the reforms are not about these benefits but the money for this portion comes from somewhere. The general fund tax revenues won’t support these benefits. Remember that in 2000 the nation was on track to eliminate the deficit about 2008. That date has receded indefinitely under Shrub and this is not due to 9/11.
My congressman has sent at least 2 newsletters devoted to SS (1/02 and 1/05). Both have a list of key dates. These have receded at least as fast as real time (2016->2018, 2025->2028, 2038->2042 or 2052). Some crisis. Both newsletters also state that removing the payroll cap funds SS indefinitely and leaves a fair amount left over.
Removing the SS payroll cap turns changes this tax from a regressive tax to a flat tax. That is those earning high incomes would pay the same % as the rest of us. This ought to please the reformers. The Medicare tax already is this way.
Since it is obvious, I admit to being a Shrub hater. I believe this bleep is evil and that comparisons to Hitler are not out of line. Hitler at least was a better orator.
March 16th, 2005 at 5:30 pmComment by Dick Goodemoot  March 16th, 2005 @ 5:30 pm
Please READ the thread. All of your points have been addressed and refuted ad nauseum.
Please answer a couple questions for me:
March 16th, 2005 at 6:43 pm1. Where does the money come from to cash in the bonds in the “trust fund” in 2018?
2. How can low income workers afford to fund IRAs?
3. What is your best estimate of the likelihood of a conservative mutual fund going totally broke?
4. Should SS be a welfare program or a retirement savings plan? Or rather should one’s SS benefit be some how related to what one has paid in?
5. Do you believe your benefit is worth what you paid for it? Do you even know what you paid for it?
6. Given your admitted blind hatred, do you think it is possible for you to discuss SS reform objectively?
Joe, the “debt” I mention in post 276 is how much, per person, our NATIONAL DEFICIT amounts to when divided up between every US citizen as of yesterday. (Maybe it’s more than $36,000 for each of us, including newborn babies, today.) That DEFICIT was ALL gathered under the loving watch of W. Clinton DID leave the nation running in the black.
And most of the nat’l. debt is held by foreign nations BECAUSE that’s how the internat’l. economy of multinational corporations works. Surely you know that. Reforming SS wouldn’t change that.
And, by the way, you say the 6 plus cents employers contribute to SS would go to wages if we ended SS. How so? WHY IN HECK would these private companies give employees this money if they (companies) were not required by law to kick in, as they currently are for SS?
You did not respond to how badly the “private’” and smaller governmental retirement funds are currently faring under W’s loving care. Since states are having to pick up so many expenses, because our nation is broke, those retirement plans are in danger. Yes.
As to our children, and discussing SS reform “objectively,” the subject seems moot: with the current administration F—ing up so horribly nationally, internationally, and even in (as I pointed out before) regionally and locally (in the failure to fund stuff like education, infrastructure repair, medical care, environmental protections, etc., etc.), WHAT FUTURE DO OUR CHILDREN HAVE? Darned less than they had five years ago, that’s for sure.
March 17th, 2005 at 1:56 amComment by Jean Anderson  March 17th, 2005 @ 1:56 am
Jean, the deficit is the difference between spending and revenue for one year. This year’s deficit is around $400,000,000,000. Divided into 300,000,000 people you get about $1333.
If we can’t trust you to get this simple calculation correct, what credibility does the rest of your post(s) have?
Yes, there was a budget surplus when Clinton left office. Of course, the world trade center and pets.com were still standing, too. The economy has weathered the internet bubble, corporate scandal, a recession, terrorist attack, two years of constant poo-pooing by the democrats, and war. All said, we’ve come out pretty well considering the unemployment rate is less than what Clinton won re-election on.
I’ve not heard of any “small government retirement” funds being in trouble. If they are, what would it have to do with the federal government? You’re not advocating that the federal government send more money to the states when it already has a huge deficit, are you?
I agree with you about unfunded mandates to the states, however. More important to me, though, is the $11 trillion dollar unfunded mandate to our children and grandchildren that pay as you go represents.
Jean, the problem with ranting about Bush being the Anti-christ or Hitler or whatever is that it requires people to accept the notion that Bush is extraordinarily different then all the other presidents. I think, objectively, he’s had a pretty modest list of domestic accomplishments and one major foreign policy initiative(which could pay off like nothing we’ve ever seen OR collapse in to a heap). In the end, he’ll probably be regarded as Reagan-lite. But when you try to make him out to be bigger or more important than he is you lose even more credibility.
March 17th, 2005 at 8:40 amComment by Jean Anderson  March 17th, 2005 @ 1:56 am
Forgot about the employer match: Jean, why don’t we just have the employer pay the full 12.4 percent so we can get SS for free?
March 17th, 2005 at 8:42 amMost of the argument misses the essential point: Social Security is about providing for those who cannot provide for themselves. It is not a 401k/403b/IRA, which are available to all who have sufficient means to fund them, but rather a form of insurance. It also remains fully funded in perpetuity with only two small changes: uncap the withholding and means-test the benefits, so that the insurance aspect is fully deployed. There would result from these two changes sufficient accrual to afford realistic payments to disabled persons, as well as retirees, neither of which are currently adequate; and a generous surplus to fund the hidden costs of government which the cheats have taken “off-budget”. Almost as good as ridding us of Bush and his lying allies.
March 17th, 2005 at 11:57 pmComment by Conley T. Gwinn  March 17th, 2005 @ 11:57 pm
First, the people on SS have provided for themselves. If they worked full time for fifty years they sent in about 6-7 years worth of net wages.
If you want to advocate that SS become a straight welfare program, fine. In fact, I wouldn’t necessarily object. It would mean that everyone’s FICA taxes can be cut by 80% since only about 20% of the elderly would be poor without SS.
But this is not what we have now. Everyone receives benefits whether they have an “insurance” claim or not.
I’ve asked this question several times and I doubt you’ll answer it either. IF SS is an insurance policy is it a good insurance policy? Is the coverage worth the premium?
March 18th, 2005 at 12:30 amAs I read the articles above … I want to caution you all about the up coming storm!
This is a hard sell, because it is a scam perpitrated against the American People … who will pay dearly for this plan! This appears to be a Government orchestrated ENRON DEBACLE! President Bush states that those under 55 will be safe from this overhaul … What he isn’t saying is those that are under 55 may or may not have a retirement fund when they reach the retirement age of 67 – 70 – or even 85! Regular Social Security will decrease in value, and the Private Accounts could well have … a total loss … because the Stock Market does have a chance to fail! On the other hand the Private Accounts can increase well beyond the expected rates of return. So … It appears that you may have a 50-50 chance in earning a decent retirement! Some Social Security … Some Private INCOME from Private Accounts … Some people will also benefit from a Company Retirement Fund! (If it has not been gutted)
Now the questions that have to be asked!
How will the poor benefit from this plan? How can a Family man earning under 30,000 dollars a year pay into this plan?
What will the restrictions be to avoid emptying these Accounts before Retirement?
What is the Load for these Private Accounts? In other terms: How much will it cost the individual to maintain this account?
Who will control these investment Accounts?
How often can you draw from these accounts before Retirement Age, and what is the Retirement Age?
What will the security be for these accounts? Banks are secured up to 100,000 Dollars … what about your Private Account?
How much will you as an individual be required to contribute?
Will this account be TAXABLE and when?
Who Is the beneficial partner should you die, before the account matures, and what rate of return will this beneficiary expect? … Or, will the beneficiary be required to continue payments after your death?
Too many unanswered QUESTIONS FOR AN UNSURE RETIREMENT ACCOUNT! You at least know … that you will receive a specific amount from a Guaranteed Social Security Account! So … it is my humble opinion … that if your Congressional Delegate fails to answer any of the above Questions then you should Vote No on Privatized Accounts!
March 18th, 2005 at 10:18 amBob “Irish” Gossard
Comment by Bob “Irish� Gossard  March 18th, 2005 @ 10:18 am
If SS were “Guaranteed” we wouldn’t have to keep changing it every few years. The only guarantee is that the government will be able to tax your children and grandchildren. There’s no guarantee that they’ll have the money to give the government.
Now the questions that have to be asked!
How will the poor benefit from this plan?
Ans: The poor can’t currently build wealth because 12.4 percent of their wage is sent to SSA leaving little for personal savings.
How can a Family man earning under 30,000 dollars a year pay into this plan?
Ans: The same way he pays FICA, now. Bush has proposed up to 4% of the 12.4% tax.
What will the restrictions be to avoid emptying these Accounts before Retirement?
Ans: Same restrictions as IRAs/401Ks, can’t withdraw before the current SS retirement age.
What is the Load for these Private Accounts? In other terms: How much will it cost the individual to maintain this account?
Ans: I’ve seen estimates of 0.3% per year. Probably optimistic, but a generic mutual fund is less than 1%. (The final plan may require some pooling of very small accounts to keep the costs down.)
Who will control these investment Accounts?
Ans: The individual will select between a handful of stock and bond funds. (I would have the mutual fund companies compete for access based on highest return for lowest cost.)
How often can you draw from these accounts before Retirement Age, and what is the Retirement Age?
Ans: You can’t and the same age as SS benefits.
What will the security be for these accounts? Banks are secured up to 100,000 Dollars … what about your Private Account?
Ans: There is no FDIC-type insurance for investments, but I’ve suggested that a minimum price adjusted SS benefit be guaranteed for those who opt for personal accounts.
How much will you as an individual be required to contribute?
Ans: Nothing, it’s optional.
Will this account be TAXABLE and when?
Ans: I assume the same as SS benefits, i.e. tax free up until some level of retirement income.
Who Is the beneficial partner should you die, before the account matures, and what rate of return will this beneficiary expect? … Or, will the beneficiary be required to continue payments after your death?
Ans: Payments come from FICA tax. Why would someone be paying FICA taxes for a dead spouse?
The goal is to have the account inheritable, so whatever is built up would go to (maybe rolled into) the spouses account.
March 18th, 2005 at 10:51 am“I have a 401K and personal savings. EVERY worker should have the same opportunities that I have. ”
Every worker already does have the same opportunity you have Joe – it’s called an IRA. Yet another reason why we don’t need Bush’s privatization scheme.
“I said 9 out of 10, Cindy, blind hate always trumps reason. ”
Why is it when someone disagrees with Bush’s privatization scheme, you say they blindly hate Bush? Get over it Joe – I don’t hate Bush, I just distrust him. I distrust him because he has lied in the past and because he can’t add and subtract.
“Personal accounts absolutely improve solvency because every dollar earned in the accounts is a dollar that doesn’t have to come out of the paychecks of our children (or from cashing in the fictictious bonds in the “trust fund”). ”
And I suppose borrowing those trillions of dollars to finance Bush’s scheme WON”T have to be paid back WITH INTEREST by our children?
“Regarding the debt, you’re talking to the wrong guy about being a deficit hawk. I’ll call your bluff. I would slash all government spending in half if I had my way. ”
No Joe, if you are for Bush’s privatization borrowing scheme (which will add trillions to our national debt and must be paid back WITH INTEREST) you are NOT a deficit hawk.
“Actually, Cindy, I’m glad you’re here. Perhaps you would be so kind as to post the answer to the following questions:
Part 1: How much would an individual earning the median wage have at age 68 in his personal account if he saved 12.4 cents of every dollar starting at age 18? You can assume any growth rates you want but I would suggest trying 0,2,4,6, and 8 percent. (Inflation adjusted results, please.)”
Joe, Joe, Joe – even though I could calculate those numbers you requested using my handy HP12C financial calculator – the numbers I get would NOT be comparing apples to apples (unless you are assuming that SS would be abolished completely and every worker could invest 6.2 cents of every dollar earned and it would be matched by 6.2 cents on every dollar by their employer). You know darn well that Bush’s privatization plan allows individuals to invest 4% of payroll taxes, up to a “maximum” of $1000 per year, plus an extra $100 in succeeding years and a small inflation adjustment. If inflation runs the historical 3-4%, that means an extra $35 on top of the $1000 + $100 invested. In addition, not ALL workers would be starting to invest at age 18. What’s the point in coming up with a bunch of numbers that don’t accurately reflect what a person could ACTUALLY earn given Bush’s current plan?
One thing I do know Joe, neither you NOR George Bush are very good salesmen.
“Part 2: What would be the monthly income on the account from part 1 assuming the individual can draw out 5% per year? How does it compare to the average SS check of $960/month?”
March 18th, 2005 at 7:32 pmYour question of drawing income reminds me that I have a couple questions about the taxation of those “private accounts.”
Right now, SS benefits are NOT taxed until you reach a certain income level, and then UP TO 85% of your benefits can be taxed. If these private accounts are all considered “ordinary income” when withdrawn, wouldn’t every single dollar of these accounts be taxable to people and thus POSSIBLY future senior citizens would be paying higher income tax rates than they do now on their SS benefits, which are only taxed ABOVE a certain income level?
In addition (assuming the maximum capital gains tax rate stays at 20%) wouldn’t those people who have capital gains in their acccounts be converting those capital gains into ordinary income which would again result in possible higher income taxes than are now paid on SS income?
Comment by Cindy  March 18th, 2005 @ 7:32 pm
Every worker does not have the same opportunity as I have, because their FICA taxes are so high that nothing is left for personal savings.
What does the idea of SS reform, which has been around for decades, have to do with Bush personally? I don’t care whether you trust him. Do you trust Clinton, Moynihan, Reid?
I’ve advocated several times that we have one year’s worth of zero growth in the federal budget to free up the SS surplus to be directed to personal accounts. In that case there would be no transition cost. Even if the money is borrowed it at least puts the liabilities on budget so the feds can’t keep using the SS surplus as a crutch.
Why don’t you just humor me and calculate the numbers? By the way, I started paying FICA at 15.
Sounds like your advocating we skip the paultry percentage Bush has proposed and jump to full personal accounts?
Taxation on benefits is a good point. I’ve assumed they would be taxed the same way that SS benefits are. What would be the motive for treating them otherwise?
But basically, you’re saying that people will be making so much in their personal accounts that taxes will be their main concern? I thought they were all going to go bust like Enron?
March 18th, 2005 at 9:44 pmSince its clear that everyone against SS reform is so because of a personal hatred/distrust for Bush maybe those of us that are open to it should try to define a plan.
1. Ground Rules
*Disability benefits are unaffected
*Survivor’s benefits are unaffected
*Retirement benefits for those 55 and older are unaffected
*Participation in any reformed system is optional
*Any personal accounts are inheritable
2. Pay our dues
The budget between 2005 and 2006 is projected to increase by about the same amount as the current SS surplus (~$150B). I propose we take the 2005 budget, mark out the date, and pass it. This frees the SS surplus in perpetuity.
3. Establish personal accounts
The $150B surplus should be enough to fund the personal accounts of all the people who elect them with about the 4% that the President proposed. If it can fund more, great, if not the percentage may have to yield.
4. The choice
The election of personal accounts has the following impacts:
a. The account is guaranteed to provide the inflation adjusted benefit, but
b. disability and survivor’s benefits will be means tested. In other words if you have $500,000 in your account you don’t get to pass it AND a survivor benefit to your heirs
c. Retirement income from personal accounts is to be treated the same as benefit income.
d. The account only pays in excess of the price adjusted benefit. That is, in exchange for the guaranteed minimum, you only get extra income if your account does better than the price adjusted benefit.
If you elect not to have personal account, you can not change to a personal account but once every ten years or so. Those without personal accounts will get the same wage adjusted benefit currently promised.
5. The investments
The accounts should operate similar to a 401K. There should be a mix of stock and bond funds, domestic and international. There could be provisions to borrow money for a home. Withdrawals can not be made until the usual SS retirement age.
The investments should be self selected to prevent conflicts of interest. Mutual fund companies can bid on the benefits based on highest return for lowest cost.
6. Who participates
>55 = can’t participate
25-55 = optional
<25 = mandatory, unless they accept the price adjusted benefit in place of the wage adjusted benefit
7. The Hard Part
March 18th, 2005 at 10:23 pmBecause SS is in such a hole, even personal accounts can’t bail it out entirely. All the usual suspects have to be on the table, including increased retirement age, FICA rates, means testing, and so forth. Basically, we have to do this anyway, personal accounts just make it a little easier/fairer.
Comment by Joe  March 18th, 2005 @ 10:23 pm
I realized after posting this that some may be confused as to why personal accounts would come before the rest of reform. Its very important to understand why.
If congress were to decide tomorrow that it will jack up the FICA tax or the wage cap or the retirement age, because of the way SS is currently structured, the net effect would be that instead of spending a SS surplus of $150B next year it wil spend $200B or $250B, for example. All we would end up with is more worthless IOUs.
It is absolutely essential that the SS surplus be taken out of the hands of the federal government. This is the “lock box” that Al Gore talked about. I advocate that this money be “locked” into individual accounts. Others have said the SS administration ought to keep that money and invest it. (I, personally, think that consolidation of power would be a prescription for scandal.)
At any rate, the only responsible thing to do is to enforce the same relationship between SS and the federal government as private pension plans have with their corporation. Personal accounts are, in my opinion, the best way to make this happen.
March 19th, 2005 at 1:21 pmOne thing I do know Joe, neither you NOR George Bush are very good salesmen.
Comment by Cindy  March 18th, 2005 @ 7:32 pm
By the way, Cindy, I’m not trying to “sell” anybody anything. I’m trying to inform people about what will happen if they don’t do something about it. People shouldn’t need to be “sold” on the idea of doing what’s morally and financially responsible for their children.
March 19th, 2005 at 1:29 pmJoe, I don’t know how you became king blogger here, but Cindy’s right, above. You’re not convincing us.
Re: blog # 284 above, in which I cite $36,000 as what EACH AND EVERY U.S. CITIZEN now owes in national debt. I re-checked my source (GAO figures in a web site) and you’re correct. This figure combines the ENORMOUS deficit (ALL gathered on W.’s watch — he, and you, MUST admit that) AND the huge national debt. When these figures are divided among us, EVERY citizen (even newborn ones) now does wes $36,000. EACH!!! TODAY!!! “Reforming” SS will NOT help resolve this, but instead will increase our debt.
W. wants to BORROW money to finance SS “change” and “improvement.” Brilliant, huh?
You ask how readers can “trust” me if I got that $36,000 figure wrong? That’s a good chuckle, Joe.
How can ANYONE trust our president and his cronies (yourself included) given their record of so-called leadership? Yes, I know about his red-state “mandate” (and about voting machines across the nation…) and I read your comments about W. actually being “Reagan-lite.” Well, if that’s accurate (it isn’t, in my view), look how long it took to clean up the deficit/debt left behind by “conservative” Reagan.
