Treasury Secretary ready to privatize Social Security.
By on Aug 2nd, 2006 at 1:58 pm
Treasury Secretary ready to privatize Social Security.
New Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson “said Tuesday that he won’t shy from the fight” to privatize Social Security. In his first speech since taking office last month, Paulson claimed Bush’s privatization plan — which would sharply cut guaranteed benefits — would “strengthen and modernize Social Security.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Hannity
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Maddow
McCain
Media
Military
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Sharply cutting benefits for needy people is what conservatives are all about.
August 2nd, 2006 at 2:07 pmGo ahead Republicans, step on that third rail of government and do it before the November elections. Have the balls to put out your agenda, then watch that locomotive pancake you.
August 2nd, 2006 at 2:08 pmPaulson is not off to a good start. The following is a flat out, bald-faced LIE! The privatization plan will “strengthen and modernize Social Security.”
C’mon Think Progress! The plain is not about cutting benefits. It is about gutting the program entirely.
August 2nd, 2006 at 2:12 pmYessir! Let’s keep that privatization scheme right out there in front; let’s do all we can to make it appear that those old people don’t need anything more from the rest of us.
August 2nd, 2006 at 2:14 pmThat many old people rely on SS for the majority of their income is irrelevant; they can get their monthly stipend from a corporation who has donated to Bush&Co and then everyone will be happy!
Reduce those benefits – those people don’t contribute to society anyway.
It’s the corporate friends of Congress who really need the additional source of income.
Can we get Cheney and his friends to draft the new 2006 version of the scheme and the revised wording of it in secret – after all his energy scheme was so successful in 2001.
Majority Whip Blunt: If I Stay In Charge, Congress Won’t ‘Do Anything Beneficial’ On Social Security.
August 2nd, 2006 at 2:19 pmAh, but for the days of Al Gore and his lockbox. How many billions are they taking out of Social Security every year? Yes, let them announce their plan before the elections.
August 2nd, 2006 at 2:21 pmSeniors familiar with the prescription drug plan are solidly behind these types of programs that use the best out of corporate services (instead of government), market forces to keep prices low and government assistance (government pays).
Seniors now see that the Republican approach to serve the public is better than any government administered and controlled program could ever be.
August 2nd, 2006 at 2:28 pmThe neocon plan (including some of the current SSA trustees) is to make social security (and unemployment if they can) a stock market benefit program, completely removing the government’s responsiblity (except the the fees to oversee it). This is nothing more than “the latest new plan” to eliminate social security as a government support program. The repubs in congress know that bush will not be harmed and most of their supporters have short memories so now is the chance to screw America and let bush take the blame.
August 2nd, 2006 at 2:35 pmSeniors now see that the Republican approach to serve the public is better than any government administered and controlled program could ever be.
Comment by Jason M. Hendle
Jason, please cite your info on this please. I’m a pharmacist, and have seen nothing but confusion, contempt, distrust among most seniors regarding the new Medicare D drug plan. Recently, at a trade show in Las Vegas, were thousands of fellow phramacist who also so the same “disgust” with the government’s drug plan. And as being a pharmacist that had to deal with Mediacare D plan, it was a total and complete failure from the onset.
By the way, when you hear the % of seniors enrolled in “D”, please remember that more than 60% were automatically enrolled due to dual eligible (Medicaid and Medicare)…they had no choice.
So please, unless you are in the trenches dealing with this mess (like doctors, pharmacist, office staff, senior citizens), don’t paint such a wonderful picture for your administration.
August 2nd, 2006 at 2:36 pmI repeat, Medicare D is a faliure
More AARP votes for Democrats.
“Iraq is [only] in a “low level” civil war” -Senator Byron Dorgan
August 2nd, 2006 at 2:36 pm#9, DRxJ,
I cite an article that progs posted on the dailyKermit (Kos’ bug eyes remind me of a frog) warning not to run against Medicare D, because seniors are solidly behind it. For you to state otherwise just shows your political bias, but don’t let me talk you out of something the dailyKermit advises you not to do – by all means, dive in.
August 2nd, 2006 at 2:39 pmphramacist who also so
that shouild read “pharmacist who also saw”
August 2nd, 2006 at 2:39 pmdang, I’m typing too fast
Guess what, everyone? On a whim, I went and checked out the NY Times online version and I found out their firewall is down again.
Hmm… Think a hacker got sick and tired of it? Inquiring minds want to know.
So if there’s a firewalled article that you haven’t read, yet, go get ‘em before they put the wall back up. This applies to all online editions of the Times.
August 2nd, 2006 at 2:41 pmAh yes! Liberals love to have the government pick your wallets! Are you people just plain stupid? I would much rather have control of what I put away for retirement than trust the government with my money. When it comes down it, isn’t social security just another tax that the government imposes on us? At least someone has the guts to fix this democratic created mess!
August 2nd, 2006 at 2:42 pmMy political bias has nothing to do with it. I’ve been in the trenches, I’ve dealt with D, it is a failure. Do me one favor, call any pharmacist , ask them if D is a godsend. Or call a medical office, and ask them, the hours the spend with Medicare D plans for one client, is a hit
August 2nd, 2006 at 2:42 pmTypical spoiled pharmacist. Medicare D isn’t supposed to be a God Send for you or the doctors, it is intended to offset costs that seniors have for their presriptions. So just because you have to do a little more work to help out a senior citizen, you are going to piss and moan, when you make 6 figures every year working a white collar job? Puh-leez!
August 2nd, 2006 at 2:45 pmMoreover, as long as seniors are getting their prescription costs offset, it can NOT be a failure.
August 2nd, 2006 at 2:47 pmDRxJ – I remember reading something recently about seniors discovering that once they reach a certain level in benefits (which is not very much) they have to pay $2,850 out of pocket before the government bemefits kick in again. Are you seeing customers with this issue?
Our government should be ashamed of what they do to our elders!!
August 2nd, 2006 at 2:48 pmIn other news, it appears that Bush has recently granted himself even more power:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/51140
(Worth a laugh/read!)
August 2nd, 2006 at 2:49 pmGrandpa Seth
also knows the SS will be grossly underfunded because we can’t tax the Chinese.
Grandpa Seth, you keep fighting that good fight, champ.
August 2nd, 2006 at 2:50 pmjules, yes….this is called a donut hole. they pay 100% out of pocket. this was in their contract when they started up. Unfortunately, with all the confusion, and haste to sign up, this was forgotten or unknown. It is a huge surprise to some
August 2nd, 2006 at 2:50 pmOnce again, Jason M. Hendler is totally mistaken.
August 2nd, 2006 at 2:51 pmHe apparently gets his information from the RNC and/or Fox news.
Yes, keep trying to work people up over the “donut hole”, even though the dailyKermit warns you not to. Seniors know how much they have saved already, so even if coverage lapses for a time, they KNOW they are still ahead.
August 2nd, 2006 at 2:52 pm#12 DRXJ Thank you for your input. It is nice to see someones opinion on this other than the corrupt Republicans. As handoff is wet beyond the ears hasn’t experence life yet. He does not know what he is talking about.
We need more professional people speaking out. When the Dems take over both House in November the Republican won’t be able to change social Sercurity. It is only a give away to the stock market.
August 2nd, 2006 at 2:54 pmDRxJ – I remember reading something recently about seniors discovering that once they reach a certain level in benefits (which is not very much) they have to pay $2,850 out of pocket before the government bemefits kick in again. Are you seeing customers with this issue?
Our government should be ashamed of what they do to our elders!!
Comment by jules
This has been reported in the press as the “donut hole”. Why is it that our congress-critters can’t write straight forward legislation. Even my parents (both quite intelligent) were confused by this Plan D crap. I’d suggest that a national health care plan (straight forward plan) would do everyone some good. There are some things that can be done in “bulk” (via the government) – and this is one of those things.
Of course, given the current administrations spending on needless wars, there isn’t much left of our current tax dollars to do much else. 300Bn could have done quit a bit if spent on our own citizens. I’d rather my tax dollars be used to help other people in THIS country and not be spent on a needless mess in the middle-east. But, that’s just me.