TRUST is the issue. There’s not one thing about W.’s Social Security ideas that’s worth trusting, in my view. (And, like you, I’ve paid into SS since I was 15 — and am now 64 and won’t get much out of it, since I’m a female and made choices you almost certainly did not.) BUT: here’s the big issue: it’s a social safety net that ranks WAY WAY above war and oil and goodies for the rich. THAT’S WHY I (AND SO MANY OTHERS) SUPPORT AND TRUST IT.
(Incidentally, I’ll bet your mother has quite a different perspective on the pittance of SS funds you say your family received after your father’s untimely death…. Again, I think you’re blaming the wrong father[s], Joe.)
March 19th, 2005 at 3:11 pmComment by Jean Anderson  March 19th, 2005 @ 3:11 pm
Jean, I don’t know where you are getting the $36,000 figure. If I google “debt clock” there are about a half dozen sites all saying the figure is $26,000?
But as I’ve said if the burden of the national debt is of great concern to you why isn’t the $11 trillion dollar burden of unfunded SS mandates more important to you?
Thank you for providing your age, it explains a lot. Since you will be dead and gone before SS tanks you really couldn’t care less, right?
Given that NOBODY is even remotely suggesting changing SS for people over 55 where do you get the nerve to dictate to us how SS should be structured for OUR retirement. YOU think we’re making a mistake, FINE, thank you for your input, but its OUR mistake to make. Now please get out of our way as we try to build a system that makes sense in the 21st century.
Incidentally, (a) my mother thinks SS is a bigger rip off than I do and (b) I’m not mad/blaming anybody. My father was just ignorant of financial matters because nanny government never expected anything more from him.
March 19th, 2005 at 5:58 pmOK, Joe. Let’s accept your $29,000 figure. Our dear leader hasn’t (yet) told us the future costs for Iraq, so the exact dollar amount is unknown anyhow, mine or yours. The point remains unchanged: we’re now a debtor nation, thanks to W. And rather than working to get us back in the black (as Clinton did), he’s running up more and more debt, including this great proposal to give us “personal accounts” by borrowing money to pay to his cronies at the lending institutions and the stock exchange. Such a deal! That’s a bad idea that doesn’t require a calculator or a Ph.D. in math to see through.
Point two, re: “unfunded SS mandates” and my not caring because of my age. My age is beside the point (though my hope is to live longer than you assume; lots of my friends are in their 80s and 90s…). I view SS, to use my son’s terms, as “a social contract” and I DO NOT accept your premise that it’s broken (YET — or even in the forseeable future, IF we Democrats stay on our toes). We the people ARE still the government (not you the corporations), and if we demand that SS be funded as is or by a variety of simple enough possible changes, it shall be. It’s NOT dead. Yet.
But again TRUST is the issue. See David Brooks (today, Sunday, in my local paper, NYT News Service) in what he headlines:
“A Requiem for Social Security Reform.” Brooks makes the point that the voting public does not TRUST Republicans on this issue.
Republicans should have “put the solvency issue before the personal accounts issue,” says Brooks. My point exactly. He states it as a tactic, but I see it as common sense, TRUTH, and also the right choice for our nation. How can Bush give tax cuts to all his rich friends and ignore the cost to our country?
And (possibly like you) I DO care: I have grown children, grandkids, friends, fellow citizens, students and former students (I’ve not retired), etc., etc., etc. I am a citizen of this messed up nation, and I’d like to see us cooperating (at home and in the world) to solve our shared problems (including “staying out of the poor house,” a phrase that I’m old enough to know about as an actual place, an actual horror of real U.S. citizens). And also I’d like to see us TRUSTED as a nation in the world again. “Reform” (so-called) of Social Security is not a solution to any of these MUCH LARGER problems we share as a nation.
For another perspective, my (conservative) local paper also contains today a column by Jeff Opdyke writing for the Wall Street Journal. He makes a point (not numbers) frequently made by others in the line above. Opdyke cites his mom’s case: at 59 she has back problems and can’t work; she’s borrowed away her 401 (k) over the years for things that seemed to be necessities, and she (Opdyke agrees) KNOWS she could neither successfully manage (for profit) her own “private” account(s) NOR keep her hands off them if they were available to her. As she puts it: “We are a society of ‘now.’ If it feels good now, do it.” Unlike (apparently) your mom, she values social security for the fact that it will be all the income she has before long AND because she can’t get her hands on it and spend it away: “I have something to fall back on,” she says.
By the way (since this will be my last post to you I dare ask): If your mom hated SS so badly, why did she accept it?
March 20th, 2005 at 8:51 pmComment by Jean Anderson  March 20th, 2005 @ 8:51 pm
We were a debtor nation long before Bush arrived. The debt was at ~$6 trillion when he took office.
So, basically, all of your objections have nothing to do with the proposed reform: national debt, Iraq, etc. You don’t trust people or Bush, but you do trust government beaurocrats?
I supposed my mother accepted the SS benefit for the same reason all the Dems who gripe about “tax cuts for the rich” don’t send their tax cuts back. (That and she had already been forced to pay for it.)
March 20th, 2005 at 9:06 pmInteresting article on Chile experience with personal accounts:
http://www.tampatrib.com/News/MGBEK74T86E.html
Basically, those who opted for personal accounts and funded them have done very well. Unfortunately, Chile has a lot of people who are self-employed/underground so many aren’t participating in the system.
The other problem cited is account management fees because the government has only six management companies.
Since everybody in the U.S. is paying FICA and we have more financial services companies than anywhere else, these issues are trivial to resolve.
March 21st, 2005 at 9:43 am“Sounds like your advocating we skip the paultry percentage Bush has proposed and jump to full personal accounts?”
You are putting words in my mouth Joe – I said nothing of the kind. Full personal accounts would involve much more borrowing (and thus more national debt).
“What does the idea of SS reform, which has been around for decades, have to do with Bush personally? I don’t care whether you trust him. Do you trust Clinton, Moynihan, Reid?”
Sorry Joe, but trust is extremely important to me. You don’t care that I trust him – but I DO care. If I don’t trust somebody, I don’t believe anything they say. Also, you
know darn well that Clinton’s social security “reform plan” was an ADD ON PLAN (not a CARVE OUT PLAN like Bush’s). Clinton’s plan would have taken BUDGET SURPLUSES and THE GOVERNMENT would have invested some of those surpluses in higher yielding securities. The additional revenues from these investments would have been ADDED ON TO PAYROLL TAX REVENUES and used to shore up future Social Security funding shortfalls. SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CUT AND TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN BORROWED UNDER CLINTON’S PROPOSED PLAN. Now, contrast that with Bush’s plan – borrowing trillions of dollars in transition costs (because Bush helped created huge budget deficits), letting individuals do their own investing (regardless of knowledge or expertise) AND cutting Social Security benefits of EVERYONE UNDER AGE 55 (regardless of whether they choose to have a private investment account or not).
“Taxation on benefits is a good point. I’ve assumed they would be taxed the same way that SS benefits are. What would be the motive for treating them otherwise?”
Uh, because Bush keeps telling us that they would be our “personal investment accounts” and according to you (in post #293 above) they would be “similar to a 401(k).” As far as I know, 401(k) withdrawls are taxed as “ordinary income” because the contributions to them are pre-tax AND the account earnings are tax deferred. I would assume a “personal nvestment account” that is not considered “Social Security” would have the same tax laws applied to it as other investment accounts would.
“Why don’t you just humor me and calculate the numbers?”
What I will do Joe, is put some numbers up here that ACTUALLY reflect what a person might get in one of those “personal investment accounts” that Bush is proposing. I will calculate the returns of 4 different citizens, who start contributions to one of those accounts at ages 50, 40, 30 or 20 and contribute the maximum amount allowed under Bush’s CURRENT proposals ($1000 in year 1, followed by $1135 in the succeeding years). I will calculate returns based on 0,2,4,6 and 8 percent (inflation adjusted of course), as you suggested above. My other assumptions: inflation will run at the historical rate of 3.5%, and the Normal Retirement Age will be 67 (which is the CURRENT normal retirement age for those born in 1960 or later in order to collect full SS benefits). Also, for Joe (or anybody else interested in how I did the math), I used a Hewlett Packard 12C financial calculator. I entered the following numbers:
PV (present value) = 1000 (year 1 contribution)
PMT (payment) = 1135 (years 2 through end of contribution period)
N (number of years contributing) = 17(for 50 yr old), 27(for 40 yr old), 37(for 30 yr old) or 47(for 20 yr old)
I (inflation adjusted rate of return) – This number was calculated as follows:
(1 + rate of return ) / – 1 x 100
(1 + historic rate of inflation)
Note: rates of return and inflation are expressed as decimals in this equation
Solve for FV (future value). This is the account balance totals I got after plugging in the numbers above
Here are the numbers folks:
50 YEAR OLD
Rate of return Account Balance at age 67
0% $15,416
2% $17,992
4% $21,144
6% $25,015
8% $29,776
40 YEAR OLD
Rate of return Account Balance at age 67
0% $20,701
2% $26,186
4% $33,788
6% $44,424
8% $59,422
30 YEAR OLD
Rate of return Account Balance at age 67
0% $24,444
2% $33,267
4% $47,057
6% $69,067
8% $104,794
20 YEAR OLD
Rate of return Account Balance at age 67
0% $27,099
2% $39,386
4% $60,980
6% $100,351
8% $174,236
In my personal opinion, the large amount of borrowing needed to
March 21st, 2005 at 6:56 pmfinance these accounts is not worth it, given the small returns
that would be generated for virtually every age group.
Regarding your three main points:
(1) I am advocating cutting spending to fund the transition cost. But even if the money is borrowed the only real effect is that feds fleecing the SS surplus have to put it on budget instead of the current scam of pretending like the debt doesn’t already exist.
(2) individuals aren’t forced to do anything. If they don’t want personal accounts they don’t have to take them.
(3) Are you suggesting that you see a way out of this hole without ANY benefit cuts whatsoever? You can jack up taxes, but that is still a benefit cut relative to what an individual puts in.
Now as for the numbers, I have several objections.
1. I think your historical inflation is a little high, I think it is more like 3 %, but okay.
2. I don’t accept that the $1135 limit will last for ever, but okay.
3. I meant 0,2,4,6,and 8 in GROWTH which I define as return minus inflation minus investment costs.
If I do this and go to:
http://www.moneychimp.com/calculator/compound_interest_calculator.htm
input 1,000 for current principal
input 1,135 for annual addition
input years to grow (17, 27, 37, and 47)
input the GROWTH rate
I get:
50 YEAR OLD
Rate of return Account Balance at age 67
0% $20,295
2% $24,568
4% $29,920
6% $36,635
8% $45,071
40 YEAR OLD
Rate of return Account Balance at age 67
0% $31,645
2% $42,625
4% $58,461
6% $81,466
8% $115,062
30 YEAR OLD
Rate of return Account Balance at age 67
0% $42,995
2% $64,636
4% $100,709
6% $161,752
8% $266,169
20 YEAR OLD
Rate of return Account Balance at age 67
0% $54,345
2% $91,467
4% $163,246
6% $305,531
8% $592,397
Now if we compare apples to apples as in what a person gets if he invests his tax versus giving it to social security. Assuming a median wage of $15 an hour. Just doing 5% growth for brevity:
initial = $3720
additional = $3720
growth = 5%
50 year old = $109,458($5472)
40 year old = $227,426($11,371)
30 year old = $419,582($20,979)
20 year old = $732,584($36,629)
The yearly income that it should produce is in parenthesis. Keep in mind a very important point: YOU KEEP THE LUMP SUM. So not only are most people going to have more money than SS they’ll have a large asset to leave their heirs.
Even if we use your conservative, and I believe flawed numbers, all that money growing in those accounts is money that we don’t have to tax out of the hands of our children. $50K may be chump change to you but that will fund four years worth of average SS benefits. That’s four years our kids don’t have to carry us.
Also, think about what happens when these accounts get willed to the children who then get to let them grow for another 20 or 30 or 40 years. We could well end up, generations from now, with people having their retirement pre-funded at birth!
March 21st, 2005 at 8:00 pmAnother thing, I think it’s bogus to compare people starting at age 50. The only comparison that matters, long term, is people who start working/contributing at 18 which is basically everybody who didn’t have rich parents and if they had rich parents they’re probably not worried about retirement anyway. (Yes, even people in college work, I worked 15-20 hrs a week throughout and extra in summer/winter break).
March 21st, 2005 at 8:23 pmI see what you were saying, Cindy, you mean:
(((1 + rate of return ) / (1 + historic rate of inflation))-1)x100
Which is fine. I work with growth numbers to avoid the complication. Just means you were using much lower growth rates than I was expecting. I assume a person can put their money in a CD/T-bill and at least get inflation.
March 21st, 2005 at 9:21 pm“Now if we compare apples to apples as in what a person gets if he invests his tax versus giving it to social security. Assuming a median wage of $15 an hour. Just doing 5% growth for brevity.”
Are these numbers inflation adjusted Joe? If not, then you are NOT accounting for inflation (and its erosion of purchasing power) over the years the money is saved. Thus, the numbers you list above are NOT reflective of REAL (i.e. inflation adjusted) rates of return.
“Another thing, I think it’s bogus to compare people starting at age 50.”
Why is it bogus Joe – because the numbers are low and aren’t what you want them to be? George Bush said ANYONE UNDER 55 could contribute to his “privatization plan” so I was just illustrating to people on this website what 4 individuals of DIFFERENT AGES could expect to get USING BUSH’S CURRENT PROPOSALS.
“Also, think about what happens when these accounts get willed to the children who then get to let them grow for another 20 or 30 or 40 years.”
Nice thought Joe, but you are out of touch with everyday reality. If a low income or moderate income worker DOES use this privatization plan to save, the majority of those people will be using their proceeds for living expenes (and medical expenses, etc.), NOT willing the money to their children and grandchildren.
“Now as for the numbers, I have several objections.
March 23rd, 2005 at 2:43 pm1. I think your historical inflation is a little high, I think it is more like 3 %, but okay.
2. I don’t accept that the $1135 limit will last for ever, but okay.
3. I meant 0,2,4,6,and 8 in GROWTH which I define as return minus inflation minus investment costs.”
As I stated above Joe, I was using BUSH’s CURRENT PROPOSALS for privatization. I stand by ALL my numbers. Look back over the 20th century (or reference economic texts, etc.) and you will find HISTORICAL inflation of 3-4% (so I split the difference and called it 3.5%). You think you will be able to REALISTICALLY achieve 8% growth AFTER INFLATION AND EXPENSES? If you listen to Bush’s proposal Joe – I don’t think that is a realistic number. Why? Because Bush has stated that the “investment accounts” will have “a few safe investment offerings” (translation: diversified stock index funds and bond funds). In the stock market, you must take more risk in order to achieve higher returns. By definition, an index fund broadly diversifies its risk (and thus reduces its return) based on a particular index (S&P 500, etc.). Look back at index funds historical returns over the past 30 years or so Joe. I will agree their expenses are low – but their long term returns AFTER INFLATION are less than 8%. Stock index funds and bond funds just DON”T hit home runs.
When I say growth, I mean inflation adjusted. So, for example, to get 5 % growth over a year with 3% inflation you would need. (1.05×1.03-1)X100 = 8.15 percent return, right? And 8% growth would be about 11.12%. Which is about the average return on the stock market historically, right?
Its absolutely bogus to have people comparing benefits which they’ve paid into for 50 years versus investments for 17 years. I don’t think anybody has said that if one starts the personal account at 50 that is all they will get. If they’re only directing 4/12.4 = .32 of your tax to personal accounts I would assume you still get the claim to at least .68 of the regular SS benefit.
I believe those in transition would basically have to decide if 0.05*Lump Sum > 0.32*SS_Benfit. Which, I agree, is hard to do starting out so late.
This is a good reason to get this started as soon as possible so the accounts have time to grow. Also, again, whatever is earned in the accounts is money that doesn’t have to come out of our kids’ paychecks.
Regarding the willing of personal accounts. Yes, the poor may very well burn through those inheritances rather than save them. But even if only 20 or 30 or 40% do keep it rolling that’s millions and millions of people who won’t need the pay as you go system, at all, for their retirement security. That leaves a lot more options/resources for those remaining.
(Don’t forget about all the people who die before retirement age.)
No I don’t believe that most people will get 8% growth for the reasons you cite, that’s why its a maximum. I expect reality will be a bell curve centered around 4-5.
Again, Bush has not presented a plan and has publicly declared that he won’t present a plan. So all of this is speculation. We can hammer out the details once we reach agreement on two facts:
1. SS is hurtling towards insolvency and represents a grave and growing threat to the financial lives of our children, and
March 23rd, 2005 at 7:06 pm2. It’s more financially and morally responsible to have individuals prepare for their own retirement over 50 years than it is to expect our children to make up for the 50 years of growth and inflation, that would have been received, out of their paychecks.
Can anyone explain to me how anyone with no real written plan presented, can continue to debate the outcome of the SS overhaul. If there is a written plan out there please let me know if it is on the internet and where. Thank You.
March 24th, 2005 at 9:07 amComment by Stephen Holbert  March 24th, 2005 @ 9:07 am
There is no written plan, and the WH refuses to present one. Bush said that the first bill is sent up is always “dead on arrival”. Which may well be a political cop out, but there it is.
I understand his point and why he doesn’t want to go first. Look at how just the proposals have been demagogued. As soon as anyone mentioned tying future benefits to prices instead of wages the Dems/AARP/etc. immediately started running ads about “40% cuts in benefits”. (Neglecting to mention the 27% cut if we do nothing and that the “cut” benefit would still be bigger than today’s benefit.)
Its too easy to pick out one detail of any plan and exploit it this way. When the American people have no idea of what doing nothing actually means its especially easy. Why do you think such a morally and financially bankrupt system has persisted for so long?
I have news for those who want to play their petty political games with this issue, though: Eventually the people will find out. They’ll find out that all politicians have been lying to them for decades about how the system works. They’ll find out that these same politicians have pissed away the money the people thought was being saved for their future. They’ll find out that, in the end, the net result of SS has been to bilk the American people out of trillions and trillions of dollars in assets.
The democrats may well succeed at killing reform. But twenty years from now, when our children are toiling under a crushing mountain of debt, we’ll have the video and the opeds and the speeches to show them exactly who it was that did nothing to prevent it.
March 24th, 2005 at 10:09 amThis is a response to post 283 by Joe. Sorry about the delay but I read these blogs only when I’m bored and need to be entertained. Joe does a good job with his fiction.
I did read (skim) the thread and fail to see the refutations. Many of the posts (Joe in particular) play fast and loose with the numbers. There are too many unknowns for the numbers to have any meaning. The obvious unknown is what will the billions presumably available from private accounts do to the market. I am not presumptuous enough to guess.
However I will answer your questions anyway:
1. About the money to repay the trust fund in 2018. You miss the point of my data that these dates are receding in real time. I don’t think the repayment date will be 2018 but some date much later. If and when that happens the money will simply come from more borrowing on which we only pay interest just as is being done now. Of course there are worse scenarios such as printing money to make the bonds and everything else worthless.
2. My point was that low income workers won’t do much better with the extra amount they would receive under privatization. The (government limited) investment choices will mostly be ‘loanership’ choices, ie they don’t keep up with taxes and inflation. It will take a real education program to get low income workers to invest reasonably. It is hard to see a single mother taking the time to study the market.
3.Poorer mutual funds go broke all the time. Even so a conservative mutual fund is usually a ‘loanership’ investment ie it loses over the long run. I have some in the name of diversification.
4. SS should be a safety net program (welfare if you prefer). It is part of our responsibility to society. It needs no more relationship to what one has paid in than the current tiered benefit structure.
5 In terms of security, I believe my benefit is worth what I paid for it. I do know what I paid for it. Like most people near retirement (awhile back) I received the annual Social Security Earnings Statement.
6 I used the term Shrub hater, not blind hatred. This is using the term hater loosely. It is hard to hate someone I have never met. The term really means total distrust. Even Shrub himself now admits that private accounts will do nothing towards solving the SS problem. Given the intensity of your support for the idea of private accounts, might it be reasonable to accuse you of ‘blind faith’.
What I am aware of is that SS does not need reform but only a few minor tweaks. My favorite is cap removal. It does the job and for those new to paying 6.2%, I have only crocodile tears.
Another post commented about Joe and George Bush being bad salesman. I agree with respect to Joe. But Shrub is actually a good salesman. He sold his election in spite of a terrible 1st term record. He uses fear very nicely. A good salesman works the emotions
March 25th, 2005 at 1:48 am1. If the date is receding then why was there an article today that the dates are now 2017 and 2041? Even if they did recede, SS is still a rip off for most people.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7275998/
2. People would not be picking individual stocks in these accounts just mutual funds. The mutual fund manager is the one that has to be knowledgeable.
3. For a mutual fund to go totally broke dozens of companies have to go bankrupt at the same time, right?
4. SS is not welfare as currently structured. If it were I’d have no argument because the FICA would only be about 1/5th of what it is now.
5. Everybody gets the earnings statement. As I recall the contributions for prior years are not adjusted to today’s dollars, so I really doubt that you do know what you’re paying for it. You would also have to factor in what those taxes would be today had they been invested.
It would be nice if congress passed a law requiring the SSA to print what the lump sum/benefit would be had the taxes been invested in an S&P index fund using actual return data.
6. When many people on this blog’s strongest objection to SS reform is the Iraq war there is something wrong. I very much doubt that if Kerry were proposing it we would hear a peep from these people.
Yes, I have “blind faith” that the market will be substantially higher 50 years from now. If it isn’t , SS will be the least of our worries.
That’s a good point. If Bush is such an idiot and a terrible salesman why does he keep wiping the floor with the Dems?
Fear? You mean like telling kids that they’re going to be drafted and sent to Iraq as soon as Bush wins re-election? Like telling woman that Roe V. Wade will be overturned?(My favorite actually: (a) it will never be overturned and (b) if it were it would just send the issue back to the states. So at the very worse, one may need to by a $200 plane ticket to California to have an abortion.) Or telling Seniors that Bush is going take their SS checks and cut their medicare?
March 25th, 2005 at 5:56 amI love the credibility war going on in this blog. It is better then the issue at hand. On one side we have Joe who is an oddvious neo-con who hates dems, and like all neo-cons wants us to go blindly into the night. Trust me , fear them they shout at every delemma brought forth by freedom loving people. They brag up thier own patriotism though most are Chickenhawks, while destroying those who gave thier service to there nation. They find it so easy to take when others are giving.
They take from the poor and give to rich and claim it will stimulate the economy. It stimulated the gas prices from $1.29 to $2.19 over the past few years. It stimulated the deficit higher also. Now they are trying to sell us a pig in a poke. Kind of like they sold us WMD’s. So, Joe to go on about the numbers when there are no numbers means little.
Now On the other hand we have the Bush haters, or bashers, or just fed up Dems. Why you might ask are we so fed up. Correction Joe, you will not ask because we do not matter and that is why we are so fed up.
March 25th, 2005 at 10:21 amExcept that I’m not a neocon, I’m ideologically more a libertarian, though I’ve voted republican since the Reform party went belly up. Before that I was a democrat. This last week, with Shiavo, has taught me that I’ll never be a very good republican. The whole of the republican establishment has repulsed me. However, the older I get and the more I learn about the world the more repulsed I become with the democrats, too.
We have 10,000 flavors of cereal but only two political parties? I mostly scoff at anybody who claims to be a staunch anything. Its impossible to be a loyal democrat or a loyal republican and remain logically consistent and intellectually honest.
At any rate, I’m not asking anybody to take my word for anything. I want them to do their own math and their own thinking. Once informed, I am confident that they will reach the same objective conclusions about SS that I have.
March 25th, 2005 at 11:44 amAn interesting article on the Galveston county experience (where they opted out of SS about 25 years ago).
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NO_SOCIAL_SECURITY?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=customwire.htm
The administrator says most are getting 2 and 3 times what SS provides. The writer did manage to find some people who didn’t contribute or raided their own funds. But that’s trivial to fix.
No mention of what happens to the lump sum.
March 29th, 2005 at 8:57 am“An interesting article on the Galveston county experience (where they opted out of SS about 25 years ago). ”
People might also want to look at those states and countries where privatization failed.
March 29th, 2005 at 5:50 pmA few examples: the state of Nebraska dropped its private account system in 2003 and replaced it with a centrally managed plan because of poor performance by so many individuals. West Virginia and Michigan officials are currently debating dropping their states private account plans because of low participation rates. In Michigan less than 6% of workers signed on to the private accounts despite the fact that the state offered to contribute generously to the accounts. In England, where private retirement accounts were introduced in the 1980’s by Margaret Thatcher. The Brits are now contemplating scrapping the private accounts and returning to a sytem similar to Social Security because so many elderly people have failed to accrue enough money in their accounts to provide a decent living. The elderly Brits that don’t have enough saved for their retirement are signing up for welfare, straining the public welfare rolls in England.
Comment by Cindy  March 29th, 2005 @ 5:50 pm
Do you have a reference for the Nebraska experience? Was it privatization that failed or was it low participation or raiding of accounts by individuals?
I heard the same rap about galveston, then it turns out that the main critic in the article is upset because she took her own money out before retirement. Of course you can’t take the money out for a cruise AND have it for retirement! Personal accounts didn’t fail, she defeated them.
Then you say Michigan and W. Virginia have low participation rates. So, what does that mean? How are the 6% who do participate fairing?
The british and to some extent Chile could have and should have designed the system to reduce the management costs. This may require pooling of very small accounts and fairly hefty regulation of the fund companies or even allowing the SSA to create/administer its own funds. But this is not a difficult problem to solve.
Another thing everyone should realize is that these systems are very young. A lot of the articles floating around are talking to people only 10 years into the programs. But those people who fully participate and don’t raid their own funds are showing very positive results.
In the end, the moral choice is simple: do you want your retirement income from your own savings or from the paychecks of your children?
March 29th, 2005 at 6:31 pmThis administration is spending a great deal of time and money on the Social Security issue to deflect attention from the monstrous failure of the Iraq conflict. Dollar for dollar, that boondoggle will bankrupt this country much quicker than Bush’s “get the rich-richer” scheme.
April 5th, 2005 at 12:33 pmNever before, in this nation’s history, has one president proposed an economic plan that could devastate America so easily, or so completely. He, and his GOP components, must be defeated in their proposals to personalize Social Security.
April 7th, 2005 at 3:54 pmClearly, “Joe” is just another snake oil huckster for the morally and intellectually bankrupt right wing. Any dabate professor would score him an “F” for his sophistry.
April 10th, 2005 at 8:29 pmYou can print this by right click then select all, then copy and paste to a word document. You can then print the word doc.
April 13th, 2005 at 12:57 amDiane wrote, way back in Feb., (I’m just now getting around to reading these) that we should get rid of SS tax breaks for the rich and increase FICA to $120,000. I totally agree and have thought that for years! Private accounts may be a good idea someday but only if done properly and the public has been educated on how to properly and realistically save money. I don’t think we can suddenly get rid of SS without educating people for several years. It’s unfortunate, but most Americans don’t understand how to save money, stay out of debt , understand compound interest, or understand IRA’s even. I believe we need to start in grade school with a “Life Class” where kids are taught about real life lessons including check balancing, debt management, how to get out of debt if you find yourself in it, saving money, IRA’s, how to buy a car or a house, etc. Then maybe we can think about phasing out SS. Also, I would want total control of my new, private SS account, just like I have with my Roth.
April 14th, 2005 at 3:32 pmSocial Security is raping most Americans. As a for instance, lets say I started work at 18 and worked until I was 67, a total of 49 years. Let’s further say that I earned 20K per year for my lifetime. That means that in my life I paid $60760, and my employer paid $60760 for a grand total of $121,520. Assuming NO interest, at $950 per month it will take me 10.7 years to recover just the money that was paid into the system on my behalf.
Now the scary part – let’s assume a nominal 4% per year interest rate calculated yearly (easily & safely doable over one’s lifetime).
At age 67 I would have $377,314.00 into the system. At $950 per month it will take 33.1 years to recover that money – even LONGER if I continue to earn 4% after I start recieving benefits.
Now of course this doesn’t take into the fact that SS is more than simply an Individual Retirement Account. However, this doesn’t change the fact that the system is SCREWED UP.
Don’t forget, Social Security comes out of EVERYONE’s check EQUALLY on the first 80K or so you earn, so this puts low-income earners at a distinct disadvantage – and then when they retire they get screwed even more. I do find it interesting that House & Senate Democrats want to keep what is essentially a poor tax when there are so many alternatives that could work much better.
Doug
April 14th, 2005 at 4:32 pmWhat you failed to point out is that the facts offer, as counters to the Bush administrative claims are opinions of authors. In several of these “Facts� the author has only opinion vice the statistical numbers and in some listing the “Facts� are off mark. Clearly you fail to point out that the Bush administration is seeking inquires into the system, prior to change. If you note the idea of Democrat sponsor retirement programs such as San Diego City and California State, you will find that in San Diego City the amount is reaching the upper limits of the budget as a whole. In California the system is cryptic with all kinds of hidden agendas, which shield the truth. Clearly there is nothing wrong with the idea of searching for other avenues. It is a Fact that generation “X and Y� will have a hard time supporting the benefits of the retiring generation. Talking points do not get things done.
April 15th, 2005 at 9:40 amGet all senators and representatives off of their bloated retirement program and into social security.
April 19th, 2005 at 10:54 amWay too long !! We need the most important facts not a whole encyclopedia ! If you are going to get people invlolved, it needs to be concise. Very few people have the time to read all this.
April 19th, 2005 at 5:48 pmRocky
FACT: Social Security STEALS 15% of your paycheck. If you do not pay; jackbooted thugs will show up and TAKE it from you at gunpoint.
FACT: The Social Security tax has risen from a combined employer-employee rate of 2% in 1935 to today’s combined tax of 15.3%. And there’s no reason to believe the tax rate won’t continue to rise. As administered by politicians, Social Security is inherently unworkable, because the politicians always spend the money they take in. As the retired population grows, it requires higher taxes to pay the benefits the politicians have promised.
Most people think Congress would never renege on its promises to Social Security recipients-no matter how bad federal finances become. But when the only alternative is to raise the Social Security tax rate to 35% or 40%-or to cut off food stamps to the poor-there may be no choice but to cut Social Security benefits.
Millions of people depend on Social Security today. They worked for decades. Their plans assumed that Social Security would provide for them when they retired. I believe these people must be taken care of. But I don’t trust the government to do it. Can you blame me? Do YOU trust our government to take care of YOU – or would you rather KEEP your money… and rely on YOURSELF? Imagine immediately getting a 15% raise… for most of you that’s at LEAST an extra $200 a month
FACT: Social Security should be shut down totally and for good. What happens to those who are currently dependent on it? Have the government make a one-time purchase of private annuities for them, providing the same income Social Security has promised. How will that be paid for? Sell off assets the federal government shouldn’t own anyway — power companies, pipelines, unused military bases, western lands, oil rights, mineral rights, and most. federal buildings that serve no Constitutional purpose.
FACT: The government should buy from a private insurance company an annuity for everyone who depends on Social Security. The annuities should provide lifetime incomes similar to what Social Security has promised. I estimate the cost to be roughly $5 trillion.
Annuities should be provided only for those who truly need them. This means some kind of simple, non-intrusive means test must be applied to each retiree. Those that don’t rely on Social Security shouldn’t aggravate the problem further. The maximum monthly Social Security benefit is $1,100; there are many retired people to whom that isn’t a critical amount.
People over the age of 50 who are nearing retirement and who have made plans based on receiving Social Security should also receive annuities. Those annuities would be smaller and wouldn’t begin paying out until age 65.
And what about those under 50? To them we offer the greatest gift possible: You will never again have to pay the 15% Social Security tax.
Yeah, I’m a Fiscal conservative… but like you liberals.. I thin people should be allowed to live their lives as they see fit…
Government taxes are backed BY FORCE. Don’t ever forget that. Next time someone calls you a liberal panty waste… Just let them know you aren’t a big wussy… Let ‘em know you LOVE the idea of having a huge army… so that the government can steal money from its own people to take care of the poor, old and sick… through force not charity.
FACT: Free Talk Live is on 6 Nights a week. http://www.freetalklive.com
April 23rd, 2005 at 8:59 pmFor a nonpartisan group, you sound quite partisan. Yes, there are conservative omissions and distortions; but there a liberal ones also. I believe more energy is needed in the middle ground. The Concord Coalition seems more genuinely nonpartisan and offers some pro-active solutions. There is a problem with social security and a worse problem with Medicare/Medicaid. Former Governor Lamm offers provative solutions in “The Brave New World of Health Care”; the Concord Coalition suggests means testing of programs for the elderly. What about more light and less heat?
April 27th, 2005 at 4:03 pmSteve, any – and I mean any – idea that suggests means testing for Medicare or Social Security for the elderly is a non-starter by its very definition. If it’s means tested, then it’s welfare. If it’s welfare, then it’s subject to the demagoguery by the right-wing reactionaries. They don’t care who they hurt, just so long as they’re protected with other people’s money or lives. Just look at how they put means tests on the health care provisions for veterans in VA facilities.
No, if you want to look at solutions, you propose something which offers a valid guarantee, not some mirage hinging on means testing. Anything else is just a lie to avoid having to pay for it. Just as Dubya is trying to avoid having to reimburse the SS trust fund, as was compacted in the 1980s SS reform. The bills coming due and the aristocrats want to default on the agreement. Why is that OK with you?
April 28th, 2005 at 12:53 amI found this site by entering my own name including middle initial in a google search. I was surprised to find any hits especially from a site that practically mirrors my political affiliations.
April 28th, 2005 at 11:00 am“Steve, any – and I mean any – idea that suggests means testing for Medicare or Social Security for the elderly is a non-starter by its very definition. If it’s means tested, then it’s welfare. If it’s welfare, then it’s subject to the demagoguery by the right-wing reactionaries.”
I agree 100% with PrahaPartizan. Beware of trojan horses folks! Bush first wanted to make Social Security into an investment program. When that didn’t go over too well with the public, he suggested means testing and continuation of wage indexing for low income Americans in addition to the private accounts. This is an attempt to win over moderates in both parties – but as PrahaParitzan correctly pointed out, anything that is considered “welfare” will be demonized (in the future) by neo-conservatives and eventually eliminated. The reason why Social Security is so popular with most Americans is precisely because it is NOT a welfare program – every working American pays into the system and every retiree (or survivors of those who don’t live long enough to retire) receives benefits. Bush and the neo-cons just don’t get it – Social Security is neither an investment program nor a welfare program. It is a social insurance program that provides a safety net for retirees, the disabled and the survivors of those workers who die before retiring. In addition, Bush’s new proposals regarding Social Security still don’t address the trillions of dollars of “transition costs” that will be added to our national debt under his privatization plan.
May 4th, 2005 at 5:31 pmI’m a socially and politically liberal economist, and I’ve got to tell you all that, even though Bush said it, it’s not a bad plan! The personal account system can redistribute wealth in ways the current law Social Security system never managed to because it gives working class folks the chance to pass their hard earned income tax on to their beneficiaries.
May 9th, 2005 at 8:08 pmMany more economists support personal accounts than don’t, I’ve done a lengthy literature review, and Diamond and Orszag are all alone in their proposal and are not well respected among their peers. Anything we do is going to cost, but at least with personal accounts there are benefits, and we have more control over them.
I think this is fantastic and have forwarded it to many friends. However, it would have been nice to have an African-American and a Doris taxpayer in it. Maybe you can add a picture with some minorities?
May 9th, 2005 at 9:54 pmAll of you W supporters are all the same, huh? At all times possible, blame Clinton! Everything is the fault of Bill Clinton. Global warming=Clinton, national debt=Clinton, abortion=Clinton, gas prices=Clinton, unclean restrooms=Clinton, lack of parking space=well, must be Clinton, internet running slow?=gotta be that sneaky Clinton…….Anyway, the rape of our country by such as this inept man we have in office- this ignorant, arrogant, mis-informed informer, narrow-minded, low-IQ slacker that is leading our country- hey, its the state of America today. Right now. This “dumbing down” point in our timeline is becoming more and more evident, as we close our eyes and accept whatever this “dumberer” leader and his snake administration recommends, never questioning. Look at us. Just look. Stop being fed this garbage blasphemy. Jesus is nothing like Bush and that devil Cheney, just read the scriptures. War, greed, hate, and injustice….all the while singing the praises of our Creator, as if this was all his idea…. Hell holds its hottest places for men such as these.
May 10th, 2005 at 3:02 pmWe are in poor, poor shape as a country, America. For goodness sakes, please wake up.
Does nayone know where to get the new Star Wars DVD? The one with R2D2 in a different color of metal?