August 2nd, 2006 at 2:56 pmThank you Mary (hey, tis better than being called “spoiled” and “pissing and moaning”) Believe it or not, more pharmacist are becoming involved politically, and recently, after Bush stated that pharmacist make way too much money (not true , by the way), I see definite lean to the left!
August 2nd, 2006 at 2:58 pmCertainly it is the wealthy who are able to “put away” enough $$ to cover their needs in retirement… the rest of us need a little help.
August 2nd, 2006 at 2:58 pmWidows who depended on their husbands for income and health insurance are only a small segment of those who were never able to earn enough to salt away a hundred grand. If they get sick, well they may just be SOL.
Disabled, young children are also another component to be accounted.
And, to those who think they have put away enough for their own future, when the dollar loses value, will you still think you have enough?
The selfishness of those who have plenty is astonishing.
It’s the typical “I got mine, you can go get your own.” That’s their version of the American way.
Mr. Hendler, could you please explain to me why being dependent on private capitalists, i.e., the market is more beneficial to people than government provision of particular programs and services?
August 2nd, 2006 at 2:58 pmthe other thing Mr. Hendler fails to mention, is this social security plan was tried in both the UK, and in Chile, both with disastrous results. The UK is currently spending millions to switch back to the old system, while Chile has had zero retirement funding for the people who did place thier money into the system.
August 2nd, 2006 at 2:59 pmI believe that i can manage my money and retirement much better than some liberal beauracrat moron in washinton. what have you leftards got against privatizing some if not all of socialist security? Hey It’s MY money not the government’s.
August 2nd, 2006 at 2:59 pmif I keep my money under my control it takes control away from liberals who would love to steal my money for more of their ridiculous and useless “programs”.
I am tired of these big brother governement programs that steal my money and until they stop illegal aliens from free healthcare and getting social security benefits while not even being US citizens then I am all for privatization of SS.
Yes, Tim, your normal senior eligible for D was totally confused. What made matters worse, was the fact that they would be penalized if they didn’t sign up.
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:01 pmJason,
“I cite an article that progs posted …”
Not good enough. Links please. Without them, this is just more Iraqi WMDs.
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:01 pm#31. Mr. Goober, illegal aliens as you call them do not receive Social Security because they do not have valid Social Security numbers. However, many pay into the system using someone else’s number. They are a net gain to the system, not a drain. Duh!
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:02 pm#32, not 31. Sorry.
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:03 pmHey moron, the beauracrats in Washington are republicans. Idiot.
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:03 pmThank god the conservatives would rather have a big brother government that monitors all phone calls, and bank statements. A big brother government, that will instead snatch you up as an enemy combatant, and hold you for years without charges in some third world shit hole. A big brother government, that will talk big about protecting the American people while doing nothing to secure our borders. A big brother government, that will use the flimsiest excuse to attack an oil rich country, while ignoring the piles of evidence concerning global warming. A big brother government that is more concerned about bringing about the rapture, the solving the problems facing our country. Yup good thing those neato republicans are in charge. Imaging where we would be if Al Gore had been (s)elected.
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:05 pm#30, Jeff,
If someone places their money into tangible assets, as opposed to empty promises, they are always ahead. It’s not depending on capatilists, its having an equity stake in the country’s assets.
#31, Krazny,
Privatization would be similar to existing 401K plans, but with more / better choices. Those programs aren’t having any problems.
#33, DrxJ,
It’s your job as service provider to understand the system and provide the service to seniors. If they are confused, it is because you aren’t doing your cushy job.
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:06 pm#38, krazny,
Yes, the government should monitor things for fraud, etc., but they should not run things, because they are terribly inefficient, and moreover, would add people to the government worker union rolls, who just funnel tax dollars straight into Democratic campaigns.
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:08 pmI have to call Bullshit on that Mr. Hendler. Privatization is a sheme to transfer money to wall street. It has zero good impact for the American people. It has failed in the UK and Chile the places it was tried. Please read up on it a bit.
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:09 pmThank you, Jason, you’ve given me a great laugh. Now the confused seniors can blame their pharmacist. HA HA.
Don’t blame the govenment for the mess, blame the providers.
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:10 pmJason, you are the king of diversion
Mr. Hendler, you did not come anywhere close to answering my question. What issue did you address?
Also, what are you calling an “empty promise?”
I almost hate to tell you this, but a bond is not a tangible asset. Buying a bond is lending someone money. Do you want to rethink your position?
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:10 pmLOL too funny that one. And you accuse liberals of using tinfoil hats.
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:10 pm#32 IHL I got news for you. I don’t want my taxpayers money spend on an illegal war in Iraq. I think we should take care the American citizens not countries we never heard of
What will happen to the seniors that put money into SS? I don’t trust the current corrupt Admin.
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:11 pm#33
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:12 pmWhat made matters worse, was the fact that they would be penalized if they didn’t sign up.
THAT is exactly why so many seniors signed up – coercion. And by this summer, many are hitting the “donut hole” where they continue to pay premiums without any discount on their Rx costs.
Your arguments are helpful to all who read TP, with the exception of the brainwashed trolls, who believe Bush&Co.
#42, DR,
Yes, you are laughing all the way to the bank – try not to be too hard on all those “confused” seniors in your air conditioned office.
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:13 pm#46, Marie,
If it weren’t for Med D, seniors would pay for everything, not just some momentary lapse in coverage. Seniors get this, even if you don’t, which is why dailyKermit wants you to hold your tongue.
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:15 pm#38 Krazny
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:15 pmGreat retort.
Like Privitization has succeeded in saving money by having Halliburton run things instead of the government.
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:16 pmIf a person had invested all their money in Enron what they do in their retirement? Social Security is suppose to be there irreguardless of various stupidities. Like what if all your money was invested with a Republican mutual fund and the manager ran off to Bermuda with the proceeds?
Yes, Tim, your normal senior eligible for D was totally confused. What made matters worse, was the fact that they would be penalized if they didn’t sign up.
Comment by DRxJ
That’s the scary point – that they’d be penalized for not signing up to a convoluted “plan”. I really do wonder who writes these pieces of legislation. Basic Social Security has withstood the test of time but the administration wants to destroy that as well. And it’s ironic that a simple bill to increase the minimum wage had to have this tax giveaway to the uber-wealthy attached.
I don’t know if it’s a party thing – but given that the current admistration and republican party have control over everything, they are the ones at fault. I don’t think any of them have worked a hard day in their lives.
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:18 pmHendler, you are so stupid, you are unbelievable.
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:19 pmSeniors were DROPPED from their private-pay insurance programs through their former employers because Medicare D was pushed through congress. People were coerced into signing because if they didn’t they would be penalized with higher premiums. Their private pay programs allowed for cheaper Rx purchases, Medicare D does not.
You must be about 19 years old and living in your parent’s basement for all the knowledge you think you have.
I have worked in the medical field, I have worked in pharmacies, I have dealt with aiding seniors – I know a helluva lot more than you do on this and BTW, DRxJ is correct.
Try stepping outside for fresh air to clear your head and drink a tall glass of ice water — the Kool-aid has poisoned your mind.
Didn’t this Paulson dude just leave Goldman or some other big name investment company to take this job as Sec? Hm…just the market getting by with a little help from a friend!!
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:23 pm#38
As scary as it sounds, if Al Gore had been elected president, we still would have been attacked, our response would not have been the declaration of the “War on Terror”, we would still be paying high taxes, the economy would be in the dumper, we would have had an even more liberal Supreme Court. I could go on and on but you get the picture. I want the government to protect us for foreign and domestic threats, not steal our money. Get it?
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:23 pmwas listening to franken, guest jonathon alter… his latest newsweek article is particularly important to this discussion… in part, and i’ll have to give away the ending also:
‘The Putting of First Things First’
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:24 pmThe revival of the romance of the antiwar left is a potential disaster for the Democrats. It’s what gave the world Richard Nixon in 1968
…
But there’s something psychologically deeper going on in this campaign that is both understandable and depressing—a cannibalistic distraction from what should be the top priority of Democrats, namely booting Republicans. The same Democrats who are justifiably angry with Lieberman for not holding Bush accountable are harming efforts to, well, hold Bush accountable.