May 10th, 2005 at 3:10 pmThanks,
Rob
“I’m a socially and politically liberal economist, and I’ve got to tell you all that, even though Bush said it, it’s not a bad plan! The personal account system can redistribute wealth in ways the current law Social Security system never managed to because it gives working class folks the chance to pass their hard earned income tax on to their beneficiaries.
Many more economists support personal accounts than don’t, I’ve done a lengthy literature review, and Diamond and Orszag are all alone in their proposal and are not well respected among their peers. Anything we do is going to cost, but at least with personal accounts there are benefits, and we have more control over them. ”
Yes it is a bad plan Andrea, because personal accounts cost a lot of money to set up (in the form of increased national debt) and they don’t promise or guarantee anything in the way of return. This is why England wants to dump their privatized retirement plan and adopt a new plan that resembles our Social Security system – because private accounts haven’t worked as expected. More and more British elderly have not been able to save enough for retirement and are signing up for welfare, straining England’s welfare system. And as to your comment that anything we do will cost money – not so. Social Security can be financially shored up without raising payroll taxes, without borrowing trillions of dollars and increasing the national debt and without increasing the wage cap by doing the following: 1. Keep the estate tax (which affects less than 1% of U.S. taxpayers) and dedicate that tax revenue to the Social Security system. 2. Repeal all the tax cuts Bush has passed over the past 4 years on capital gains, dividends, and the top income tax brackets (restoring the taxation level to what it was during Bill Clinton’s last term in office) and dedicate that revenue to the Social Security system. Of course, I could add other comments about not wasting our tax dollars by getting involved in an expensive and unnecessary war in Iraq – but unfortunately that money has already been squandered by Bush and the right wing neo-conservatives. In addition, unless you know of some magic way to control the stock market, private accounts do NOT give you any more control over your benefits.
May 11th, 2005 at 2:52 pmthis is a load of bull. There are no truthful statements on this website. You idiots are just as bad as the bush administration. Shut the heck up and get a life.
May 12th, 2005 at 4:23 amI have read the article and most of the comments. I think most are missing the complete issue here. there is no left and right. There is only citizens and politicians. While some politicians probably have good intentions, I truly believe the majority are horribly corrupt on BOTH sides. The two party system is failing miserably. Why? because rather than get elected then go to work, they get elected and then spend their term trying to get re-elected. No one, I repeat, no one in Washington is actually trying to make this a better country. Everyone, right or left, is trying to get re-elected. I believe that once you are elected the party affiliation ends at the front steps of the capital. Whats best for the party is not, and never will be, what is best for the people. We all have lost site of what is important. Not whether you claim to be left or right, conservative or liberal! What is important has been very well defined in the declaration of independence and the constitution. I urge all of you to get a copy of both of these documents and read those. ignore ‘how to talk to a liberal/conservative (if you must)’ rhetoric. In your discussions, reference these wonderful documents. Ask each other if their stance on an issue agrees with these fundamental American values. Why or why not? have a meaningful discussion rather than just trying to learn how to dismantle the right/left position.
Again, there is no right/left. Just us Americans trying to live in a better world.
Kind regards from an American, not a liberal or conservative.
May 20th, 2005 at 3:00 pmhttp://www.puppyduk.com/njv3dhd7/ transexual australia escort catwomantransvestitetranny
May 24th, 2005 at 3:27 pmPrivatization hasn’t worked in UK, Argentina or Chile. It won’t work here. However, it WILL BE PASSED because Bush wants it so. There are big dollars around this initiative and they will not give in nor will they give up.
May 27th, 2005 at 4:05 pmI have stopped referring to the Bush administration as ‘conservative’ a long time ago. I make a point of distinquishing between the policies of this administration which to my thinking are not any kind of conservative neo or otherwise. I think it is a signficant distinction. I have worked for many conservatives and consider myself an independent because frankly I believe that both voices (at minimum) are required to run this government well.
I also always make the distinction ‘administration’ quite frankly i don’t think Bush drafted any of this. People keep firing at the straw man in front and missing the issue. The issue is industries writing laws behind closed doors. Personally I would love to have a true fiscally conservative branch of the government.
This administration is not conservative, I have no real arguement with conservative values (well i have some with the social conservatives but that is another story).
Social security is an insurance, one with a more reliable relationship between vestiture and return than ANY insurance in the united states today.
Danielle
May 27th, 2005 at 7:20 pmI’m tired of hearing that the Democrats haven’t come up with a solution to the SS problem. Listen real well, ” Raise the taxes on the rich who don’t need to rely on SS benefits, but get more than is fair, a 1% increase in their income tax to help the less fortunate.” You know the same way they take taxes out of our paychecks to help the more fortunate and the less fortunate. They get nothing back for it, just as all the taxes we pay out of our checks never come back to us. They won’t even notice it, and it won’t make them starve the way it does us, or at least me, I can’t speak for all.
May 27th, 2005 at 10:10 pmMr. Bush’s so-called privatization plan is mathematically ridiculous. The first point is in order to divert money from SS you will be required to pay the 3.5% lost bond interest. This will create a shortage in the SS trust fund. The shortage will be paid for by issuing T-bonds at 3.5%. You will then be taxed to pay this additional 3.5%! We now have 7% your money must earn before dime one can be realized from your so-called private investment. To further aggravate the situation you will pay the management fees which are projected to be 2 to 3%. Add all this up and you have 3.5% + 3.5% + 2% = 9% SS return is 3.5% so add that in and your investment must make 12.5% to equal SS return. The average long term conservative investment makes 4.5 to 5% meaning you will lose 7%. It’s not rocket science! Would anyone get a cash advance from a credit card to pay off another credit card? Of course you wouldn’t but this is exactly what this proposal is. The next point is that if Mr. Bush wanted real private accounts so bad why then would he not create them outside of the SS system and make them 100% tax exempt the way they are for the Congressmen and Senators? Now to the meat of this scam is that these accounts Mr. Bush talks about are not private. By any legal test you don’t have control over which funds you invest in, you can’t buy and sell at will, you don’t get to choose your trustee or your management company, you can’t sell short if the market contracts. you can’t transfer ownership unless you die…… So these accounts are government controlled accounts and not private accounts. The next point is that the T-bonds that fund SS are considered the safest investment there is. If the US government can go bad on its T-bonds then why would anyone even entertain the thought that they couldn’t go bad on stock accounts-which are far riskier- and are government owned? The last and final point is the markets move in about 11 year cycles so anyone retiring inside these 11 years will take a severe beating on their retirement no matter how conservative the investment is. The average fund for 2004 returned a -2% which is a far cry from the 12.5% needed to just meet the SS return. Another good point to all the middle income workers is SS has a payment cap of $90,000 in income. If you earn $180,000 a year you have only paid in 3.05% rather than 6.1% someone making $90,000 would pay. Furthermore blue collar workers tend to start paying in on average 5.5 years earlier than white collar college educated people. They also have lower life expectancies by five years. I’m all for real private accounts but let’s make them outside of SS so we don’t have to borrow the money to fund them and then pay back the interest before we see dime one. Let’s also make them tax exempt completely and let the OWNER have full control of all the funds they invest! Is this an immediate solution-no but long term it will make a big difference! The only problem is Mr. Bush would have to curb his rape of SS funds and probably roll back his tax cuts for the top 2% wage earners-not too big of a price to pay
May 28th, 2005 at 8:21 amThe simple way to fix the way-in-the-future problems in Social Security is to take the cap off and let the wealthy pay 5.6% like everybody else.
It would be chump change to them, and would leave them plenty to invest, but would solve any future problems SS will have.
May 28th, 2005 at 3:05 pmI have invested in stocks and mutual funds. The performance and fees ate up my profits. If seasoned investors lose money regularly, how can everyday people monitor and gain by investing their money in a risky market such as this. In the last ten years I have been laid off from corporate gaint such as Citibank and IBM because of their miscalulations and financial mistake. How do you do you think the John Q. Citizen will do in a risky financial market?
May 31st, 2005 at 3:18 pmBefore we do anything else, let us pay back to Social Security the the interest that would have been paid had Congress borrowed the money on the free market, ie at the ten or twelve % quoted as the long term return on the stock market. Then there will probably be plenty enough to go around.
Once that’s done, if they want to privatize anyway, let the money have to be invested in state retirement funds, where it’s invested in actual stocks, at the touted long term return, & that with non-super-speculative, democratic oversight, or barring that, be invested in only those funds that are 100% invested in the, presently imprecisely defined, category that their name indicates. Currently, it is exactly the reverse, where the buyer must truly beware for his life & the name of the fund, as like as not, only indicates the largest category that the fund is in, more at 33% than 50, if that. Even those who invested in the conservative side of the spectrum got caught when the last bubble burst because of this. Only those with a constant, professional ear to the wires got away free, apparently not even the mutual fund advisors.
Alternately they could just leave Social Security as is & expand the amount of money that can be put into IRAs, or create Housing Savings Accounts to mirror the ones now existing for Health & Education & Retirement.
Also, Social Security is a disability fund. Will the percentage invested in private accounts be deducted from injured persons compensation even when there’s another turn down & some have lost practically everything? Or are we going to at least own up to that minimal responsibilty. Each graduating class being made to have to share their own burden of sacrifice among themselves is not a possible solution, the critical mass is just not sufficiently large?
May 31st, 2005 at 7:37 pmI appreciate the depth, passion, research and consideration being offered here… Too bad that even for me (with a BS in Bus. Admin. and okay grades in Public Finance and Econ.) the issue is almost too overwhelming to process… It is sad to me really that after all this reading, I still can’t discern whether there seems to be a single approach which temporarily lays down arms and self-interest to simply embrace honest appraisal, foresight, compassion and wisdom in the study of this issue. It is a scary feeling, not knowing whom to trust…
And, on a last note, though I’m no grammarian myself, can people PLEASE proof-read their posts before submitting? The ’skips’ in reading from frequent misuse of their / there / they’re and in THAN vs. THEN, not to mention spelling errors (dabate?!) I feel makes that debate just a hair harder than it has to be… Thanks.
And a P.S. for those as dismayed as I am… Remember that our country has been through far worse, that “this too shall pass” and that in the worst case scenario– of SS being dismantled, we can always REbuild, right?!
May 31st, 2005 at 11:46 pmWho here hates Blake and Tracy? Blake – the title is a joke, consult someone with a sense of humor. Tracy, being stupid and supported by a right wing marketing machine doesn’t make someone ’smart’ it makes them a puppet
June 1st, 2005 at 10:58 pmhttp://obvious.ebokan.com/nasty/ nude mature women matureamateurmen
June 3rd, 2005 at 12:55 pmhttp://magic.carrozzina.org/nnxuxf8q/ sexy lon legs footfetishwebsites
June 7th, 2005 at 4:23 amClearly, “Joe� is just another snake oil huckster for the morally and intellectually bankrupt right wing. Any dabate professor would score him an “F� for his sophistry.
Comment by Robin  April 10th, 2005 @ 8:29 pm
If my reasoning is “sound in appearance only” then it should be easy for you to refute. But of course you won’t. Just like the other dozen posters who reject my logic out of hand with trite, throw away, applause lines like yours.
June 7th, 2005 at 1:49 pmAnyway, the rape of our country by such as this inept man we have in office- this ignorant, arrogant, mis-informed informer, narrow-minded, low-IQ slacker that is leading our country- hey, its the state of America today. Right now. This “dumbing downâ€? point in our timeline is becoming more and more evident, as we close our eyes and accept whatever this “dumbererâ€? leader and his snake administration recommends, never questioning. ….
Comment by Jesse Vinson  May 10th, 2005 @ 3:02 pm
So what do you think of the revelation that Bush had a higher GPA at Yale than Kerry? I wonder why Kerry waited 8 months after the election to release it?
By the way, if Bush is such an idiot why do you all keep losing to him again and again and again? What’s that say about you.
June 7th, 2005 at 2:04 pmPrivatization hasn’t worked in UK, Argentina or Chile. It won’t work here. However, it WILL BE PASSED because Bush wants it so. There are big dollars around this initiative and they will not give in nor will they give up.
Comment by Stephen Garramone  May 27th, 2005 @ 4:05 pm
It absolutely has worked. See the multiple references I’ve posted.
June 7th, 2005 at 2:08 pmI appreciate the depth, passion, research and consideration being offered here… Too bad that even for me (with a BS in Bus. Admin. and okay grades in Public Finance and Econ.) the issue is almost too overwhelming to process…
Comment by Michaellee  May 31st, 2005 @ 11:46 pm
Its really not complicated at all. You need $100 in 2055. Do you invest $10 today, hope it grows to $100 over the 50 years, and then ask your children to make up the difference IF it doesn’t make it. OR do you spend the $10, do nothing for 50 years, and then hit your kids up for the entire $100?
Getting from here to there may be complicated, but where we need to end up is obvious.
June 7th, 2005 at 2:19 pmI wish people would stop presenting biased liberal shit as factual information.
June 7th, 2005 at 10:14 pm” In 2042, enough new money will be coming in to pay between 73-80 percent of promised benefits.”
Bullshit. There is absolutly no factual information to back this prediction. How the hell did you come up with those numbers? You liberal shit-heads just pull numbers out of your ass and make Bush jokes without factual basis. Next time you want to brainwash some idiots into becoming ass-licking Bush haters, do some research and present real facts.
June 7th, 2005 at 10:27 pmhttp://www.medicinetrail.org/herbal/ mouths passagequenchedrefer
June 11th, 2005 at 6:31 pm“I wish people would stop presenting biased liberal shit as factual information. ”
Funny you should say that Mike, because I wish Bush and the neo-cons would stop presenting right wing bullshit as factual information too. You know, things like Iraq has WMD’s, and the Social Security trust fund will be bankrupt by 2042 etc.
“In 2042, enough new money will be coming in to pay between 73-80 percent of promised benefits.â€? Bullshit. There is absolutly no factual information to back this prediction. How the hell did you come up with those numbers?”
Where did we come up with those numbers? Uh, try the Social Security website Mike. The Social Security trustees are required by law to do a mathematical projection of expected revenues and outlays over the next 75 years. By the way Mike, next time you post maybe you should do some research and present real facts.
June 14th, 2005 at 3:25 pmRobert Pozen (of MFS Investments) wrote an opinion article about Social Security in USA Today newspaper (6/13/05). In the article, he talks about his plan for indexing SS benefits, but beware folks! His plan is nothing more than Bush’s privatization scheme with window dressing. He states that we cannot afford to pay future Social Security benefits, but doesn’t tell you WHY we can’t afford it. Since the 1980’s payroll tax revenues have exceeded payouts to retirees, but these excess SS revenues have been squandered by politicians like George Bush. In the 2000 presidential election campaign Al Gore proposed putting excess payroll tax revenues that were not being used to pay retiree benefits into a so-called “lockbox.” The revenues in the lockbox would serve as a rainy day fund to be used for future Social Security funding shortfalls, and could not have been spent on other budget items. Instead of listening to Gore’s sensible suggesstion, Bush recklessly handed out tax cuts on income, dividends and capital gains while waging an expensive and unnecessary war in Iraq. The Social Security “crisis” that Bush claims we now have is due, in large part, to his fiscal irresponsibility. No matter how much window dressing Mr. Pozen puts on it, Americans should reject Bush’s SS privatization scheme, because it will cost trillions in borrowing to set up. Thanks to George Bush, this country already has more than enough debt!
June 14th, 2005 at 5:39 pmComment by Cindy  June 14th, 2005 @ 5:39 pm
You’re joking, right? (a) I thought that money was being “invested” in treasury notes and (b) you think Clinton/Gore saved the SS surplusses somewhere during the 8 years they ran things?
But I’m with you on the rainy day fund. I think we should immediately dispense the entire surplus back to the tax payers via personal accounts so the government can’t spend them.
June 15th, 2005 at 8:41 amComment by Cindy  June 14th, 2005 @ 3:25 pm
I think his point was that the projection assumes that trillions of dollars will suddenly reappear to pay off the bonds in the “trust fund”. The only way that happens is if FICA is jacked up to 18%.
June 15th, 2005 at 8:43 am“You’re joking, right? (a) I thought that money was being “investedâ€? in treasury notes and (b) you think Clinton/Gore saved the SS surplusses somewhere during the 8 years they ran things?”
No Joe, I’m not joking. Bottom line: when Clinton left office there were projected budget surpluses. Since Bush has taken office, those projected surpluses have disappeared, and we have red ink as far as the eye can see. Had Bush held onto those projected surpluses instead of recklessly burning through them, shoring up a projected Social Security shortfall would be a hell of a lot easier. Of course, if you think that Bush is “fiscally conservative” (Bush’s description of himself), then you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how ridiculous or out of touch with reality it is.
June 15th, 2005 at 11:04 am“But I’m with you on the rainy day fund. I think we should immediately dispense the entire surplus back to the tax payers via personal accounts so the government can’t spend them. ”
Um, what surplus Joe? Thanks to George Bush and his reckless fiscal policies, there is no surplus to return to the taxpayers. The excess Social Security revenues (and more) have already been spent many times over in Iraq.
June 15th, 2005 at 11:12 am“I think his point was that the projection assumes that trillions of dollars will suddenly reappear to pay off the bonds in the “trust fund”. The only way that happens is if FICA is jacked up to 18%.”
No Joe, that’s not the only way it can happen. Bush could decide to restore the tax rates on income (the upper income tax bracket only), dividends and capital gains to the levels they were during Clinton’s last term in office, decide NOT to eliminate the estate tax (which only affects about 1% of taxpayers) and dedicate the revenues from the above mentioned sources directly to the Social Security trust fund in a LOCKBOX. (Translation: the tax revenues couldn’t be spent on other budget items). Problem solved – no need to jack up FICA to 18%, increase the retirement age, cut back SS benefits, increase the amount of income subject to payroll tax, or borrow trillions more from the Chinese to finance those ridiculous private accounts.
June 15th, 2005 at 11:41 amComment by Cindy  June 15th, 2005 @ 11:04 am
Clinton could have put the SS surplus in a “lock box” at any time. He didn’t. He spent the money just like Bush is spending it.
SS currently takes in ~$150B more each year than it spends. This money should be protected so that rest of government can’t use it as a crutch.
June 15th, 2005 at 12:15 pmComment by Cindy  June 15th, 2005 @ 11:41 am
I think you need to redo your math. The “massive” tax cuts amounted to a fraction of a percent of the economy.
But at least you’re honest about wanting to raise everybody’s taxes rather than actually cutting government spending.
Just remember when Mondale ran for office in 84 he said any household with an income greater than $50K was rich. So all you folks constantly trying to “soak the rich” with your confiscatory tax rates only really accomplish two things (a) piling on to the crushing burden already on the middle class 10 or 20 years later and (b) forcing the rich to obtain their income via alternate means, e.g. s-corps, corporate perks, etc. You don’t really think that corporations or rich individuals actually pay taxes do you? Look at John Edwards who created an S-corp to funnel his judgement awards and avoid $600K in medicare taxes. Look at Teresa Kerry’s and Dick Cheney’s effective tax rates of ~15%.
June 15th, 2005 at 12:27 pmComment by Cindy  June 15th, 2005 @ 11:41 am
BTW, do you think a person currently paying the maximum SS tax (~$1K/month) gets a fair, or even reasonable deal, out of the system? If so, how? If not, then why would you take a bad deal and make it worse?
June 15th, 2005 at 12:31 pmFrom my first opportunity to vote in a federal election, the Nixon/McGovern race, I have voted Repubican. For no other reason except for the fact that I agreed with their platform. Even though back then I greatly resembled a long haired hippie type. It would be too easy to say that all Democrats are as what many from the left side of the fence call Republicans. There are many, many good Democrats and I appreciate their point of view. What disturbs me is the lack of respect that our current president receives from the other side. This does not serve our needs as a country at all.
June 16th, 2005 at 4:48 pmPlease have a look at
http://www.ecolanguage.net/
and watch a little flow-chart animation called “Social Security–the Real Connections.”
And let me know what you think!
June 17th, 2005 at 4:35 pmhttp://view.moris-dada.com/granny__sex_forum/ granny thumb pics freematuregalleries
June 20th, 2005 at 11:56 pm“Clinton could have put the SS surplus in a “lock boxâ€? at any time. He didn’t. He spent the money just like Bush is spending it. ”
No Clinton couldn’t, not without Congressional approval. Spending appropriations must be approved by Congress (then appropriations bills are signed by the President). However, I do agree with you that the SS surplus funds have been spent on items other than Social Security, which is NOT right.
June 21st, 2005 at 3:10 pm“But at least you’re honest about wanting to raise everybody’s taxes rather than actually cutting government spending. ”
No Joe, everybody’s taxes wouldn’t be raised using the suggestions for raising revenue I outlined in my post above. The estate tax, which affects less than 1% of U.S. taxpayers would remain in place at the level it is now. The remaining 99% of Americans who do not pay estate tax would not see any difference in their tax burden. In addition, unless you are in the top income tax bracket your income taxes would NOT change from what they currently are under my suggestions. As far as restoring the dividends and capital gains taxes to the levels they were when Clinton was president, this would have NO effect on those holding investments in tax deferred accounts such as 401K’s, IRA’s, annuities, etc. It would only affect those holding investments in taxable accounts, and for those holding stock in taxable accounts, only when they sold investment holdings (no capital gains taxes are due on stocks until they are sold). Even then, a person could minimize or eliminate the tax by using capital losses to offset capital gains in the year sold. On the other hand, if Bush borrows trillions of dollars to finance those private accounts, EVERY American bears the burden of paying back our national debt (plus interest of course).
June 21st, 2005 at 3:26 pm“But at least you’re honest about wanting to raise everybody’s taxes rather than actually cutting government spending. �
By the way Joe, does Bush’s Social Security privatization plan “cut spending”? NO, IT INCREASES BORROWING. So why is my suggestion of raising revenue to cover Social Security funding shortfalls worse than Bush’s plan of borrowing?
June 21st, 2005 at 3:34 pm“You don’t really think that corporations or rich individuals actually pay taxes do you? Look at John Edwards who created an S-corp to funnel his judgement awards and avoid $600K in medicare taxes. Look at Teresa Kerry’s and Dick Cheney’s effective tax rates of ~15%. ”
Then why all the screaming by Republicans for a flat tax? If the rich can get out of paying a progressive tax, they can maneuver out of paying a flat tax too.
June 21st, 2005 at 3:39 pm“There are many, many good Democrats and I appreciate their point of view. What disturbs me is the lack of respect that our current president receives from the other side. This does not serve our needs as a country at all.”
Sort of like the lack of respect the right wing neocons gave President Clinton when he was in office? Also add to that, the disrespect they showed to former first lady Hillary Clinton. Greg, if the Republicans can dish out disrespect to Democrat presidents, they better be prepared to take it when their side is sitting in the oval office. Quit the whining!
June 21st, 2005 at 3:45 pmThen why all the screaming by Republicans for a flat tax? If the rich can get out of paying a progressive tax, they can maneuver out of paying a flat tax too.
Comment by Cindy  June 21, 2005 @ 3:39 pm
Actually its a good argument for the “fair tax”. If taxes were levied on what is spent rather than what is earned the rich couldn’t escape taxes. Want to buy a $30 million dollar jet? Fine, you’ll have to pay the 23% sales tax too.
Generally the flat tax is associated with eliminating all deductions/credits too, so even a flat tax would have some affect.
June 21st, 2005 at 11:40 pmand for those holding stock in taxable accounts, only when they sold investment holdings (no capital gains taxes are due on stocks until they are sold). Even then, a person could minimize or eliminate the tax by using capital losses to offset capital gains in the year sold. On the other hand, if Bush borrows trillions of dollars to finance those private accounts, EVERY American bears the burden of paying back our national debt (plus interest of course).
Comment by Cindy  June 21, 2005 @ 3:26 pm
I don’t think taxing one percent of anybody is going to produce the $10 trillion you need for solvency. Even if it did, unlike you, I’m not looking for a handout. I’m an adult, I can manage my own affairs, thank you.
BTW, most people own stocks through mutual funds which do produce yearly capital gains.
You also don’t seem to get that the money has already been borrowed:
Before personal accounts:
public debt = $5 trillion
“trust fund” = $3 trillion
personal accounts = $0
total debt = $8 trillion
After personal accounts:
public debt = $8 trillion
“trust fund” = $0
personal accounts = $3 trillion
total debt = $8 trillion
If you believe the “trust fund” bonds will be honored then why does it matter whether individuals hold them or the SSA holds them?
June 21st, 2005 at 11:48 pmBy the way Joe, does Bush’s Social Security privatization plan “cut spending�? NO, IT INCREASES BORROWING. So why is my suggestion of raising revenue to cover Social Security funding shortfalls worse than Bush’s plan of borrowing?
Comment by Cindy  June 21, 2005 @ 3:34 pm
Actually, his latest plan of increasing progressive indexing is basically telling most people that they can either have their taxes raised or their future benefit cut. Since I know I can manage that money far better than the government I’ll gladly take the latter. Then I’ll take the increased taxes I’m not paying, invest it, and I’ll still be fine even after folks like you finally get around to means testing me out of any benefit whatsoever (despite having paid in hundreds of thousands of dollars).
BTW, you’ll not find me defending deficit spending. I think the federal budget should be cut in half. At a minimum we need an amendment that limits this year’s spending to no more than last years revenue.
June 21st, 2005 at 11:58 pmLook out folks, the Republicans are at it again! Republicans in the House of Representatives have proposed so-called “GROW” accounts. These private accounts will be financed using the excess Social Security tax revenues that are now being spent on other budget items. This is just another misuse of the excess Social Security tax revenues. Instead of using these excess revenues to actually help pay projected Social Security benefits in the future, the Republicans want to spend the revenues NOW to set up private investment accounts. This is simply another way to undermine Social Security and sneak in private accounts (and help out the Republicans campaign contributors on Wall Street). Of course, nothing else has changed either – the Republicans still want to cut your future Social Security benefits. Democrats just say no again to this lousy plan!
June 22nd, 2005 at 5:23 pm“Actually its a good argument for the “fair taxâ€?. If taxes were levied on what is spent rather than what is earned the rich couldn’t escape taxes. Want to buy a $30 million dollar jet? Fine, you’ll have to pay the 23% sales tax too.”
Except if the rich set up some off-shore corporations (like they do now), and buy the jet through the corporation. Voila! No taxes owed. Joe, I can’t believe you don’t know that off-shore corporations have been used by the rich for tax dodging for many years now. Unless off-shore corporations are outlawed, changing the tax code won’t change anything!
June 22nd, 2005 at 5:28 pm“Generally the flat tax is associated with eliminating all deductions/credits too, so even a flat tax would have some affect. ”
Get rid of ALL deductions? I’d like to see the Republicans try and get rid of child tax credits and home mortgage deductions and see if any of them actually remain in office!
June 22nd, 2005 at 5:31 pmComment by Cindy  June 22, 2005 @ 5:23 pm
So taking $1,000,000 and “spending” it on Microsoft stock is the same thing, in your mind, as taking the money and giving it to the parks department to build another outhouse? (reported on 60 minutes a couple years ago)
June 22nd, 2005 at 5:36 pmExcept if the rich set up some off-shore corporations (like they do now), and buy the jet through the corporation. Voila! No taxes owed…
Comment by Cindy  June 22, 2005 @ 5:28 pm
The “fair tax” is a sales tax, so everyone pays the tax unless the item is an item for resale, just like most state sales taxes work.
June 22nd, 2005 at 5:40 pm“I don’t think taxing one percent of anybody is going to produce the $10 trillion you need for solvency. Even if it did, unlike you, I’m not looking for a handout. I’m an adult, I can manage my own affairs, thank you. ”
Now you’re saying the Social Security trust fund needs $10 trillion for solvency?
June 22nd, 2005 at 5:43 pmYour numbers in post #384 above indicate the trust fund deficit is $3 trillion. So which number are you going with Joe? And by the way, myself(and other Democrats) are not looking for handouts. We have paid into the Social Security system and expect Social Security to provide a decent safety net in retirement to American citizens. Period. We do NOT expect it to be what it was never set up to be, i.e., an investment account, a welfare account, etc. If someone wants to invest money for retirement on their own outside of Social Security, they have ample opportunity to do so through IRA’s, annuities, etc. I have an IRA and a 403b account for my retirement to help supplement Social Security payments. That hardly describes someone who is looking for a handout or can’t manage their own affairs.
Get rid of ALL deductions? I’d like to see the Republicans try and get rid of child tax credits and home mortgage deductions and see if any of them actually remain in office!
Comment by Cindy  June 22, 2005 @ 5:31 pm
And that’s the thinking that’s led us to a tax code that’s hundred of thousands of pages, impenetrable, unenforceable, and costs us about $400 billion a year in compliance costs.
We could save SS overnight if we recouped even half the money spent each year dealing with the lousy tax code.
BTW, why should Bill Gates get a child tax credit anyway? If you believe in progressivity you should be all about a flat tax. You can exempt income upto full time minimum wage salary and then just have the rate scale with income. Say from 0% at $15K to 25% at $150K and above.
Can be filed on a post card!
June 22nd, 2005 at 5:49 pmComment by Cindy  June 22, 2005 @ 5:43 pm
The $10 trillion is the cumulative shortfall from 2017 to 2042. I know the numbers aren’t exact but I’m too lazy to look them up right now. The exact numbers don’t matter to the point I was making: the “trust fund” money has already been spent, giving the “trust fund” to individuals doesn’t change the debt situation at all.
And, yes, if you are looking to raise income taxes on someone else to pay for your retirement you are looking for a handout and it is welfare by definition.
June 22nd, 2005 at 5:57 pmmusic portal
Think Progress »…
July 16th, 2005 at 11:41 pm“And, yes, if you are looking to raise income taxes on someone else to pay for your retirement you are looking for a handout and it is welfare by definition.”
No Joe, I am just asking that EVERYONE pays their fair share (according to their ability to pay) to make sure Social Security stays solvent. If that means certain taxes (I am not just thinking of income taxes) must go back to the levels they were under Bill Clinton for certain groups, then so be it. By the way, borrowing money to set up private accounts (which is what Bush wants to do) increases the national debt for EVERYONE. Increasing our national debt is also a tax increase, just one that is postponed into the future, so people don’t realize it. The neocons apparently think they can bamboozle the American public into thinking they can get something for nothing. Well, they haven’t fooled me. If you want something, you have to pay for it. You either pay for it now (through increased taxes or reduced spending) or you pay for it later (an increased national debt + interest on the debt). And by the way Joe, explain to me how keeping the estate tax in place as it is now (and simply not eliminating it) is a TAX INCREASE? This tax affects less than 1% of the population Joe, but the neocons act like it affects everyone – another B.S. job I haven’t bought. As I stated in one of my posts above, I would use revenues collected from the estate tax to offset some of the revenue shortfalls in Social Security, so that payroll taxes would NOT have to be increased on the working population.
July 19th, 2005 at 5:30 pm“BTW, why should Bill Gates get a child tax credit anyway? If you believe in progressivity you should be all about a flat tax.”
Although I can’t say for sure (cause I’ve never seen Bill Gates tax return), I would guess that Gates pays the alternative minimum tax (AMT) which limits the amount of deductions and tax credits wealthy people can take. If he is paying the AMT, chances are Bill Gates isn’t getting a child tax credit. Republicans are always criticizing Democrats and liberals for using “class warfare” to divide the American public, but actually its conservatives who play this “jealousy” game all the time. Your comment about “why should Bill Gates get a child tax credit”? illustrates my point. If the rich (or corporations) rip off shareholders, creditors, or employee pensions to make themselves rich, then I dislike them. If the rich (or corporations) dodge paying taxes by setting up offshore tax shelters, then I dislike them. I have no problem with any wealthy person (or corporation), so long as they earn their money honestly and pay their taxes honestly.
July 19th, 2005 at 5:54 pm“the “trust fundâ€? money has already been spent, giving the “trust fundâ€? to individuals doesn’t change the debt situation at all.”
If the trust fund money has already been spent, then that means (at least by my definition) that the money has already been allotted to some other government agency, entity, etc. So, if we instead re-direct that same revenue to pay for setting up private accounts, then how are you going to come up with the revenue that the above mentioned goverment agency or entity was getting (but will now NOT be receiving because that money is going to be used for private accounts)? To come up with that money you either have to raise taxes, cut some other agency or entity’s budget and switch the money to the above mentioned agency (which is simply robbing Peter to pay Paul) or borrow the money (which increases the national debt). And if you cut some agency’s funding, which agency is gonna take the cut Joe? Homeland security? Doubtful. The Pentagon? Not while Bush continues that expensive war in Iraq. The Department of Education? Bush has already cut funding for the No Child Left Behind Act. Cut back on that expensive Medicare prescription drug bill? Watch the elderly and the drug companies scream about that one. It’s sort of like telling your oldest child that you are no longer paying them an allowance, but instead will give that allowance to their younger brother or sister. Chances are, you are going to have a BIG FIGHT on your hands. When it comes down to it, none of our elected representatives wants to make any cut that will affect their constituents, because they want to get re-elected.
July 19th, 2005 at 6:59 pmComment by Cindy  July 19, 2005 @ 5:30 pm
Again, distributing the “trust fund” to individuals doesn’t change the debt situation at all:
Before personal accounts:
public debt = $5 trillion
“trust fund� = $3 trillion
personal accounts = $0
total debt = $8 trillion
After personal accounts:
public debt = $8 trillion
“trust fund� = $0
personal accounts = $3 trillion
total debt = $8 trillion
Regarding the estate tax: Death should not be a taxable event. You’re not offended by the government rifling through the pockets of corpses? The taxes were paid when the person earned the money, why is it “fair” to make them pay taxes again. (Yes, some assets may have capital gains that haven’t yet been paid but that’s easily handled by having the heir inherent the original cost basis when they inherit the asset. So IF they sell it they’ll have to pay the cap gains tax then, but if the asset stays productive(e.g. small business employing people) then the tax stays deferred.)
But thanks for reiterating the Democrat mantra: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” And Iim sure you’ll be more than happy to define everyone’s “fair share” for them, right?
July 20th, 2005 at 11:43 amComment by Cindy  July 19, 2005 @ 5:54 pm
The point of the Bill Gates example was to show what a joke all the credits and deductions are.
Take the mortgage interest deduction, for example. At some point the realtors and banks got together, bought themselves some politicians, and got this scam passed under the guise of increasing home ownership. What’s the real affect? People could immediately buy or build bigger, more expensive houses. This in turn drives up the average home price and since lower income people don’t make enough to benefit from the deduction they end up subsidizing rich people in big houses (or regular houses in expensive markets like the NE, DC, or california). Realtors get bigger commisions, banks get more interest revenue, politicians get to claim they’re helping home ownership, but in the end its just an end run to shift the tax burden to middle and low income folks.
And then, we’re so stupid, we actually fight tax reform because we don’t want to lose the interest deduction!
July 20th, 2005 at 11:55 amComment by Cindy  July 19, 2005 @ 6:59 pm
As I’ve stated many times, the SS surplus represents about one year’s worth of growth in the federal government. If one year’s freeze on federal spending is a “massive cut” then why isn’t the current budget called a “massive increase” in spending?
You really think the world will collapse if the federal government had to get by on last year’s budget?
July 20th, 2005 at 11:58 amhttp://finance.company-si.com/nez2kdb6/ pinches robertslicedsoiled
July 22nd, 2005 at 9:08 amhttp://fixed.mortgage4sa.com/mortgage-lenders_directory/ garyhoodlumnow
July 25th, 2005 at 2:58 pmmario lanza
Think Progress »…
July 30th, 2005 at 7:31 amhttp://mlm.company-si.com/clothing-companylogos/ challengewalletwormed
July 30th, 2005 at 9:13 pmbest mp3 download site
Think Progress »…
August 2nd, 2005 at 7:08 pmThe plans which Congress or any legislation develop will always favor those with the most wealth to contribute to their campaign funds. Tax laws are not different from the other laws. There is an extreme prejudice in favor of the wealthy in the tax laws.
August 3rd, 2005 at 3:18 pmThe wealthy hire attorneys and accountants to make sure they are allowed all of the tax breaks that are available. In fact they sspend more money to avoid taxes than they would pay if they paid the taxes.
The deficit is the result of this avoidance. Congress estimates the ammount that the taxpayers will send in to the Federal coffers then spend accordingly. The problem is that there are tax loopholes which prevent a large part of the tax money from being paid this is the deficit. This approach to tax collecting has built the enormous debt that we now owe.
hardcore-sex-position
Think Progress »…
August 10th, 2005 at 4:41 pmfree-hardcore-sex-photo
Think Progress »…
August 10th, 2005 at 4:41 pmhttp://online-college.ivtcscs.org biteexplodedharder
August 12th, 2005 at 2:52 am“Take the mortgage interest deduction, for example. At some point the realtors and banks got together, bought themselves some politicians, and got this scam passed under the guise of increasing home ownership. What’s the real affect? People could immediately buy or build bigger, more expensive houses. This in turn drives up the average home price and since lower income people don’t make enough to benefit from the deduction they end up subsidizing rich people in big houses (or regular houses in expensive markets like the NE, DC, or california).”