…
But if the blogs aren’t a force on the ground, they are becoming a powerful factor in directing the passions (and pocketbooks) of far-flung Democratic activists. They’re helping fuel a collective version of what shrinks call “projection,†where the anger of Democrats at Bush is projected on a handy target, in this case Lieberman. But in doing so, they have neglected what FDR called “the putting of first things first.†Job one for Democrats is identifying which Republican House incumbents are vulnerable in their own states and directing all available energy against them. Savaging fellow Democrats (except those who cannot win) should come after taking control, not before.
The challenge facing voters this year is not to hold Democrats accountable for their heresies but Republicans accountable for where they have taken the country. They are the ones in power…
Halliburton is NOT Enron, no matter how many times you try to link the two. Haliburton DOES save the government money by providing services to the military that doesn’t require a trained soldier. Enron created commodity markets for things not previously viewed as tradeable commodities. Halliburton is a solid investment, because they are an excellent provider to a government customer with long term contracts.
Aside, the tangible assets I recommend are government backed bonds (so gov borrows money from us, not China / Japan / Germany), utilities / energy companies, real estate / mortgages, etc. – things with real assets to back them up.
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:24 pmGrandpa Seth, how are you able to know with certainty what would have happened if?
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:25 pmYeah Jason Haliburton is just the greatest….you drinking that water they are giving our soldiers? I did not think so!
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:26 pmGrandpa Seth,
as long as the only issue you will vote on is taxes you and this country are lost. Get over your wallet. there is so much more, then if the government is taking 20% or 22% get it?
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:27 pmMr. Hendler, be fair. Respectfully, you are demonstrating with each response that you do not have a clue what you are talking about. Stop now! The hole is deep enough!
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:27 pm#55, katy,
Dems have a poor choice – Republicans, or Democrats who vote along with Republicans that Raum Emanuel (lapdog of Hill’reh) selects. Bottom line – you lose either way.
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:27 pmTo those who think the Chile system failed. There has been a temporary lull due to flaws that relied on the person contributing wholly to the system. They did not have an employer contribution like our SS system has. This is currently being remedied. After the SS change in Chile, unemployment dropped significantly, productivity increased, and even the mediocre gains Chile is making in the growth of these funds is outperforming the old system. Chile actually owes less as a %GDP to current beneficiaries even with their current problems than they did under their old system.
I agree with people here on several issues, but this I have to disagree with most here. This is truly a progressive change versus the regressive system we have now. It’s all about a belief in the strength of the US economy. It’s also about being safe and secure in your personal effects…including your retirement. I think I would feel better about retirement with this system in place rather than SS.
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:27 pmThe whole point of “privatization” is bogus – handing over programs to “for-profit” companies isn’t going to solve anything – if there’s an efficiency issue with government programs, examine those issues and fix them. Once again, given the billions spent on Iraq – what do we have? Nada. Of course, spending hundreds of millions on an “embassy” in a country we weren’t going to occupy is a small clue.
I’d suggest cutting the salaries of our congress critters to a nominal 50K/yr and give them a housing and staff allowance. Make lobbying illegal (paying for access is like taking bribes), and trim the bloat in the defense (aka war) department.
Also, re-write the tax code so that it’s fair across the board – no perks, no special deductions.
But, neither party will do that.
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:27 pm#62
Seems Krazny is just leaning on old talking points. He should go live in Cuba if he likes communism so much.
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:30 pmMike P,
the system in the UK failed, and they are currently in the process of dismantling the privitization effort, at a cost of millions of dollars.
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:30 pmJason has mentioned a column on DailyKos several times that supports privatization. How about providing a direct link?
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:31 pmOh boy!
There was not and is not a declaration of war on anything.
Not sure what country you live in, but my taxes are the same if not higher now.
Yes, the economy is fantastic.
Then you must really hate the current adminstration.
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:31 pmJason, look at all the job opportunities for you: advisor to senior citizens, soldier, progressive campaign strategist. My, my, how could we ever survive without the benefit of your intellectual prowess and great experience. I hear you are also an inventor – but I already knew that, you invent your omniscient self on TP quite regularly.
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:32 pmSeniors now see that the Republican approach to serve the public is better than any government administered and controlled program could ever be.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler
Guess you forgot about the ‘donut hole’
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:32 pmThe complete lack of coverage for drug spending between $2251 and $5100 is often called Medicare’s “donut hole” by Washington analysts and lawmakers. …
http://www.webmd.com/content/article/88/99741
==
The GOP has been fiscally irresponsible in nearly every thing they have done, from Halliburton to Custer Battles to Limos and Pedophiles to Bush war fought on emergency supplements..
Mr. Hendler, who is leaning on talking points? go live in cuba if i like communism. LOL sorry man I like my job, my car, and what I can afford to buy. dislikes include right wing wackos, and lice, though it is a toss up on which on is worse. If the privatization systems in the UK and chile worked prove me wrong. Find the articles that tell of what a smashing success each system has been.
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:33 pmThe GOP has been fiscally irresponsible in nearly every thing they have done, from Halliburton to Custer Battles to Limos and Pedophiles to Bush war fought on emergency supplements..
Comment by Magnetic Poet
Yup – but if you watch Fox News, it’s all Clinton’s fault. Republicans feed on the massive amounts of money which are fed into their coffers – and they’re oh so worried about the “little guy” with their “death tax repeal legislation”. Oh well.
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:38 pm#54 Grandpa Seth If Al Gore was in office the Republican wouldn’t be passing these a** hole laws to give tax breaks to the rich , corporate welfare. The only reason we are in Iraq is for OIL, OIL, OIL. Bush does not give a D** about the American people. If you don’t give to the Republican Party you are noning to them. It is not the Dems stealing the money it is the corrupt Republicans.
I would take my chances with Al Gore. In November the Dems will take over both Houses and We can start investigating Old Bushies and his Admin.
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:38 pm#70
If you don’t want to privitize social security, then what exactly is your plan to save it? Raise taxes? Remove the ceilings on income so the people with higher incomes get even less a return on the money they dump into this loser? The bottom line is that something must be done or those paying into the system now will not have anything when they retire.
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:40 pmAs scary as it sounds, with George Bush elected president, we were attacked, our response was to attack someone else, everybody but the super rich are paying higher state and local taxes to make up for federal cuts, we are paying higher fuel and other costs that are much more than the token tax cut to the middle class, and we have an executive branch that tries to legislate from the Oval Office. I could go on and on but you get the picture. I want the government to protect us all from true foreign threats and from domestic threats such as poverty, disease, catastrophic illness, calamatous weather, not steal our freedoms. Get it?
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:42 pmA lot of those Halliburton employees are trained soldiers who have been lured out of the service with the promise of huge salaries and full protection. Body armor, armored Humvees, really high tech night vision aids, light but powerful weapons, etcetera.
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:42 pmGee Randy maybe George W. Bush and all of his republican cronies should forfeit their incomes until all the money they stole has been returned to Social Security. I don’t have a full answe to be honest. It would require a fair bit of research to determine the best and fairest course of action. I am not against changing SS. However the plan the administration wants to implement is not a change. It is a thinly veiled attempt to destroy the program.
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:45 pmCan anyone tell me what they find unattractive about Cato’s 6.2 Percent Solution? I think it sounds reasonable. I wanna hear what likely detractors think.
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:47 pmMr. Randy, #73. Your position is not supported by the facts. If RGDP growth for the next 75 years is anywhere near the average RGDP growth over the last 75 years, Social Security will always be able to pay full benefits to everyone.
I challenge you to dispute that statement of fact.
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:48 pmI would need far more information then what they present there chase. a single paragraph, with no explanation, doesn’t do it for me.
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:49 pmMr. Chase, if the problem of Social Security is that it is “running out of money,” the solution is hardly to take more money away from the system through “proftization.” Get it? My neighbor says that is just common sense!
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:49 pmKrazny,
Your side has always been against reforming social security. Why can’t you admit that? You want to rob from the rich to give to the poor so you can maintain your power base and voters. In recent years though, this strategy hasn’t worked so well since more and more Americans have moved up to the middle class and you have to search for “new” victoms that will listen to your nonsense. Thats what makes the illegal immigrants so attractive to democrats isn’t it? Well, its not going to work though.