Stupid me! Heck, all this time I thought high housing prices were a result of the free market – you know Joe, that thing called supply and demand. Cut the right wing rhetoric Joe, cause I don’t believe your baloney – which is basically to blame all our problems on someone else. High housing prices? Its those darned bankers and realtors. High health insurance costs? Lets blame the litigation lawyers. Don’t like the tax code? It’s the fault of the IRS! I tell you Joe, it makes me burst out laughing every time I hear a Republican or some mouthpiece in the Bush administration talking about “personal responsibility” and then turn around and blame some scapegoat for the problems they don’t want to deal with. How about lets put the blame where it really belongs. The tax code is a mess because special interest groups (translation: lobbyists) and politicians who want to get re-elected try to change the tax code to benefit their constituents. This does nothing but add to the complexity of the tax code. Prime example: George Bush pushing for a reduction in the tax rate on dividends and capital gains a few years ago. This change alone added hundreds of pages to the tax code and made schedule D on the tax form more complex. A fine example of George Bush paying back his Wall St. campaign contributors and giving them even more reason to complain about the “complexity” of filing taxes.
August 12th, 2005 at 4:50 pm“Regarding the estate tax: Death should not be a taxable event. You’re not offended by the government rifling through the pockets of corpses?”
As I stated above, I am not offended by people who obey the law and pay their share of taxes according to the law. What I am offended by is people who want to live in the U.S. and want to enjoy the benefits of our superior military, economic, medical, judicial and educational systems, but don’t want to pay for it and try to weasel out of paying their share of taxes.
August 12th, 2005 at 5:05 pm“And Iim sure you’ll be more than happy to define everyone’s “fair shareâ€? for them, right?”
Actually Joe, the tax laws define what is everyone’s fair share to pay. I have as much right as any other individual (or corporation) to try and influence my Congressional representative to make the tax laws “fair” according to my definition. Anyhow, no matter what those tax laws may be, the right wing will always be screaming about how “unfair” taxes are, which is why I basically ignore them. Despite the fact that taxes on income, capital gains and dividends have all been lowered since Bush took office, the neocons and libertarians continue to scream and wring their hands about taxes and the tax code.
August 12th, 2005 at 5:19 pm“The plans which Congress or any legislation develop will always favor those with the most wealth to contribute to their campaign funds. Tax laws are not different from the other laws. There is an extreme prejudice in favor of the wealthy in the tax laws.”
I second that Mr. Beckner!
August 12th, 2005 at 5:22 pm“But thanks for reiterating the Democrat mantra: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.â€?”
And thanks Joe, for reminding me (by looking at your post #397 above) that Bush and the Republicans are full of B.S. – they can’t add and subtract and continue to use fearmongering and lies about Social Security, which is why most Americans aren’t buying Bush’s privatization plan. Apparently, Bush’s lies to the American public about weapons of mass destruction to get us into this expensive and unnecessary war in Iraq is a lesson that has been lost on the neocons. Bush and company still continue to think the American public will swallow their B.S. about Social Security going bankrupt in 2042, that privatization can be “free”, that privatization will “fix” the Social Security funding shortfall, etc. Dream on Joe! The American public got burned with the Iraq war B.S. and were not gonna get burned again.
August 12th, 2005 at 5:46 pmJust wanted to remind folks that Sunday August 14 is the 70th birthday of Social Security. Just a few facts for people to remember. Today Social Security pays retirement benefits and survivors benefits to 33 million Americans, and disability benefits to 8 million workers and their families. (Source: the Social Security administration). Social Security has been doing for the past 65 years what it was intended to do – PROVIDE A SAFETY NET for ALL working Americans. Social Security has been around through wars, economic downturns, stock market downturns, etc. Social Security has NEVER missed a payment in its history! In addition, Social Security has helped to reduce elderly poverty rates (Source: The Century Foundation and Center for American Progress). So what does Bush plan to do in honor of Social Security’s 70th birthday? NOTHING – because it doesn’t fit his political agenda. Bush doesn’t want to remind people that Social Security is one of the most successful and respected government programs. He doesn’t want you to know of the good that Social Security has accomplished through the years. So folks, in honor of Social Security’s birthday, I urge all on this website to write to George Bush, your Senator and your Representative in Congress and let them know that you don’t want Bush’s privatization scheme and to KEEP THEIR HANDS OFF OUR SOCIAL SECURITY. Some organizations you might want to check out: Americans United to Protect Social Security and Republicans Against Privatization. The Republican privatization plan will soon be introduced in the House of Representatives. When they come back from their summer recess, lets greet them with a ton of letters telling them that they risk their political careers if they try to privatize Social Security. Oh, and one other thing – thank you FDR!
August 12th, 2005 at 6:22 pmhttp://college-degree.ivtcscs.org/has/ sightstickysubmit
August 13th, 2005 at 5:46 pmhttp://zyban.twinstatesnetwork.org/63134911937/ dimlyfingeringwelcomed
August 13th, 2005 at 6:57 pm“Stupid me! Heck, all this time I thought high housing prices were a result of the free market – you know Joe, that thing called supply and demand.”
Reducing the effective costs of housing on the well-to-do does increase demand for oversized housing. Isn’t that what I said?
“The tax code is a mess because special interest groups (translation: lobbyists) and politicians who want to get re-elected try to change the tax code to benefit their constituents.”
Yes, that’s what I said. Republicans do it for their “clients” and Democrats do it for their “clients”.
But don’t use the term constituent. I consider a constituent to be somebody who can actually vote for the politician being bought. This is rarely the case with Washington lobyists.
So, why don’t we take the power away from them. If there is no tax code, than there’s nothing to sell favors from. (Except for pork barrel spending, I guess.)
August 15th, 2005 at 2:20 pm“…weasel out of paying their share of taxes.”
Comment by Cindy — August 12, 2005 @ 5:05 pm
By dying?
August 15th, 2005 at 2:23 pmAnd thanks Joe, for reminding me (by looking at your post #397 above) that Bush and the Republicans are full of B.S. – they can’t add and subtract …
… the Iraq war B.S. and were not gonna get burned again.
Comment by Cindy — August 12, 2005 @ 5:46 pm
Perhaps you can point out the addition/subtraction error?
At first I thought you were being argumentative for arguments sake, but if you really don’t understand that the money is owed whether its held by the SSA or by individuals I’m not sure you possess the necessary faculties to discuss this, or any other issue. The fact that you talk about Iraq more than you do Social Security on a Social Security website pretty well discredits you.
August 15th, 2005 at 2:31 pmSocial Security has NEVER missed a payment in its history!
In addition, Social Security has helped to reduce elderly poverty rates (Source: The Century Foundation and Center for American Progress).
… thank you FDR!
Comment by Cindy — August 12, 2005 @ 6:22 pm
Yeah! A morally and financially bankrupt system is a year older.
Enron never missed a payment up until the collapse too.
When you say SS has “reduced elderly poverty” are you comparing the poverty rates had the 12.4 cents of every dollar they earned been saved and invested? I seriously doubt it. All you’ve proven is that if the government confiscates huge portions of your income for 50 years you’ll have less money to save and therefore are more likely to be in poverty when you’re old.
If you like FDR’s system let’s go back to it. SS will only tax 2% of wages and only payout several years after the average life expectancy. I’d support that.
August 15th, 2005 at 2:41 pminflammation-treatment
Think Progress »…
August 16th, 2005 at 1:03 amtreat-panic-attacks
Think Progress »…
August 21st, 2005 at 5:55 amI am very sad that the Democratic party has decided that it is better to dceive and deny the American people of a good thing in order to strike a blow against the Republicans. The fact that social security is in crisis is a fact, and we’ll never get back as much as we pay. And the claim that retirees and the aged will be denied payments is a bold-faced, politically motivated lie, intended to scare those who are most vulnerable.
August 22nd, 2005 at 7:13 pmPrivate accounts are by far more lucrative than social security, and if we must incure a SHORT TERM debt in order to switch from out current system to private accounts, that is well worth it. Social Security was a good program for its time, but when it is dead and gone, and Americans have private accounts, we will be much better off.
high-blood-pressure
Think Progress »…
August 24th, 2005 at 8:47 pmhttp://bankruptcy.americasparty.org/school/ agentmanhoodragged
August 25th, 2005 at 11:30 pmAchieve-erection-medicines
Think Progress »…
August 27th, 2005 at 12:20 amfrom milfs pay per porn view
Think Progress »…
August 29th, 2005 at 12:58 pmhttp://www.oracledba.net/wwwboard/messages/9966.html abruptlytangibletwinkles
September 6th, 2005 at 12:47 amNew Human Growth Hormone
Think Progress »…
September 6th, 2005 at 4:36 pmhttp://www.damnshow.com/wwwboard/messages/29185.html dimlyfingeringwelcomed
September 9th, 2005 at 6:56 am“Private accounts are by far more lucrative than social security, and if we must incure a SHORT TERM debt in order to switch from out current system to private accounts, that is well worth it. ”
Well worth it to who Devin? It’s only well worth it to the people who are going to profit from privatization – namely George Bush’s Wall Street campaign contributors. It’s not worth it to those who depend on Social Security payments, like the retired and disabled, nor is it worth it to the American public who is going to have to pay back the debt + interest incurred to finance privatization.
September 22nd, 2005 at 10:48 pm“I am very sad that the Democratic party has decided that it is better to dceive and deny the American people of a good thing in order to strike a blow against the Republicans.”
Actually Devin, it is the Republicans who have played the deception and scare game with Americans. Bush has repeatedly told the American public that Social Security is going bankrupt (a scare tactic) and despite Bush’s claims to the contrary, his privatization scheme will NOT help Social Security’s solvency, but will actually make it less solvent(an outright deception). I am sorry Devin that you have fallen for another of Bush’s lies.
September 22nd, 2005 at 10:56 pmBy the way Devin, if Bush’s privatization scheme is so good, why do a majority of Americans oppose changing Social Security?
September 22nd, 2005 at 11:14 pm“Yeah! A morally and financially bankrupt system is a year older.”
Morally bankrupt Joe? If you consider a system that provides a safety net for the retired, disabled and those who have lost their spouses to be morally bankrupt, it just proves to me that YOU are the one who is morally bankrupt. Listen folks, this “moral bankruptcy” B.S. is another way the Republicans are trying to shame people into abandoning Social Security. Why would they do this? Because the neo-conservatives can’t take Social Security down on its merits – they know that Social Security is a system that has helped many Americans and is admired by the American public. So they use the shame game (sorta like the blame game). Too bad Joe, the shame game just doesn’t work with me or a majortiy of Americans. Why doesn’t it work? Because Americans have seen Social Security work for the past 70 years.
September 22nd, 2005 at 11:34 pm“When you say SS has “reduced elderly poverty†are you comparing the poverty rates had the 12.4 cents of every dollar they earned been saved and invested?”
No I’m not comparing those 2 poverty rates Joe, because your example (the elderly save and invest 12.4 cents of every dollar earned) is a hypothetical one and one that DOES NOT compare apples to apples. First of all, Americans DO NOT pay 12.4 cents of every dollar for Social Security (unless they are self employed) – they pay 6.2 cents on the FIRST $90,000 OF EARNED INCOME (currently). So, you have made an incorrect comparison right off the bat by assuming that the elderly would have saved or invested 12.4 cents on EVERY dollar earned. Next, you make the incorrect assumption that, had their employer (who pays the other 6.2 cents of the Social Security tax for them) NOT had to pay this amount into Social Security, the employer would have given them this extra 6.2 cents on the dollar in their paychecks. That is a ridiculous assumption! If the employer is not obligated to pay half of the employee’s Social Security tax, there is NO GUARANTEE the employer would give this extra money back to the employee in the form of increased wages that could be saved and invested. What can be compared is the elderly poverty rate BEFORE and AFTER Social Security went into effect. If you look at those 2 numbers (an apples to apples comparison), you will find that the elderly poverty rate was reduced significantly after Social Security was instituted.
September 23rd, 2005 at 12:11 am“You’re not offended by the government rifling through the pockets of corpses?”
What offends me Joe is people(like Paris Hilton) who have not worked a day for the money they are inheriting, and then not having to pay a dime of taxes on it! Just think, no income taxes to pay (cause they didn’t earn the money) and no inheritance taxes either! Don’t we wish we could all have free money? And don’t give me any B.S. about removing the stepped up basis on inherited stock if the estate tax is eliminated. First of all, a lot of estates contain property and family businesses, not just stocks, and second, eliminating the stepped up basis on inherited stock will hurt those inheriting more modest amounts (like those currently under the estate tax exemption). The capital gains tax that will have to be paid by those folks will allow the tax burden to be shifted from the wealthy heirs to the middle class heirs. In addition, the loss of estate tax revenue makes the budget deficit bigger for everyone. Eliminating the estate tax is a golden goose for the Waltons (owners of Walmart) the Hiltons and the ultra-wealthy, but a rotten deal for the middle class and the taxpayers.
September 23rd, 2005 at 12:34 am“The fact that you talk about Iraq more than you do Social Security on a Social Security website pretty well discredits you.”
Don’t like my bringing up Iraq Joe? Too bad, cause I’m gonna continue bringing it up, especially when it exposes Bush’s pattern of lying to the American public. His pattern of lying about Iraq has carried over to his lying about Social Security. In addition, I will continue to remind people that had Bush NOT invaded Iraq (a country that was no threat to the U.S. and was not involved in 9/11) we would have about $250 billion extra dollars to put towards shoring up future Social Security shortfalls. If you think my describing these connections between Iraq and Social Security discredits me, that’s your problem. I will let others who read my posts decide whether they think I’m credible or not.
September 23rd, 2005 at 1:18 am“Perhaps you can point out the addition/subtraction error?”
This is from your post #395 (see the mistake in your “after personal accounts” ledger below:
Again, distributing the “trust fund†to individuals doesn’t change the debt situation at all:
Before personal accounts:
public debt = $5 trillion
trust fund? = $3 trillion
personal accounts = $0
total debt = $8 trillion
After personal accounts:
public debt = $8 trillion
trust fund? = $0
personal accounts = $3 trillion
total debt = $8 trillion
Joe, you must have learned math from the George Bush school of accounting. In the math classes I took, 8 trillion (public debt) plus 3 trillion (personal accounts) always equaled 11 trillion (total debt).
September 23rd, 2005 at 2:10 amAs far as your claim that switching that $3 trillion out of the trust fund and into personal accounts would not change the debt situation, don’t forget, Bush has said these accounts would be “optional” so not everyone would opt to have personal accounts. In your example above you have the ENTIRE $3 trillion dedicated to personal accounts. Also don’t forget, Bush has claimed that the elderly now receiving SS payments would NOT see a cut in benefits. So where are you gonna get the money to pay those SS benefits AND set up personal accounts? I’ll tell you where they are going to get it folks – they are going to get it from you! They are going to cut YOUR future Social Security benefits to pay for their privatization scheme. Also, to pay for today’s retirees nonreduced benefits, Bush will either have to take money out of general funds (robbing Peter to pay Paul) OR he will have to raise taxes or borrow the money. The ONLY way the debt would not increase is if Bush increased revenues (by raising taxes) or by cutting spending in the general fund. Now, lets suppose Bush decides to take the money from the general fund to pay for today’s retirees benefits. That means he will have to cutback some agency or department’s revenue. Which one do you think it will be? Homeland security? Doubtful. The Pentagon? Not as long as he continues that expensive war in Iraq. No folks, he will do what all good Republicans do – he will cut the programs that benefit the middle class (that’s you and me). Instead of keeping the estate tax and revoking his reckless tax cuts on those with high incomes, and using that revenue to pay for current and future SS benefits, Bush will cut veterans benefits (Congress has already proposed making veterans pay more for their healthcare), he will cut federally subsidized student loans that low and middle income kids use to help pay for college, etc. Don’t fall for it folks!
One final post before I sign off for today folks. Don’t believe it when the pro-privatization crowd tells you that Social Security is expensive, that it is a waste of money, that it’s not a good investment, etc. Investing in a social safety net like Social Security actually helps to save the taxpayers money in the long run. Let’s take the most recent example from Hurricane Katrina. If taxpayer dollars had been used to fund needed infrastructure repairs on the New Orleans levees instead of being spent over in Iraq, or spent on pork projects, or used to give someone a tax break, the American taxpayer would be spared the necessity of spending billions of dollars to rebuild New Orleans. The levees illustrate that decimating or neglecting the social safety net might save money in the short term, but costs us all in the long run. Having a strong safety net for all, SAVES money in the long run for all.
September 23rd, 2005 at 2:25 amBy the way Devin, if Bush’s privatization scheme is so good, why do a majority of Americans oppose changing Social Security?
Comment by Cindy — September 22, 2005 @ 11:14 pm
The same reason a majority of Americans carry balances on credit cards, finance car purchases, and don’t participate in their company’s 401K: Financial Illiteracy.
September 23rd, 2005 at 9:36 amMorally bankrupt Joe?
Comment by Cindy — September 22, 2005 @ 11:34 pm
Yes, a system that steals money from the young to give to the old, steals from black men to give to white women, steals from gays to give to heterosexuals, steals from the working class to give to the middle class, is immoral. A system that is hostile to personal responsibility and delayed gratification is immoral. A system specifically designed to keep people financially ignorant and dependent on the federal government for sustainence is MORALLY BANKRUPT!
September 23rd, 2005 at 9:41 am“No I’m not comparing those 2 poverty rates Joe,”
Of course you’re not, because an honest comparison would totally refute your conclusion. I’m sorry that the truth is inconvenient to your political goals.
“First of all, Americans DO NOT pay 12.4 cents of every dollar for Social Security…”
12.4 cents for every dollar these people earned went to SSA. If that money had gone to a private investment account very few of them would be dependent on SS today.
“NOT had to pay this amount into Social Security, the employer would have given them this extra 6.2 cents ”
Again, why not have the employer pay the full 12.4 percent and get SS for free?
September 23rd, 2005 at 9:47 am“and then not having to pay a dime of taxes on it!”
I specifically said that the cost basis for the asset should be inherited as well. So IF paris sells a business, for example, she would pay the taxes then. But why force the sale of a business and put people out of work just because one person dies?
“First of all, a lot of estates contain property and family businesses”
Property and businesses have cost basis too, not just stock.
But, generally, why can’t you leave people the F#@K alone? Why is it so important to you steal my money? or paris hilton’s money? or dead people’s money? Aren’t you a grown adult? Aren’t you capable of doing anything for yourself?
September 23rd, 2005 at 9:53 amDon’t like my bringing up Iraq Joe? Too bad, cause I’m gonna continue bringing it up…
Comment by Cindy — September 23, 2005 @ 1:18 am
Keep running your mouth about Iraq. It can only help my cause. If somebody can read your bizarre, irrational anti-war rants and then conclude that you’re the person they want to seek financial advice from, then there’s no helping them.
September 23rd, 2005 at 9:58 am“Joe, you must have learned math from the George Bush school of accounting.”
Then, you obviously have no idea what the difference between an asset and s liability is. The net debt remains the same. If my mortgage is $100K and I go borrow $50K in a home equity loan to buy $50K of stock I’m not suddenly $150K in debt.
Besides that, doesn’t the trust fund belong to them people? So let them have it. Parcel out the bonds in proportion to what each worker has paid in.
“So where are you gonna get the money to pay those SS benefits AND set up personal accounts? ”
There is SS surplus until 2017.
“The ONLY way the debt would not increase is if Bush increased revenues (by raising taxes) ”
Raising taxes is a cut in benefits! You’re paying more for the same thing.
“That means he will have to cutback some agency or department’s revenue. Which one do you think it will be?”
Bridges to nowhwere? million dollar outhouses? Prescription drug plan? The $27 billlion in pork in the transportation bill?
“Bush will cut …”
The federal budget has increased every year of his presidency. NOTHING has been cut. He also has never vetoed anything that congress has asked for they have gotten.
September 23rd, 2005 at 10:08 amLet’s take the most recent example from Hurricane Katrina. …
Comment by Cindy — September 23, 2005 @ 2:25 am
What a load of crap!
First, Lousiana had more ac of e money than any other state but they chose to spend it on pork instead of the levees.
Second, programs like SS are what kills personal responsibility and independence in this country. They create government dependence and persistent poverty. How many of the folks in NO would have had their own transportation if they weren’t made into helpless government waifs?
Third, do you really want the same government that couldn’t move school busses(now under water) to the astrodome before the storm, couldn’t stock 48 hrs worth of food and water, and approved and built residential housing below sea level between a lake and a river to be responsible for your financial future?
If you do, I guarantee that IF you ever get to retire, you’ll be just like those folks at the astrodome chanting “Help me! Help me! Help me! Help me!….”
September 23rd, 2005 at 10:21 amhttp://www.bahaisofsalem.org/wwwboard/messages/2959.html beganironrare
September 26th, 2005 at 5:22 amThis is all so wearying … The bottom line is simple. People who are against the OPTION of anyone investing their FICA contributions BY INDIVIDUAL CHOICE are either:
1. Too stupid, lazy, disinterested, confused, or otherwise impaired to understand the logic of the arguments
2. So rabidly anti-Bush that every suggestion, statement, or idea put forth by the current administration about anything at all no matter what it’s intent or merit (even if it was suggested in the recent past by such outstanding moral bastions of integrity and leadership as Clinton or Kerry) is to be bitterly fought tooth and nail until utter exhaustion / death
3. A firm believer that the main function of the government is to PROVIDE life liberty and happiness rather than PROTECT each citizen’s RIGHTS to FREELY PURSUE life liberty and happiness
Hey, I have issues with the current administration, the war, the increased visibilty and power of the right wing, many other things – the list is long.
But just because I have some issues with the current administration does not mean that I must take leave of my senses.
If you do not believe in yourself and your family enough to think that you can’t invest your money any better than the government, I think that’s sad, but that’s your choice.
Under the OPTIONAL privatization plan you DO NOT have to take that horrible risk of possibly earning less that 3.3% (even though a chimp throwing darts at random stocks will easily do much better than that). If you lack the desire, courage, intelligence, gumption, whatever, to try and beat that pathetically low rate of return, then please exercise your option to keep using the current system and kindly shut up.
Let me take my money and invest it as I see fit. Perhaps you will be entertained to see me lose it all, since I am so “mean and small-minded” for wanting better for myself and my family, even though I am not taking any benefits from anyone else and only risk hurting myself.
So if you hate conservatives for whatever reason, that’s cool, that’s freedom, that’s america. If you want to protest the war, call the president names, spread lies and misinformation on the internet, go for it, no one will try to stop you. If you think the “top 1%” are the source of the world’s evil, well, just go right on thinking that, it’s your right.
Even if I disagree with you, I would lay down my life to protect your right to your own opinions. But please, use some common sense, stop pretending the sky is falling, and open your minds to the idea that more freedom in deciding where your money goes with regards to your retirement is not necessarily the end of the world.
Do some research, even if it takes a little time. Crunch some numbers, even if it makes your head hurt. Above all, strive to form your own informed opinion. If you know nothing about investing, then yes, it’s very scary. But you know what? Despite all the market crashes (yes there will be more) people all over the world continue to invest every day of the week. Are they ALL complete idiots?
September 29th, 2005 at 3:57 pmdevice enlarging genetics size
October 6th, 2005 at 4:28 pmprosolution pill
October 10th, 2005 at 1:07 amlexington law firm.com
October 10th, 2005 at 4:49 amhttp://www.funkmotorsports.com/wwwboard/messages/98879.html currentmontgomerypause
October 20th, 2005 at 10:39 pmdaily keno
You may find it interesting to take a look at some relevant pages on kasino flashgrames
October 21st, 2005 at 8:53 amvigrx scam
October 26th, 2005 at 7:49 pmloan
Please take a look at some information on payday advance free credit report refinance
November 1st, 2005 at 8:00 pmpro solution pill member
November 2nd, 2005 at 6:16 amTalking much about oneself can also be a means to conceal oneself.
November 2nd, 2005 at 11:27 pm......
One begins to mistrust very clever people when they become embarrassed.
November 3rd, 2005 at 3:18 am......
is this a joke? Bushes plan may or may not work but privitization would. hows about everyone keeps their own money and invests it as they will. for instance I’d put it in my 401K (oh and by the way 13% of my check goes social security [that i'll never get]). even putting my money in a high intrest account would be better then this. Seniors say their benifits today aren’t enough in the first place so getting 85% of what your supposed to isn’t gon na cut it. If your sources weren’t all from the left i may have believed this though.
November 3rd, 2005 at 11:15 pmTalents.- In such a highly developed humanity as the present, each individual naturally has access to many talents. Each has an inborn talent, but only in a few is that degree of toughness, endurance, and energy born and trained that he really becomes a talent, becomes what he is,- that is, that he discharges it in works and actions. ......
November 3rd, 2005 at 11:16 pmHow Rhythm Beautifies.- Rhythm casts a veil over reality; it causes various artificiality’s of speech and obscurities of thought; by the shadow it throws upon thought it sometimes conceals it, and sometimes brings it into prominence. As shadow is necessary to beauty, so the “dull” is necessary to lucidity. Art makes the aspect of life endurable by throwing over it the veil of obscure thought. ......
November 7th, 2005 at 3:43 am“Yes, a system that steals money from the young to give to the old, steals from black men to give to white women, steals from gays to give to heterosexuals, steals from the working class to give to the middle class, is immoral. A system that is hostile to personal responsibility and delayed gratification is immoral. A system specifically designed to keep people financially ignorant and dependent on the federal government for sustainence is MORALLY BANKRUPT!”
Hate to disappoint you Joe, but I can see through the old “class, gender and racial warfare” game. Just don’t be a hypocrite and claim its only the Democrats that play this game! FYI folks, the conservatives pull this wedge crap all the time – just don’t fall for it! United (for Social Security) we stand, divided (by their playing us off one another) we fall.
November 7th, 2005 at 4:50 pm“is this a joke? Bushes plan may or may not work but privitization would. hows about everyone keeps their own money and invests it as they will. for instance I’d put it in my 401K (oh and by the way 13% of my check goes social security [that i’ll never get]). even putting my money in a high intrest account would be better then this. Seniors say their benifits today aren’t enough in the first place so getting 85% of what your supposed to isn’t gon na cut it. If your sources weren’t all from the left i may have believed this though. ”
If you are not sure that Bush’s plan may or may not work, then why support it? On the other hand Luther, we have 70 years of seeing Social Security work – U.S. elder poverty rates have declined from 50% (in the 1920’s and 30’s) to about 8% (in the 1990’s). These numbers are from the U.S. Census Bureau, check it out if you don’t believe me. In the preamble to the constitution Luther, there is a phrase that says the government should “provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare.” Social security is a safety net program that promotes the general welfare of society by making sure our citizens are not forced to live on welfare in their old age (or go to the poorhouse as was done many years ago). Not only has Social security kept a majority of elderly from destitution, it has also helped other American citizens – we don’t have to worry about paying for welfare benefits for the elderly because we know the majority have their Social security checks to help them in retirement. If you want to invest extra money for your retirement in the private sector, you can already do so through an IRA. So Luther, we already DO have privatization in this country in saving for retirement.
November 7th, 2005 at 5:07 pm“This is all so wearying … The bottom line is simple. People who are against the OPTION of anyone investing their FICA contributions BY INDIVIDUAL CHOICE are either:
1. Too stupid, lazy, disinterested, confused, or otherwise impaired to understand the logic of the arguments”
When the opponents of Social Security run out of arguments, they start name calling, like evil truth is doing.
November 7th, 2005 at 5:26 pmI don’t buy your “OPTIONAL” privatization arguments, evil truth, and I am neither lazy, disinterested, confused or otherwise impaired in my ability to understand the logic of the arguments you make. This is all so wearying to me too, because those of us who are against partially privatizating Social Security (such as myself) DO invest in a
403(b) plan at work, and DO have an IRA. I DO believe that people should invest money for retirement IN ADDITION to their Social Security. So why don’t I believe people should have the option to invest part of their Social Security tax money? Because Social Security is a SAFETY NET program (see my comments in the post above to Luther concerning “promote the general welfare”)and should be kept that way. Social Security IS NOT an investment program and should not become one. It is the “conservative” portion of your retirement that is not subject to the whims of the stock market. If you want to invest outside of your retirement plan at work (or if you don’t have a retirement plan at work) you can already do so through an IRA – you don’t need to do so through Social Security.
“Third, do you really want the same government that couldn’t move school busses(now under water) to the astrodome before the storm, couldn’t stock 48 hrs worth of food and water, and approved and built residential housing below sea level between a lake and a river to be responsible for your financial future?”
No Joe, and I don’t want the government of George Bush(vacationing and not watching the news or weather channel, denying that global warming causes hurricane intensity to increase, appointing an incompetent crony to head FEMA, voting against funding for levees, etc.) to tell me that privatizing Social Security will make it solvent and expect me to TRUST THEM and BELIEVE THEM.
November 7th, 2005 at 5:41 pm“Keep running your mouth about Iraq. It can only help my cause. If somebody can read your bizarre, irrational anti-war rants and then conclude that you’re the person they want to seek financial advice from, then there’s no helping them.”
What cause is that Joe? Trying to get folks on this site to buy into George Bush’s privatization “pig in a poke” scheme? I offer my comments as my personal opinion, NOT as financial advice to anyone.
November 7th, 2005 at 5:46 pm“The federal budget has increased every year of his presidency. NOTHING has been cut. He also has never vetoed anything that congress has asked for they have gotten.”
What you should have said Joe was that NOTHING that millionaires and corporations want has been cut from the budget by Bush. Corporate welfare/giveaways are thriving. However, student loan money(Pell grants) have been cut, money to pay for home heating fuel for the poor (the LIHEAP program) has been cut, etc. In other words, programs that benefit the poor or middle class have been cut – which is probably why you think nothing has been cut, because it hasn’t affected you.
November 7th, 2005 at 6:46 pmJust wanted to tell everyone that today (November 7) on the CNN money website, there is an article called “Tax reform: how would you fare?.” Bush appointed a commission to look into “simplyfying” the tax code (which is neo-con codetalk for shifting the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class). Everyone should read this article. The article compares what certain groups of taxpayers are paying now under the present system versus what they might pay under a so-called “simplified” tax system. If you look at the graphs accompanying the article, not surprisingly, the people who would see the largest tax DECREASES would be those who make $200,000 or over, while those who would see the largest tax INCREASES are those who make $30,000 – $75,000. In other words, Bush is looking to sock it to middle income taxpayers so he can eliminate the tax on dividends and eliminate the estate tax for a bunch of filthy rich millionaires like Paris Hilton. This is yet another reason why average Americans should NOT trust Bush with his Social Security privatization scheme.
November 7th, 2005 at 6:56 pmsizegenetics
November 7th, 2005 at 9:26 pm“Raising taxes is a cut in benefits!”
And Bush’s proposal to change from wage to price indexing in calculating Social Security benefits is a cut in benefits!
November 8th, 2005 at 4:29 pm“But, generally, why can’t you leave people the F#@K alone? Why is it so important to you steal my money? or paris hilton’s money? or dead people’s money? Aren’t you a grown adult? Aren’t you capable of doing anything for yourself?”
First of all Joe, nobody is stealing your money. If you don’t like the tax structure in this country, you are free to leave and go live in another country – nobody is stopping you. I know you won’t do that, because like most libertarians, you want the benefits and freedoms of this country, you just don’t want to pay for it. Second (and it amazes me that I have to actually explain this to some people) it is important to have a social safety net to provide for the common good and “promote the general welfare” as STATED IN THE PREAMBLE TO THE CONSTITUTION. This safety net is paid for by tax revenues, just like providing for the common defense is funded through tax dollars. We all fund the safety net, BECAUSE ALL AMERICANS BENEFIT FROM IT, whether directly or indirectly. This safety net is in place because American society values it – Americans realize it is important NOT to return to the days when the elderly were sent to the poorhouse, or to have large numbers of elderly on welfare. If you don’t value the safety net, that’s your problem. Finally, stop claiming that those of us who are against Social Security privatization are incapable of doing anything for ourselves and are stealing your money – I could rightfully claim that you, George Bush, the neo-cons and everyone who supports the Iraq war are stealing MY tax dollars!
November 8th, 2005 at 4:58 pm“By the way Devin, if Bush’s privatization scheme is so good, why do a majority of Americans oppose changing Social Security? The same reason a majority of Americans carry balances on credit cards, finance car purchases, and don’t participate in their company’s 401K: Financial Illiteracy.”
Way to go Joe! You will really get a lot of
November 8th, 2005 at 5:15 pmAmericans supporting your privatization scheme by calling them “financially illiterate.”
size genetics
November 9th, 2005 at 8:49 am“So where are you gonna get the money to pay those SS benefits AND set up personal accounts? â€
There is SS surplus until 2017.
It’s not bad enough that politicians have been stealing excess Social Security tax revenues for pork projects, now Bush wants to steal those excess revenues to fund his privatization scheme. Hey Joe, how about using the excess Social Security tax revenues to pay for promised Social Security benefits? What a novel idea that is – actually using the Social Security excess payroll tax revenue for the purpose for which it was intended!
November 9th, 2005 at 5:20 pm“Then, you obviously have no idea what the difference between an asset and s liability is. The net debt remains the same.”
If Bush doesn’t borrow the money to pay for privatization, then the ONLY way net debt remains the same is if Bush cuts promised Social Security benefits on all the rest of us or cuts some other programs to finance those private accounts. Bush and the privatization crowd are not fooling anyone – you don’t get something for nothing. Somebody’s gotta pay to finance those private accounts and if he’s not going to raise taxes or borrow from the Chinese and increase the national debt to do it, then he’s going to cut everyone else’s benefits to do it. Don’t fall for the “net debt remains the same” argument folks – it’s a bunch of B.S. Bush will rob Peter (that’s all of us that want SS to remain a social insurance/safety net program) to pay Paul (that’s the folks that want the private accounts).
November 9th, 2005 at 6:19 pmBuy carisprodol
Wooow! awesome! Write some more!
November 17th, 2005 at 9:04 amThe day’s first thought.- The best way to begin a day well is to think, on awakening, whether we cannot give pleasure during the day to at least one person. If this could become a substitute for the religious habit of prayer our fellow-men would benefit by the change. cipro clomid zyrtec prilosec plavix
November 17th, 2005 at 1:56 pmThe limits of human love.- A man who has declared that another is an idiot and a bad companion, is angry when the latter eventually proves himself to be otherwise. doxycycline klonopin cozaar biaxin ultracet
November 17th, 2005 at 6:06 pmsize genetics review
November 17th, 2005 at 9:31 pmPaid Surveys
Paid Surveys
November 22nd, 2005 at 11:42 amcurrency trading books
beholds broth deluded Winchell crashing seniors:lifeboat,day trader advisory http://www.realestatehotbuys.com/day-trader-advisory.html
November 23rd, 2005 at 9:16 pmprosolution review
November 27th, 2005 at 5:22 pmvigrx ingredient
November 28th, 2005 at 7:58 pmgenetics size
December 1st, 2005 at 12:54 amprosolution capsule
December 1st, 2005 at 2:20 amprosolution pill
December 1st, 2005 at 9:31 pmdirectv tivo remote control
December 1st, 2005 at 10:37 pmpill prosolution
December 2nd, 2005 at 11:22 pmInsurance I like your Site looks too good please visit my Car Insurance Rates
December 3rd, 2005 at 6:11 amInsurance I like your Site looks too good please visit my Car Insurance Rates
December 5th, 2005 at 11:15 amhttp://www.suomifutis.net/firnal/pantyhosesex/rnmfuo/lindas.html bucklingfotidly
December 7th, 2005 at 6:23 amsizegenetics review
December 9th, 2005 at 12:53 amHey folks, here’s a fine example of George Bush accounting. A few weeks ago, a “spending cut†bill was passed by Congress that trims $50 billion dollars from various programs that benefit the poor and middle class – things like reduced interest rates on student loans, etc. These spending cuts were proposed by Bush. So Bush is reducing the national debt right? Wrong!! Several days ago the House of Representatives passed a bill that would extend tax cuts on dividends and capital gains and inflation adjust the alternative minimum tax. This bill will cost the taxpayer $94 billion dollars. Add to that number the $14 billion dollars in tax subsidies (translation: corporate welfare) that was included in the transportation bill that passed last month and went mostly to George Bush’s Texas oil buddies and campaign contributors. Do the math folks – $50 billion in spending cuts and $108 billion in giveaways to the well-to-do and corporations. Only in the George Bush school of accounting can this be called “budget cutting.†So what should we do about this? The next time George Bush or some right winger whines about how the government can’t “afford†to pay Social security benefits, and how it’s bankrupting the country, we need to let them know loud and clear that, since they were able to “afford†extension of tax cuts and corporate subsidies for their friends, the government can damn well afford to pay all of us our promised Social Security benefits. In fact, I suggest we tell them right now. The compromise tax cut bill between the Senate and House has not been decided on, so write to your Senator (and to the White House) and let them know how you feel.