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:51 pmLast time I looked at the Privitization Scheme, it seemed more like a welfare program for mutal fund managers. A person’s money would have to go into one of these mutual funds. They couldn’t take it out. The government wouldn’t guarentee the funds would not lose money, and a person wouldn’t have any choice over how they withdrew it.
Is this the same SS privitization scheme or a different one.
I think I was the one who mentioned Haliburton and Enron in the same paragraph. Haliburton was an example of corruption and mismanagement and Enron an example of complete corporate collapse. i hope I did not confuse anyone.
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:52 pmThe theft continues….
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:53 pmAs scary as it sounds, if Al Gore had been elected president, we still would have been attacked, blah, blah, blah… – - Yeah, make the 2000 election a hindsight Hobson’s Choice and Bush has done no wrong to this point. Pfffffft.
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:53 pmWow Randy listen to Dogma much. Geez dude try to think for yourself a bit.
P.S. I like that you got what 4 or 5 talking points into one paragraph. I am sure Rush would be proud.
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:54 pm#82 – Skeptic,
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:55 pmOnly the class idiot.
Man I think we should privitize our government. How much money could we save if we outsourced the executive, legislative and judicail branches to India. think about we could pay them $4.00 an hour.
August 2nd, 2006 at 4:00 pmPaulson claimed Bush’s privatization plan — which would sharply cut guaranteed benefits — would “strengthen and modernize Social Security.â€
With the refusal to raise the minimum wage, tax cuts for the rich, stripped bankruptcy assistance, corporate giveaways, etc. I see the “modernize” part of his statement but I don’t get the “strengthen” part.
August 2nd, 2006 at 4:01 pmthe republicans plan to cut and run on social security.
August 2nd, 2006 at 4:08 pm#78 – If you follow the link, there is a link to the full proposal (in PDF format) at the bottom. In fact, I’ll link to it here.
August 2nd, 2006 at 4:11 pmWhoops, I mean #79 – Krazny.
August 2nd, 2006 at 4:12 pmThanks, I saw the link after I posted sorry for going off half-cocked.
August 2nd, 2006 at 4:12 pmAgain, most private corporations can’t even keep an honest set of books nowadays, and you think I am giving my retirement to the Republican friends of Republicans and let them piss it away, F*uck NO! The trust has already been gutted, and this is a last ditch effort by the Republicans to cover that up.
August 2nd, 2006 at 4:15 pmI also want my 27,000 dollars back that I have already paid into the system.
August 2nd, 2006 at 4:16 pmI am sure the proposal is sound, I am sure the ideas are sound, I am sure it would work ok if the rules are followed. BUT, what do I have to go on that tells me all that money will be handled wisely and no one will get greedy with it?
August 2nd, 2006 at 4:18 pm#95 - what do I have to go on that tells me all that money will be handled wisely and no one will get greedy with it?
This is a problem unique to private industry? Hardly! At the very least, with competing plans available, those with a record of failure, mismanagement and loss would decline and eventually cease to exist for lack of enrollment.
Under the current system, there is no penalty for government mismanagement, no “better” alternative to select from.
August 2nd, 2006 at 4:34 pmSeniors were DROPPED from their private-pay insurance programs through their former employers because Medicare D was pushed through congress. People were coerced into signing because if they didn’t they would be penalized with higher premiums. Their private pay programs allowed for cheaper Rx purchases, Medicare D does not.
You must be about 19 years old and living in your parent’s basement for all the knowledge you think you have.
I have worked in the medical field, I have worked in pharmacies, I have dealt with aiding seniors – I know a helluva lot more than you do on this and BTW, DRxJ is correct.
Try stepping outside for fresh air to clear your head and drink a tall glass of ice water — the Kool-aid has poisoned your mind.
Comment by Marie — August 2, 2006
——————-
Slam dunk,Marie!
But of course,Hendler won’t/can’t recognize it as such.
Also,thanks for the informed imput,DRxJ.
August 2nd, 2006 at 4:38 pmI want the government to protect us for foreign and domestic threats, not steal our money. Get it?
Comment by Grandpa Seth
August 2nd, 2006 at 4:40 pm—————–
Oh,you’re easy to “get”.
#96
August 2nd, 2006 at 4:42 pmAnd what recourse would people have if an Enron happened to say 10 million accounts. What would happen to our economy then. Talk about market turmoil and consumer panic.
what do I have to go on that tells me all that money will be handled wisely and no one will get greedy with it? Comment by For Truth
Mismanagement is only one problem with privatization, albeit a large one. Management itself, even if “good”, is a problem. Privatization means someone is going to make a profit in the management, reducing the amount of money available for distribution through not only the cost of management (which is currently about 3%) plus a profit margin (which would have to be at minimum 10% for any private firm to consider it worthwhile).
At the very least, with competing plans available, those with a record of failure, mismanagement and loss would decline and eventually cease to exist for lack of enrollment. Comment by Chase
And what happens to the those whose contributions were the “loss”? That’s a major problem with privatization – it takes the issue as one of investing for retirement, rather than insuring for one.
We need to keep Social Security solvent with some tweaking as has been done in the past. We should also find ways to make it easier for middle to lower economic class people to be able to invest for their retirement in more traditional plans.
August 2nd, 2006 at 4:47 pm#99 – An Enron? What does that mean in this context?
August 2nd, 2006 at 4:55 pm101 Chase
August 2nd, 2006 at 4:57 pmCome on, don’t play dumb on us.
#56 Jason M. Hendler
Haliburton DOES save the government money by providing services to the military that doesn’t require a trained soldier.
Jason, some days you seem almost lucid. This isn’t one of them. How is it Halliburton is saving money when they pay a truckdriver six figures to drive an empty oil tanker back and forth, fraudulently collecting taxpayers’ dollars for pretending to deliver fuel, while troops making in the low five figures have to drive along in a convoy with them? I’m sure Halliburton can cut costs by substituting unfiltered Tigris River water for uncontaminated water that our troops (Remember? Support the troops?) were using to wash their hands, shower, brush their teeth, and make coffee. But, I’m guessing that the cost savings didn’t get passed on to the taxpayers. Did Halliburton save us money when they overcharged the government $61 million for gasoline and $67 million for cafeteria services? In all, over $1 billion dollars in overcharges that we know about so far.
You cannot defend Halliburton. This is waste, fraud, and abuse at its absolute worst. Thank you for helping to make the case against privatization for us.
August 2nd, 2006 at 4:59 pm#7 Jason MH; If you really believe that seniors are grateful to the GOP plans, I like you to meet some seniors I know-including my folks. They will rip you a new asshole .No f*cking shit.
August 2nd, 2006 at 5:00 pmThe fix for SS is relatively simple and painless.
August 2nd, 2006 at 5:00 pmRemove the tax cap. All money earned is subject to the 6+% tax, no cap at 96,000.
The Congress dictates the interest rate paid by the government to the fund when it “borrows” from the SS. Raise that rate by 1/4 of a pct and it will provide solvency for the fund for its lifetime. This is per Congressman Jay Inslee, who knows a little about what is going on here, this shell game called “take our money and run”
He will have to privitize my future Social Security benefits over my dead body > the entire GOP can go screw themselves to death!
August 2nd, 2006 at 5:02 pm#100 – I’m certain you didn’t read the Cato proposal I provided above. Both issues are addressed, at length.
It worth noting here, for the sake of reiteration, that merely “tweaking” the system as we have done in the past will not suffice – there are fundamental problems with the PAYGO system that cannot be corrected with minor “tweaks”. As the both the number of beneficiaries increases and the average length of time drawing benefits increases, the strain on workers becomes unbearable. Just look at the diminishing ratio of workers per beneficiary. No tweaking will solve that.
Unless we are willing to accept greatly reduced benefits or greatly increased taxes, the system is need of bedrock reform.
Sure, there are risks associated with private retirement accounts (though they are being greatly exaggerated in this thread), but the risk of not adequately addressing the coming collapse is much, much greater.
August 2nd, 2006 at 5:03 pm#70 Krazny: The reichwing wackos are worse. At least with lice you can get rid of them with bug juice.
August 2nd, 2006 at 5:09 pm#56 You couldn’t be more wrong (wronger?) if you tried. I was in the military way back when we had our own transports MOS 600’s and our own cooks (MOS 500s). The chow wasn’t bad and the transports got us where we needed to go, On a PFC and SGT pay!
August 2nd, 2006 at 5:09 pmThe privatization of the armed forces is a freaking disaster, as witnessed by our troops in Iraq. There are some things that are better done without the “help” of private industry, building roads, providing for the common defense…
Social security benefits help stop the poor becoming thiefs, and let the rich keep their wealth,
looks like crime will go up feeding more fear and murders, robberies,
what a nation
August 2nd, 2006 at 5:09 pmAt last, #105 RUC has the answer
August 2nd, 2006 at 5:10 pmSomething we have been advocating for a long time. TAX all earned income with the FICA tax.
Remove the $96000 cap. When it comes time to pay out benefits to everyone, the payments will be made from a math table, with payments capped at a certain amount, with a maximum monthly benefit of, say $5000/month. People who earned enough to be off the scale in benefit payments have sufficient alternative income to support their lifestyle. Everyone else can live on $60000/year income with COLA increases without hardship. This is a simplified plan, but with tweaking, it could work.
#111 – Wait, so you would support eliminating the cap on payments in but you would institute a cap on benefits?
August 2nd, 2006 at 5:12 pmChase,
You are wrong. Social Security has faced similar diminishing ratio of worker to beneficiaries in the past and adjustments took care of it. There just needs to be a political will. Look, the ratio of worker to beneficiary was 0 worker to millions of beneficiaries when Social Security was first introduced. And privatization would make the ratio worse by removing future workers from the system, meaning the government would have to pay the remaining portion to insure current workers get their money.
There can be plenty of options to fix IF THERE IS THE POLITICAL WILL. I am more interested in that political will than I am in any details. Simply put, the Republicans want to dismantle the most successful, Democrat-initiated government program in order to begin eliminating all government social programs. They have a 0% solution and that’s my focus.
August 2nd, 2006 at 5:13 pmDon’t misread that into my advocating $60M/year for everyone. People would still get benefits according to what they earned in their lifetimes — only the wealthy would be capped at the $60M.
August 2nd, 2006 at 5:13 pm#111,
August 2nd, 2006 at 5:14 pmIn a word – yes.
Chase;
August 2nd, 2006 at 5:18 pmCato is having a rosy colored look at the economy. Its assuming that every person investing will at least make more than inflation. It makes people very vulnerable. The two countries that have tried similiar stunts are Britian and Chile. Chile at least has been a horrible failure, while the British have decided to scrap their plan also.
Why do you think we will do better than Chile.
You are right that Social Security problems needs to be addressed. The plan 10 years ago was to accumulate a surplus for the baby boom retirement, reduce some benefits, encourage everyone to work longer and so try to make Social Security get over that hurdle. At the moment the Social Security crisis is not yet here. There is time to consider all ideas carefully without having to jump into the same problem Chile faced.
Its very scary that some people are going to rely only on SS in the future, but the pension schemes are at risk, and 401 and IRAs benefit mainly the fairly well off. Its hard for people with families or who are not well paid to utilize them. I do dump money in 401K but I make enough that I don’t worry about food, or rent or car repairs.
I trust both Bush and Corporate America and I trust them with my future. HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAH
August 2nd, 2006 at 5:19 pmHHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHHA ,just take my SS to Vegas
Well Marie, I’m pretty sure that proposal’s a non-starter. Not only is it politically untenable, it’s economically unwise.
August 2nd, 2006 at 5:19 pm#101 Chase
August 2nd, 2006 at 5:23 pmCome on, don’t play dumb on us.
- – He’s not playing. That’s the problem.
#111 – Most folks can live on $60,000 a year from SS, as they will have at least a modest 401k income as well. Mr. Inslee’s data indicated that there wouldn’t need to be a cap on benefits with the cap removal and increase in interest rate. One note he mentioned was that the taxpayers in general pick up the tab for repayment of the fund, so setting the interest rate slightly higher is like a tax increase. The answer? Don’t borrow the freakin money! Would provide more of a disincentive for government to raid the fund.
August 2nd, 2006 at 5:24 pmChase, here’s a rebuttal to your Cato arguments
http://economistsview.blogspot.com/2005/04/debunking-daily-debunker.html
Basically they argue that privatization will not result in solvency, even the administration concedes that. …”and there is the matter of the 6.5 trillion transition cost that is conveniently ignored in Cato’s analysis. The proposal achieves solvency by cutting benefits, not through privatization (there is another version of the proposal which also achieves solvency by cutting benefits).”
#114 – Look, the ratio of worker to beneficiary was 0 worker to millions of beneficiaries when Social Security was first introduced.
Actually, it was the exact other way around. It took three years until the first monthly payments began.
I am more interested in that political will than I am in any details.
This fact is painfully obviously. This is a issue where the “details” matter.
PLC, please read the Cato report. It’s a good read.
August 2nd, 2006 at 5:26 pm9/11 untruths could be criminal – report
THE 10-member commission that investigated the US response to the September 11 attacks considered seeking a criminal probe of the Pentagon, believing it had deliberately misled the panel and the public, The Washington Post reported today.
August 2nd, 2006 at 5:30 pm#121 – I’ve read the report, have you any comment on the rebuttal I just offered?
August 2nd, 2006 at 5:30 pmRuCerious; Chase;
August 2nd, 2006 at 5:40 pmThanks for the links to Cato Institute and the debunking article.
I will have to look at both carefully.
121
Actually, it was the exact other way around
You’re right, but my “detail” still stands.
This is a issue where the “details†matter. PLC, please read the Cato report. It’s a good read.
August 2nd, 2006 at 5:44 pmI skimmed it, but it’s based on a philosophy of Social Security as a poor investment program and getting people out of that system, rather than attempting to fix any actuary-based issues to maintain it as an insurance program. So, the “details” don’t matter anymore than wondering about how many angels can dance on the end of a pin. Again, I offer that the philosophy and values are the most important starting point. Smarter and more experience people than me in financial matters can get the “details” once we have the political will and value to maintain Social Security.
Chase,
Here is an article on Social Security and private accouns for you:
Are private accounts really a good idea? The short answer is, they could be — but only if Americans are willing to wait several generations for the higher returns to make up for Social Security’s expected shortfall. The gap is so large — $3.7 trillion in today’s dollars — that even if the stock market matched its historical average, private accounts wouldn’t fill the gap for something like 90 to 100 years. And that doesn’t even count the extra $1 trillion to $2 trillion in transition costs required to set up such accounts.[...]
August 2nd, 2006 at 5:47 pmIndeed, today’s 20-year-olds would see their promised benefit cut nearly in half, leaving them a check equal to just 15% of their annual income when they retire.
BusinessWeek – Social Security: Are private accounts a good idea?
Here’s another good piece from msnbc
August 2nd, 2006 at 5:50 pmhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6827519/
And another one:
President Bush has good reasons for creating a system that puts tight restrictions on private accounts. [...]
August 2nd, 2006 at 5:50 pmIf people can invest in anything they want, many will make stupid choices, go broke, and end up requiring help from the government. [...]
The problem isn’t the restrictions on ownership in the Bush plan. It’s the false billing, which is aimed at drumming up support from a skeptical public.
BusinessWeek – Whose Social Security Stash Is It?
(Don’t let President Bush’s sales pitch throw you. Money you put into a private account won’t really be yours in the way your paycheck is)
It sure seems to this “detail-challenged” person that 1-2 trillion dollars would probably fix any solvency problems in the current Social Security system due to the baby boomers retirement. If maintaining it was the goal. That’s the political will I’m talking about.
August 2nd, 2006 at 5:51 pmDailyKermit wrote an article advising Dems not to run against the Medicare D plan, because there is solid support for that plan among the beneficiaries. Confusing “donut” rage rants won’t sway those who saved some money that they otherwise would have spent.
This is a type of approach that would work for SS – basically, choice in providers / services that suit your situation, administered by private service providers, not the government – save, save, save ….