December 9th, 2005 at 1:38 pmBush would sell our souls if he could to the highest bidder or just a friend of the big business elite who would not need them just put them in a lock box and say it is for the good.
What the hell has America come to?
Republicans are killingthe government and America use to stand for someting you could be proud of.
Now Republicans say they are against big Government, when they should be saying they are for big business. thats the truth.
they dont care about religion unless it gets votes.
December 10th, 2005 at 3:49 pmClinton had a surplus and it was projected to go up.
December 10th, 2005 at 3:52 pmAll with a republican congress now we know it is the president who kills the defecit or surplus. Clinton was spending when it came due not selling our national forrests and country to the highest bidder, i.e. CHINA
Mortgage Cool site dude keep it up Mortgage Rate Calculator
December 11th, 2005 at 11:05 amsemenax sperm pill
December 17th, 2005 at 2:18 pmproenhance patch
December 18th, 2005 at 8:45 amenhance pro
December 18th, 2005 at 10:18 pmCollege Girl Again
Tomorrow I am starting my second semester of school. I only have 5 more classes until I get my associates degree. I’m starting to see the downhill of this portion at least. I’m going to go an hour early to get to the bookstore to see i…
December 19th, 2005 at 12:14 ambuy sonata
Check these: sonata time .
December 19th, 2005 at 5:50 pmacuzine
December 19th, 2005 at 7:27 pmmagna rx review
December 20th, 2005 at 3:59 amsizegenetics
December 20th, 2005 at 5:24 ambuy renova
Often buy renova fast!
December 21st, 2005 at 3:05 amxenical
Shall xenical.
December 21st, 2005 at 4:48 amcheap retin-a
No matter cheap retin-a?
December 22nd, 2005 at 2:49 amlexington law firm
December 23rd, 2005 at 3:32 amlending tree jobs
December 23rd, 2005 at 3:50 pmacne acuzine
December 23rd, 2005 at 7:37 pmbuy ionamin
In other words buy ionamin implied.
December 24th, 2005 at 9:08 amionamin
Please ionamin.
December 24th, 2005 at 9:11 amcheap ionamin
In additionfishhooks cheap ionamin pool.
December 24th, 2005 at 9:22 amproextender
December 25th, 2005 at 12:21 amacuzine does work
December 25th, 2005 at 12:35 amprosolution review
December 25th, 2005 at 1:17 amghfjffghgj
December 25th, 2005 at 4:01 amionamin
Those ionamin?
December 25th, 2005 at 4:21 amCheerio cheery, perfectly, I ll necessarily recommend this site to friends This theme is interesting to me, and also very important in work. Your site became my constant satellite! I would like very much to thank you personally, but not having such opportunity and allow myself to leave a note in your guest book!
December 25th, 2005 at 4:52 amhttp://www.liketelevision.com/web1/movies/jimmys/beastiality/pegs/bestialitythumbsfree.html astonishedsportteenagers
December 26th, 2005 at 1:48 amxenical
Viewed as xenical rundown?
December 26th, 2005 at 3:07 amprosolution pill
December 26th, 2005 at 3:10 amsonata
That is thefold sonata royale.
December 26th, 2005 at 9:57 amrenova
Comegame renova?
December 26th, 2005 at 8:42 pmlonamin
Call lonamin no!
December 27th, 2005 at 1:35 amretin-a
That’s retin-a stakes?
December 27th, 2005 at 2:37 amsizegenetics device
December 27th, 2005 at 4:56 ammale to female breast enlargement
December 27th, 2005 at 6:46 pmproenhance
December 28th, 2005 at 9:03 pmdirectv superfan
December 29th, 2005 at 2:49 amsonata
Note thatstakes sonata house!
December 29th, 2005 at 5:26 pmsize genetics review
December 30th, 2005 at 1:52 amwhere to buy vigrx
December 30th, 2005 at 3:15 amxenical
Respectfully xenical nuts?
December 30th, 2005 at 9:31 amionamin
Whomtilt ionamin!
December 30th, 2005 at 6:08 pmprosolution pill
December 31st, 2005 at 3:46 amgreen tree lending company
December 31st, 2005 at 9:51 pmproenhance patch
January 1st, 2006 at 2:15 ammagna no rx weighting
January 1st, 2006 at 4:13 amhttp://mestikl.nerdcamp.net/pee-movies/3289311/dutch_men_piss.html agentmanhoodragged
January 1st, 2006 at 9:04 pmhttp://mestikl.nerdcamp.net/pee-movies/3289311/dutch_men_piss.html agentmanhoodragged
January 1st, 2006 at 9:05 pmhttp://mestikl.nerdcamp.net/pee-movies/3289311/dutch_men_piss.html agentmanhoodragged
January 1st, 2006 at 9:05 pmcheap semenax
January 2nd, 2006 at 9:58 amvaniqa
Take vaniqa eight!
January 2nd, 2006 at 10:10 pmsonata
Viewed asno sonata value?
January 3rd, 2006 at 4:16 amproenhance
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:07 pmacne acuzine treatment
January 4th, 2006 at 2:07 ampro solution pill review
January 4th, 2006 at 4:07 amVery useful website. There ate lots of useful information. I like it very much. It is so great. I`ll try to visit it more often. sting and very informative, nice interface. Enjoyed browsing through the site. Keep up the good work.
January 4th, 2006 at 3:29 pmxenical
At therolled xenical carribean!
January 4th, 2006 at 5:46 pmvigrx
January 5th, 2006 at 4:22 amdoes magna rx really work
January 6th, 2006 at 3:49 amattorney justin law lexington morgan r
January 7th, 2006 at 2:38 amvigrx scam
January 7th, 2006 at 11:24 ampill prosolution
January 8th, 2006 at 1:26 amI like this site! Thanks for admin! Love your site! The site is intereEnjoyed reading your site, just passing by and saw your site. Really nice!
January 8th, 2006 at 9:44 amacuzine review
January 8th, 2006 at 1:30 pm888…
Welcomefish 888? …
January 8th, 2006 at 7:11 pmmagna magnarx pill rx
January 8th, 2006 at 7:44 pmSuch a cozy place to visit! Nice site! Keep it running! Nice and well-visited site! Keep up the good work.
January 8th, 2006 at 8:53 pmdevice sizegenetics
January 8th, 2006 at 9:24 pmvegas sports bet…
……
January 9th, 2006 at 7:42 amRedscowl Bluesingsky contest begins…
Well this is my first post on my entry in the Redscowl Bluesingsky contest. I think it will be pretty tough to compete in google for Redscowl Bluesingsky but I will give it a decent effort. Of course using a wordpress 2.0 stock template shows I am no…..
January 11th, 2006 at 12:28 amsizegenetics review
January 11th, 2006 at 5:31 pmlending tree opinion
January 13th, 2006 at 2:33 amget vigrx
January 13th, 2006 at 8:26 ampro solution pill review
January 15th, 2006 at 4:44 amfast size extender
January 16th, 2006 at 1:57 amart info…
blah
……
January 16th, 2006 at 3:34 amguide lending shop tree
January 16th, 2006 at 5:00 pmlexington law office
January 16th, 2006 at 8:13 pmproextender system
January 17th, 2006 at 5:28 amsizegenetics
January 18th, 2006 at 6:20 pm[...] Think Progress ” How to Talk to a Conservative About Social Security (If You Must) [...]
April 3rd, 2006 at 4:43 pmReally nice site !
April 18th, 2006 at 3:45 pm[URL]http://www.calendario.livvagt.info[/URL] [URL]http://www.gazzetta.livvagt.info[/URL] [URL]http://www.buffon.muntean.info[/URL] [URL]http://www.easyjet.muntean.info[/URL] [URL]http://www.foto.jovensnacionalistes.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.danni.jovensnacionalistes.org[/URL]
August 25th, 2006 at 2:52 pm[URL]http://www.guidehorse.info[/URL] [URL]http://www.cellulari.comrare.info[/URL] [URL]http://www.ferrari.guidehorse.info[/URL] [URL]http://www.intendersela.info[/URL] [URL]http://www.comrare.info[/URL] [URL]http://www.sesso.intendersela.info[/URL]
September 3rd, 2006 at 12:51 pm[...] Social Security and you are talking to a Conservative, here is a handy dandy guide to the TRUTH about the Shrub’s plan to once again, undermine the American people:http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=206 back to top [...]
September 7th, 2006 at 7:26 amgrotokoli 94 post
all about grotokoli and top news
March 21st, 2008 at 1:45 amny mover
Well spoken. I have to research more on this as it is really vital info.
March 29th, 2008 at 5:11 pmBest contract phone deals
some of the greates contract phone deals for anyone to find, jim says that your blog has great deals
April 11th, 2008 at 11:19 amItsamobiles
Itsamobiles
April 11th, 2008 at 11:19 amBest contract phone deals
some of the greates contract phone deals for anyone to find, jim says that your blog has great deals
April 11th, 2008 at 11:19 amItsamobiles
Itsamobiles
April 11th, 2008 at 11:19 amtakeabreak bingo
takeabreak bingo
April 11th, 2008 at 8:18 pmtakeabreak bingo
takeabreak bingo
April 11th, 2008 at 8:18 pmcheap caribbean
cheap caribbean
April 11th, 2008 at 9:51 pmtenerife holiday
tenerife holiday
April 11th, 2008 at 9:51 pmjamaica holiday
jamaica holiday
April 11th, 2008 at 9:51 pmspain holiday
spain holiday
April 11th, 2008 at 9:51 pmmajorca holiday
majorca holiday
April 11th, 2008 at 9:51 pmlanzarote holiday
lanzarote holiday
April 11th, 2008 at 9:51 pmholiday caribbean
holiday caribbean
April 11th, 2008 at 9:51 pmibiza holiday
ibiza holiday
April 11th, 2008 at 9:51 pm2008 cheap holiday
2008 cheap holiday
April 11th, 2008 at 9:51 pmcaribbean vacation package
caribbean vacation package
April 11th, 2008 at 9:51 pmmallorca holiday
mallorca holiday
April 11th, 2008 at 9:52 pmflorida holiday
florida holiday
April 11th, 2008 at 9:53 pm2004 cyprus holiday villa
2004 cyprus holiday villa
April 11th, 2008 at 9:53 pm100pp package holidays greece
100pp package holidays greece
April 11th, 2008 at 9:54 pmbarbados holiday
barbados holiday
April 11th, 2008 at 9:54 pmbenidorm holiday
benidorm holiday
April 11th, 2008 at 9:55 pmski holiday
ski holiday
April 11th, 2008 at 9:56 pmrhodes holiday
rhodes holiday
April 11th, 2008 at 10:03 pmholiday deal
holiday deal
April 11th, 2008 at 10:11 pmzante holiday
zante holiday
April 11th, 2008 at 11:00 pmContract Phone Deals
Contract Phone Deals
April 12th, 2008 at 12:18 pmContract Phone Deals
Contract Phone Deals
April 12th, 2008 at 12:18 pmga bingo
ga bingo
April 12th, 2008 at 6:14 pmga bingo
ga bingo
April 12th, 2008 at 6:14 pmliverpool daily bingo
liverpool daily bingo
April 13th, 2008 at 1:11 amliverpool daily bingo
liverpool daily bingo
April 13th, 2008 at 1:11 amfree bingo caller
free bingo caller
April 13th, 2008 at 1:11 amfree bingo caller
free bingo caller
April 13th, 2008 at 1:11 amparty bingocom
party bingocom
April 13th, 2008 at 1:11 aminternet bingo
internet bingo
April 13th, 2008 at 1:36 aminternet bingo
internet bingo
April 13th, 2008 at 1:36 ambingo phrases
bingo phrases
April 13th, 2008 at 1:43 amfree bingo for real cash and prizes
free bingo for real cash and prizes
April 13th, 2008 at 1:44 amcasino bingo
casino bingo
April 13th, 2008 at 1:44 amfree bingo for real cash and prizes
free bingo for real cash and prizes
April 13th, 2008 at 1:44 ambingo hall
bingo hall
April 13th, 2008 at 1:44 ambingo bonus free signup
bingo bonus free signup
April 13th, 2008 at 1:44 amonline sun bingo
online sun bingo
April 13th, 2008 at 1:44 ambingo bonus free signup
bingo bonus free signup
April 13th, 2008 at 1:44 amplay free bingo win cash money
play free bingo win cash money
April 13th, 2008 at 1:46 amplay free bingo win cash money
play free bingo win cash money
April 13th, 2008 at 1:46 amtakeaway mecca bingo 468×60
takeaway mecca bingo 468×60
April 13th, 2008 at 1:47 amtakeaway mecca bingo 468×60
takeaway mecca bingo 468×60
April 13th, 2008 at 1:47 amcaribbean holiday
caribbean holiday
April 13th, 2008 at 2:51 amholiday tenerife
holiday tenerife
April 13th, 2008 at 2:51 ammallorca holidays
mallorca holidays
April 13th, 2008 at 2:51 amholiday florida
holiday florida
April 13th, 2008 at 2:51 amholidays majorca spain
holidays majorca spain
April 13th, 2008 at 2:51 ambenidorm holidays
benidorm holidays
April 13th, 2008 at 2:51 amcheap royal caribbean cruise
cheap royal caribbean cruise
April 13th, 2008 at 2:51 am2005 cyprus holiday
2005 cyprus holiday
April 13th, 2008 at 2:51 amholiday spain
holiday spain
April 13th, 2008 at 2:51 am2007 holidays greece
2007 holidays greece
April 13th, 2008 at 2:52 amholiday ibiza
holiday ibiza
April 13th, 2008 at 2:52 amlanzarote holidays
lanzarote holidays
April 13th, 2008 at 2:53 amabroad cheap christmas holiday
abroad cheap christmas holiday
April 13th, 2008 at 2:53 amholiday barbados
holiday barbados
April 13th, 2008 at 2:54 amcaribbean package vacation
caribbean package vacation
April 13th, 2008 at 3:37 amjamaica package holidays
jamaica package holidays
April 13th, 2008 at 3:37 ambingo film
bingo film
April 13th, 2008 at 4:07 ambingo film
bingo film
April 13th, 2008 at 4:07 amlate holiday deal
late holiday deal
April 13th, 2008 at 4:36 amcheap ski holidays
cheap ski holidays
April 13th, 2008 at 4:36 amrhodes holidays
rhodes holidays
April 13th, 2008 at 4:36 amzante holidays
zante holidays
April 13th, 2008 at 6:57 amSamsung Mobile Phones
Samsung Mobile Phones
April 13th, 2008 at 12:27 pmfree sign money play bingo no deposit
free sign money play bingo no deposit
April 14th, 2008 at 12:17 ambingo bonus money register cards det
bingo bonus money register cards det
April 14th, 2008 at 12:18 amparty bingocouk
party bingocouk
April 14th, 2008 at 12:18 am10 free bingo
10 free bingo
April 14th, 2008 at 12:18 amparty bingocouk
party bingocouk
April 14th, 2008 at 12:18 amfree internet bingo
free internet bingo
April 14th, 2008 at 12:19 ambingo picture play
bingo picture play
April 14th, 2008 at 12:19 amgagla bingo
gagla bingo
April 14th, 2008 at 12:19 ambingo hall bingo halls
bingo hall bingo halls
April 14th, 2008 at 12:19 amliverpool echo bingo
liverpool echo bingo
April 14th, 2008 at 12:20 amfree bingo calling software
free bingo calling software
April 14th, 2008 at 12:20 amliverpool echo bingo
liverpool echo bingo
April 14th, 2008 at 12:20 amfree bingo calling software
free bingo calling software
April 14th, 2008 at 12:20 amcasino bingo black jack poker
casino bingo black jack poker
April 14th, 2008 at 12:22 ambingo cash free play prize real
bingo cash free play prize real
April 14th, 2008 at 12:27 ambingo cash free play prize real
bingo cash free play prize real
April 14th, 2008 at 12:27 ambingo flash games
bingo flash games
April 14th, 2008 at 4:52 ambingo flash games
bingo flash games
April 14th, 2008 at 4:52 amcheap holidays barbados
cheap holidays barbados
April 14th, 2008 at 11:13 amholidays lanzarote canary islands
holidays lanzarote canary islands
April 14th, 2008 at 11:13 amholidays tenerife canary islands
holidays tenerife canary islands
April 14th, 2008 at 11:13 amspain holidays
spain holidays
April 14th, 2008 at 11:13 amholiday majorca
holiday majorca
April 14th, 2008 at 11:14 am4×4 holidays greece
4×4 holidays greece
April 14th, 2008 at 11:14 amcheap holiday ibiza
cheap holiday ibiza
April 14th, 2008 at 11:14 amlast minute caribbean holiday
last minute caribbean holiday
April 14th, 2008 at 11:14 amtea rooms bingo
tea rooms bingo
April 14th, 2008 at 11:14 amtea rooms bingo
tea rooms bingo
April 14th, 2008 at 11:14 amholidays mallorca spain
holidays mallorca spain
April 14th, 2008 at 11:14 amabroad cheap holiday
abroad cheap holiday
April 14th, 2008 at 11:15 am5 day holiday cyprus
5 day holiday cyprus
April 14th, 2008 at 11:16 amflorida holiday villa
florida holiday villa
April 14th, 2008 at 11:21 amholidays benidorm
holidays benidorm
April 14th, 2008 at 12:05 pmcheap caribbean cruise
cheap caribbean cruise
April 14th, 2008 at 12:05 pmcalifornia real estate in carlsbad
california real estate in carlsbad
August 16th, 2008 at 11:11 pmCasino 4959e91088…
Casino 4959e91088…
December 30th, 2008 at 2:02 pmCasino 1232437806…
Casino 1232437806…
January 20th, 2009 at 2:29 amCasino 1232569157…
Casino 1232569157…
January 21st, 2009 at 7:33 pmlexus air suspension…
I could not find any difference between Lexus and Toyota besides the logo. Everything is… same company but you have to pay more for the Lexus logo. And Lexus probably offers…
April 22nd, 2009 at 6:00 pm