August 2nd, 2006 at 5:52 pmGot to this post a bit late – but this one really stood out assinine:
#7
Seniors familiar with the prescription drug plan are solidly behind these types of programs that use the best out of corporate services (instead of government), market forces to keep prices low and government assistance (government pays).
Seniors now see that the Republican approach to serve the public is better than any government administered and controlled program could ever be.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — August 2, 2006 @ 2:28 pm
Hey Jason – take a look at this:
(From the Boston Globe)
“Seniors lash out at new Medicare program”
By Jeffrey Krasner, Globe Staff | January 4, 2006
Are you telling me that “seniors familiar with the prescription drug plan” have gone from “lashing out at the new Medicare program” to being “solidly behind it” in just 7 months?
I get it … you just threw that piece of meat out there to work us into a “frenzy,” …
right?
Like “shark chum” …
I guess it worked – so very clever …
You, in return, have bankrupted your reputation as a competent thinker.
And that is being kind – because this is just a matter of being aware of current events.
Thanks for the joke, Prankster.
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2006/01/04/seniors_lash_out_at_new_medicare_program/
August 2nd, 2006 at 5:53 pm#127, bluedog and krazny,
That argument doesn’t work on Americans, because we aren’t a 2nd or 3rd world nation, so we would do it right.
August 2nd, 2006 at 5:53 pmDailyKermit wrote an article advising Dems not to run against the Medicare D plan
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — August 2, 2006 @ 5:52 pm
Links please…
August 2nd, 2006 at 5:54 pm#132, truimph,
Yes, seniors might have griped when they didn’t understand how the program worked, and griped that they were given a deadline, but now that they are in it, and seeing the savings, they are solidly behind the program, so say the dailyKermit, who advises you not to run against this program, because seniors will believe their own eyes, and not what’s dribbling out of your lips.
August 2nd, 2006 at 5:55 pmChase, which of the following statements best fit your philosophy and goal for Social Security:
1. Social security is an insurance policy managed by government to protect the social fabric of America by providing a safety net against abject poverty in old age and to operate efficiently, effectively, and safely must cover all Americans and its monies be kept separate from the general fund.
2. Social security is a retirement program managed by government to grow wealth for Americans at the greatest rate possible and to maximize return must be subject to general investment market forces.
August 2nd, 2006 at 5:59 pm#131 Jason M. Hendler
DailyKermit wrote an article advising Dems not to run against the Medicare D plan, because there is solid support for that plan among the beneficiaries. Confusing “donut†rage rants won’t sway those who saved some money that they otherwise would have spent.
Oh no. If it was in the DailyKos, I must obey.
Geez, who cares what it said there. I don’t think anyone here takes their marching orders from DailyKos. As far as I’m concerned, it might as well be called Bi-WeeklyKos, because that’s about how often I read anything there. You’re not saying who wrote it, and I’m not going to go looking for it to find out, but anyone can write what they want there (unlike most right-wing blogs). It doesn’t make it policy.
Besides, if you really thought it was a bad move politically for Dems to talk about the donut hole, why would you be warning them against it?
August 2nd, 2006 at 6:01 pmAnd another!
August 2nd, 2006 at 6:02 pmAll this is stating is that removing the tax break that is represented by the cap will provide a good portion of what is needed for solvency for 75 years.
I also think raising the retirement age to 67, then gradually to 70 as we live longer also makes sense. I am 57, and do not plan on retiring until I’m about 70.
Ooops http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=691977
August 2nd, 2006 at 6:02 pmSorry, forgot the link!
#142
Stop, Bluedog49! You mustn’t talk about the donut hole. Didn’t you see Jason’s warning? The Dems will lose the election if they talk about the donut hole. Everyone loves their Medicare D plan. You’ll only make them mad.
August 2nd, 2006 at 6:06 pmSure lets dump all that money into the stock market… its not like the market managers will suddenly find it a nice time to just sell sell sell now will it? Gambling on the stock market does NOT equal Social Security… 1929 anyone?
August 2nd, 2006 at 6:08 pmBritian has a stable government and sophisticated laws and newspapers and media and an established banking and business community. If it can’t do something succesfully its quite likely we can’t do it either.
August 2nd, 2006 at 6:11 pmMy wife and I each make above the cap and I would not be opposed to raising or eliminating the cap. As life expectancy and health increase, it makes sense to raise the age at which you can draw full benefits providing there are provisions for those with catastrophic situations can draw benefits earlier. Again, the “details” are not as important as the will and values behind them. I want to live in a society that takes care of its less fortunate AND I’m willing to pay for it. Neocons want to live in a society where they are more fortunate and want OTHERS to pay for it. That’s the moral values we need to stress in campaigns.
August 2nd, 2006 at 6:11 pmstock market = crap shoot
Social Security = insurance
Big difference.
August 2nd, 2006 at 6:12 pm#148 Here, here!
August 2nd, 2006 at 6:12 pm#
#127, bluedog and krazny,
That argument doesn’t work on Americans, because we aren’t a 2nd or 3rd world nation, so we would do it right.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — August 2, 2006 @ 5:53 pm
didn’t realize the UK was a 3rd world country.
August 2nd, 2006 at 6:15 pmWell, no response from Chase to my post at 136. Nice thing about these new fangled computer machines – they got themselves electronic cutting and saving mechanisms so I can holt onto my question for Chase for another opportune time. Time to mosey outta here in a few minutes.
August 2nd, 2006 at 6:23 pmGotta go. Thanks to Bluedog49, RUCerious, Krazny, jimb, Skeptic, Gerald Gibson, Gregor Samsa, Marie, and anyone I might have missed, especially the “detail” orientated progressives. This thread was dynamic, civil, progressive to the nth degree, and a fantastic model for how our politicians should be addressing the progressive value system.
August 2nd, 2006 at 6:29 pmI can put it into perspective – I am over 65 and have private insurance through my employee retirement plan. If I had been one of those unfortunate enough to have Medicaid as well as Medicare, I would have been forced into Medicare Plan D and had to have paid about $5500 in combined premium and drug costs for my spouse and myself. It looks like the current year, under private insurance, will hit me with about $1800 in total costs for the two of us, drugs plus premiums. One difference is that the insurers negotiate prices with drug manufacturers; Medicare D does not, by law.
August 2nd, 2006 at 6:37 pm#135
“Dribbling out of my mouth, huh?”
Here is some more stuff that is “dribbling out of my mouth” for you to chew on -
I have no opinion of “Daily Kos” either way – only glanced at it once or twice. I would tell Kos – and you – that we don’t need to run against Medicare because we can run against:
Bush and his decisions re: the Iraq War
The indicted Mr.Libby and the Valerie Plame/Joe Wilson affair
The bogus State of the Union speech
The Jack Abramoff scandal
The incompetent Katrina response
The “Duke” Cunningham scandal
The retired general’s disgust with Donald Rumsfeld’s incompetence
The possibility of vote tampering in Ohio
Tom Delay’s unethical behavior
The lack of the Bush Administration’s willingness to have a serious discussion about global warming or climate change
And the peripheral issues like, no outrage over Ann Coulter’s 9/11 widow comments.
There, chew on those “dribblings” for awhile. Should take you awhile.
Ewww – some more dribblings … I am reading on Yahoo that Rep. Katherine Harris received a grand jury subpoena from federal investigators – but she kept it hjidden from her top advisers, prompting several staff members to quit when they found out …
Dribble …. dribble …
Alright, Jason – enough.
Let’s make up and be friends.
What are your thoughts on Universal Health Coverage?
I don’t really read Daily Kos either. I don’t
August 2nd, 2006 at 7:00 pm#156
Nevermind the last sentence “I don’t really read Daily Kos either. I don’t …”
Bad editing.
August 2nd, 2006 at 7:05 pmThe reason Bushco wants to re-do the way social security is handled is to hide, or try to hide, the fact that every quarter when the payments are made into the fund, Bushco takes it out and puts the money into their own personal fund.
The reason social security is in bad shape is because of GEORGE W. BUSH, and he, and Paulson, and Rove know it.
Bush has robbed social security to the tune of over 200 billion in the past five years.
August 2nd, 2006 at 7:36 pmI trust both Bush and Corporate America and I trust them with my future. HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAH
HHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHHA ,just take my SS to Vegas
Comment by John
August 2nd, 2006 at 7:58 pm————-
Hey John,you left out the-GASP-at the end of the prolonged laughter. I agree,btw.
stock market = crap shoot
Social Security = insurance
Big difference.
Comment by jimb
—————
Agree.
The stock market has always struck me as a twisted system.Thirty-thousand employees get laid-off,and the stock-holders cheer.
August 2nd, 2006 at 8:09 pmWhat’s wrong with this picture?
#140 – The retirement age is already on the move, as well it should be considering that life expectancy is on the move as well.
#143 – Have you not read the economic arguments against raising or eliminating the tax cap?
#158 – What’s frightening about your post is that you probably really believe what you wrote.
August 2nd, 2006 at 10:14 pm#120 – Finally got around to reading the “Economist View” lukewarm rebuttal of Cato’s plan. Well, for starters, they only mention the actual “6.2 Percent Solution” that Cato advocates. So, in essence, the rebuttal doesn’t really take into account the full proposal – it debunks a debunk report issued by Cato (follow that? :-) )
What’s most disappointing part of the post is the lack of substantive rebuttal. For instance:
In reality, the “6.2 Percent Solution” does advocate a reduction of benefits during a transition period. But the real meat of their plan is privatization, the tiered transition from Social Security to private retirement accounts.
Side note: I know I seem like a staunch Cato advocate. The truth is, I’m open to any reform plan that adequately and completely addresses the Social Security situation. Cato just happens to have the best solution I’ve seen thus far.
August 2nd, 2006 at 10:35 pmCato just happens to have the best solution I’ve seen thus far.
Comment by Chase — August 2, 2006 @ 10:35 pm
Did you read the links to BusinessWeek I provided?
Social Security is not in danger of going bankrupt, at all. Chances are the fund shortfall would be solved by economic and population growth alone, with no need to change anything. Other solutions include a hike in taxes with no need to fundamentally change the current system.
The privatisation peddlers choose not to take into account the huge amount of money that it would take to switch from the current system to private accounts. They don’t mention the fact that there will be restrictions in how, when you access your money -making it not “your money” after all.
The problem with your stance is that you are trying to address a problem that is largely manufactured. You are arguing from an ideological standpoint rather than from a practical one. You see privatisation as a panacea, facts be damned.
Even a pro-business publication like BusinessWeek already called Pres Bush on his half-truths.
August 2nd, 2006 at 10:58 pmGregor:
I did read it. You can always count on BusinessWeek for solid analysis.
A few things jump out at me:
Sounds ominous. I think the consensus is, regardless of what is done, the traditional Social Security program will mean a reduction in benefits for future beneficiaries.
This is the fundamental aspect of Social Security that needs to be addressed:
Where I don’t agree with BW is their plan to wait. Of course politicians from both parties favor this idea, as it keeps them from making tough decisions.
If you notice, I’ve never mentioned the President’s proposal. In fact, I haven’t even taken the time to review it. I’m pretty sure it’s not a “comprehensive solution”.
That’s plainly not true. Cato has a section entitled “Paying for the Transition”. As for restrictions on access to money: think 401(k) plans. There are restrictions on their access. Penalties can be a part of any individual retirement account.
I have another problem with something else you mention:
I reject this idea as unreasonable and unlikely. Unlikely because actual tax increase are about the most unpopular ideas around. Unreasonable because, given all the discussion about how hard it is for the poor to make ends meet today, imagine how much harder it would be if you withheld an even higher percentage of their paycheck. I don’t see it happening.
August 2nd, 2006 at 11:44 pmYou can always count on BusinessWeek for solid analysis.
Comment by Chase — August 2, 2006 @ 11:44 pm
Yes, when it comes to numbers and business trends, those guys know their stuff. No doubt about it.
I think the consensus is, regardless of what is done, the traditional Social Security program will mean a reduction in benefits for future beneficiaries.
Maybe. Only if the current trend is not offset by an economic and/or population growth.
It can get really bad under Pres Bush’s plan for privatisation: The system will be permanently underfunded for the next 100 years. And you, my friend, will only get 15% of your current salary when you retire. And when was the last time Pres Bush took advise from outsiders?
Where I don’t agree with BW is their plan to wait.
But it makes sense. If nothing is done, and current trends continue (an unlikely scenario), Social Security will still be able to meet 73% of its obligations by 2052. This is hardly bankruptcy. There is still plenty of time to see if any action is needed.
That’s plainly not true. Cato has a section entitled “Paying for the Transitionâ€.
Maybe I missed it, but I don’t recall any mention of the $1 to $2 trillion dollars the transition will cost or how to make up for it. And did you catch Cato’s Michael Tanner quote in the BusinessWeek article, where he says “you cannot make up the Social Security shortfall with private accounts”? Food for thought.
Unlikely because actual tax increase are about the most unpopular ideas around.
Unfortunately, the Iraq war, Katrina have come on the tail of Pres Bush’s tax cuts and have contributed to put the US further into debt. The transition of Social Security into private accounts will require more borrowing. Now the only way to get out of this bind seems to be to rise taxes. Either that or slash social spending, which would include Social Security.
August 3rd, 2006 at 1:39 amI am tired of these big brother governement programs that steal my money and until they stop illegal aliens from free healthcare and getting social security benefits while not even being US citizens then I am all for privatization of SS.
Comment by I Hate Liberals — August 2, 2006 @ 2:59 pm
Sheesh. Dear I HL, if you know where we can get free health care by pretending to be illegal aliens, clue me in, OK? I can’t afford our overpriced private healthcare system, so I am not covered at all.
August 3rd, 2006 at 3:34 amIn my experience, many of the illegal aliens I have known (from Mexico) have made it a point to go on a visit home for checkups, dentistry, etc, as it is FREE. We don’t have free health care here, unless you are truly in an emergency.
And if you go to Mexico on a trip, and have an emergency, they will take care of you.
Do you know how mean and heartless you sound? Or do you think it makes you sound strong?
#165 – All good points. I’m just reluctant to wait, personally, knowing that every year I pay into Social Security, is another payment I’m likely to see vanish into thin air in the future.
As for tax hikes, I understand your frustration with the current administration but again, I don’t think it’s a good idea for any politician to stand up and say “I’m here to help. I’m going to raise your taxes considerably, but don’t worry, it’s for your good!” That’s a losing proposition in any election, from school board to president.
August 3rd, 2006 at 10:18 amChase (#77.) Bush and Cato want to sell us on an investment scheme without first providing us a prospectus. If they were stockbrokers or mutual fund salesmen they’d be in trouble with the SEC. Every mutual fund in existence claims it is designed to make a profit, to make investment in it worthwhile, yey not all of them succeed. Bush wants to create the biggest mutual fund ever and wants us to believe that such a fund can take out of the financial markets amounts comparable to total Social Security benefits yet not have any effect on the financial markets. It’s a scam, the “personal account” scheme is a government-mandated, government-managed stock market bubble. Bubbles burst. There is no sure way for the largest mutual fund ever to guarantee results. (There is no way for any mutual fund to guarantee results.) There’s a joke about some people’s retirement plan being “win the lottery.” That may have a higher mathematical probability of success (1 in 130 million is bigger than 0) than the Bush personal account scheme. The personal account scheme is sold just like the lottery is sold: “You MIGHT win this much.”
The right wing chants allegience to the supremacy of the market yet seems totally ignorant of what a market is when they back the Bush scheme. Bush says (in essence) that the stock market is a magic money machine and they dutifully repeat him, chanting “Yes, the stock market is a magic money machine.” Cato is just as bad. A market is just a market.
But hey, prove me wrong. SHOW ME THE ACTUAL FULL DESIGN OF THE PERSONAL ACCOUNT SCHEME, SHOW ME ALL THE RULES. You can’t. They don’t dare show the design because if they did it would be easy to show why the scheme will fail.
You almost surely also do not know that Bush has revealed one of the rules: retirees can’t have any access to their principal amounts during their lifetimes. He said so in Alabama, Arizona, Colorado and New Mexico. That “higher rate of return” he promises doesn’t include any return of the invested amounts, any return of the capital gains. Why not return the principal? Easy. It’s a bubble scheme. Forbidding access to the principal prolongs the growth phase of the bubble, delays the burst. It’s a con.
August 3rd, 2006 at 11:30 amI say get rid of the retirement part of SS.
Let people take that money (a lot of it) out of the war government’s hands and put it into IRA’s.
Cut the FICA tax by 75%.
August 3rd, 2006 at 12:26 pm#169 – The retirement account would operate much like an IRA. Although there would be some risk, it would be minimal – and certainly more greater than the risk having no retirement with the current system.
This has nothing to do with Bush, as far as I’m concerned. This is about the failings of the current system and how the with the declining ratio of workers to beneficiaries makes the system fundamentally flawed.
Something must be done, and I would prefer greater control of my money so that I can make plans for my retirement. I welcome the responsibility.
August 3rd, 2006 at 2:10 pmI’m just reluctant to wait, personally, knowing that every year I pay into Social Security, is another payment I’m likely to see vanish into thin air in the future.
Comment by Chase — August 3, 2006 @ 10:18 am
And what I keep tying to tell you is your fear is unfounded. Even if absolutely nothing is done, and conditions do not change between now and 2052 you will still be able to collect 73% of your Social Security benefits.
The system is not facing bankruptcy but a shortfall. The question is how to make up for it. Most analysts agree that an overhaul would be way too costly. If you are worried about your money going up in smoke, wait until Pres Bush’s goes into implementation.
Let’s be realistic: What are the chances Cato’s plan is taken into consideration? (Again, how many times has Pres Bush taken advise from outsiders?) I don’t think is worth spending time examinig it, as it will not be implemented.
I would prefer greater control of my money so that I can make plans for my retirement. I welcome the responsibility.
Comment by Chase — August 3, 2006 @ 2:10 pm
Catch #2: Under Pres Bush’s plan it will still not be your money (keep in mind it’s his plan he is pushing, not Cato’s). It will have many restrictions to keep you from making mistakes and ending up in the government’s care.
I know you think you will always make the right decisions. I used to think so too. Time has proven me wrong. It’s been a very humbling experience.
Maybe privatisation is right, maybe not. I don’t know for sure. What I do know is that Pres Bush’s plan is not the way to go and that other attempts at privatisation have a less than stellar record.
August 3rd, 2006 at 2:41 pm#171 Other than that Bush has latched on to this scheme you are correct: it has notihng to do with him. Specifically, the flaws are basic flaws and not in any way caused by or related to Bush.
You assert it’s like an IRA and the risks are small but I suspect you haven’t read any of the aritcles that describe why, when the baby boomers begin to retire in big numbers, the risks for IRAs may grow to a much larger size.
Show me a prospectus. Show me exactly what the system will be. I’m familiar with mutual funds, I know that some funds have stopped accepting new accounts because the fund would become too large to manage if allowed to grow unchecked. The personal accounts would be, in aggregate, the largest mutual fund ever by a large margin. How are the managers possibly going to be able to manage such a huge fund? When a fund owns more than 5% of the equity in any one stock the rules get tighter, but even neglecting that do you not see that if the personal account fund has $100,000,000 invested in Microsoft it isn’t simple to sell those shares and move the investment to IBM? Show me a prospectus. The prospecti (correct plural?) I do see have several types of risk defined and give fair warning of what those risks mean for the fund being described. Show me a prospectus.
Any investor, upon being told that “Although there would be some risk, it would be minimal” should ask to see the prospectus. In the present case there is no way you can show me the prospectus because the backers of this scheme refuse to provide the details. They cant’ get away with that in the real market but if they could the wise investor would simply say “no prospectus, no sale.” Why on earth wold anyone tell American workers that they should invest in a fund that is not even described in any sort of detail, for which there is no prospectus at all? That alone is enough reason to reject the scheme. It’s outright deception to claim that the scheme has to be approved before it can be described. It would be absolutely idiotic to invest in that way: first commit the money, then find out what is to be done with it.
If it makes you happy I’ll say “Oh, goody: minimal risk.” Until I see something with substance all you will get is “Oh, goody.” I’ll not invest a dime.
You also lie about the present system, which is paying me every month (I’m 67.) If the present system is at risk it is only at risk if sleazy right-wing politicians intentionally destroy it, perhaps by trying to somehow not pay off the bonds held by Social Security when they are presented for payment. I do agree that the long-term projections should be heeded and that corrective measures be taken if and when required, but that’s not reason to completely (or partially) destroy the existing system and switch to a different system that is as yet not described in enough detail to be subjected to analysis.
As a matter of fact measures were taken to insure solvency: that’s why we have the surplus, to avoid a catastrophe when the bulk of the baby boomers retire. Rather than acknowledge that fact and the widom shwon when the system was changed to build the surplus the personal account scheme backers (Bush at the fore) lie about the surplus. It isn’t the fault of Social Security at all that the federal budget isn’t balanced. As long as it is unbalanced why is it not the safest possible investment to buy treasury bonds, even special issue bonds that can’t be traded? Whatever your answer, the flaw, if you claim a flaw, is not in Social Security but in the federal government. If the federal government is so flawed that it will not honor those obligations then the first order of business ought to be to correct that flaw in the federal government. Making the federal financial situation worse by implementing personal accounts is exactly the wrong direction to go, isn’t it?
August 3rd, 2006 at 4:10 pmThe Washington Post gives a solid reply to the Dems’ recent attacks on reform.
August 4th, 2006 at 12:04 pmAnd love the quote: “The Social Security reform that President Bush pushed last year involved personal retirement accounts. But it did not involve ‘privatization.’â€
Just text
January 16th, 2007 at 7:45 am[url=http://blogs.chueca.com/toptettona/]Italy[/url]
http://blogs.chueca.com/toptettona/ Italy
Welkam!
February 10th, 2007 at 1:27 pmhttp://ititit.nm.ru/180.html navigazione magellano dei gps
http://ititit.nm.ru/181.html jeans premaman
http://ititit.nm.ru/182.html albergo mare rimini
http://ititit.nm.ru/183.html allievo scelta carriera
Insurance Automobile Insurance Home Owners Insurance
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 22nd, 2008 at 6:25 pmelectronic billing payment
I found your post comments while searching Google. Very relevant especially as this is not an issue which a lot of peaople are conversant with.
March 26th, 2008 at 5:16 amclient debt management reduction services
March 27th, 2008 at 4:07 amInsurance Small Business Health Insurance Nationwide Insurance
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 30th, 2008 at 2:41 amWeight Loss Pill Identifier Pills
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 1st, 2008 at 2:19 pmHealth Insurance California Health Insurance Michigan Health Insurance
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 4th, 2008 at 6:11 pmJack
This Mortgage fiasco is out of control and our gov’t better do something serious to help people out or the housing market will crush this economy.
April 7th, 2008 at 7:02 amretirement systems of alabama
The TrackBack specification was created by Six Apart, who first implemented it in their Movable Type blogging software in August
April 8th, 2008 at 1:46 amHarris Bank Mortgages
These new low rates are killing me, I wish my credit wasn’t messed up so I could lock in the low rates.
April 9th, 2008 at 1:25 pmJames
Had you heard that the AARP is into Social Networking now. Seems myspace and facebook were targeted for twenty somethings, so now us seniors can get out there and chat with the best of them.
April 11th, 2008 at 1:18 amAll about Digimon Adventure Online Game. Digimon Adventure Fans Blog….
…Digimon is a small virtual pet. You can download and play an online RPG in the Digimon universe. It looks and feels like 2D graphic RPG adventure. You can train and level up your Digimon, make hundreds of quests, and travel through a huge universe a…
March 2nd, 2009 at 10:22 amShag Hairstyles and Haircuts…
shag hairstyle basically gotits name from the word “shaggy” since …once the hair is cutand layered it gives off a shaggy look. The shag hairstyle has always been apopular hairstyle, and there are plenty ofshag hairstyles to choose from…
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:38 amHuge exhibits of Arbonne Skin Care Products…
Arbonne is one of the main companies in the world when it comes to beauty and skin care. Its skin care line is one of the best in the world that many women. The products of Arbonne skin care products are manufactured in Switzerland….
April 27th, 2009 at 9:07 pm