DescentBB

I'm breaking out social security from the inaugral topic. While the Dems all seem to think privatising SS is a bad idea lets look at Galveston Tx:
The Commissioners Court wanted a plan that had the exact, or better, benefits as Social Security at the same cost to the county and the employees. The Alternate Plan developed comprised a life insurance element for employees which would protect families of deceased employees, a disability insurance element as good as Social Security, and a retirement element with annuities purchased from major life insurance companies.

"A calculated decision was made not to invest in the stock market, even though retirement income would have been higher if that had been done, probably twice as much. Nevertheless, retirement income for employees with 20 to 40 years of service is calculated to be two to five times the retirement income of Social Security. Disability insurance pays 60% of salary up to $5,000 per month and life insurance is three times annual salary up to $50,000 per year, i.e., a total of $150,000."

http://www.tppf.org/government/perspect/holbrook.html

A second read:
http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba296.html

So what we see here is social security is the absolute lamest way to save for retirement. Someone here commented that prior to SS the elderly were living their retirement years in poverty. That very well may have been true. What doesn't change under Bush's plan is the same amount of money is taken out of your payroll to be put into a investment account. As the Galveston example shows, the golden years will most certainly be more golden with a private account than that thru SS as it stands now.
More striking, while the dems berate Bush's plan, they (congress and senate) do not have their retirement deductions put into SS, but PUT IT IN A PRIVATE ACCOUNT. I guess what is good for the gooser is not good for the goosee.
So someone here 'splain why the legislatures should be opted out of SS all the while telling the rest of us morons we have to be in SS?

Its because theyre congress. They have pay for life, health care for life, benifits for life, etc, etc, etc. IMO, Congress should be given a salary equivalent to the gross median average income of all people in the united states plus whatever benifits they entitle the general public, in other words, maybe a $30,000 a year salary with deductions taken out for taxes, social security, and if theyre still poor enough they can get on medicare. But thats not how it works, because theyre better than us

As much as I dislike saying this, some elements of Bush's plan do make sense. Having more control over where our own funds go is never a bad thing unless youre an absolute moron. That said, i wouldnt mind the option to opt out of social security entirely so that if needed, I could spend the entirety of my paycheck if say, some financial emergency happens one month.

Of course if that happened, the AARP would go apesh*t and every lawmaker who voted for it would be hung out to dry in the next election, regardless of party. Hence its never gonna happen so long as the Old people keep speaking louder than the younger generations.

I'm all for Bush's plan, but he needs to learn to be fiscally responsible to go along with it.

Brian, so basically, you're against Bush's plan? Unless, of course, you now believe Bush can be fiscally responsible.

I guess I'm just having a hard time seeing how anyone can trust an administration that took office with a budget surplus (which was basically accounted for by overpayment of SS tax), gives that money back through income tax cuts, and then says we don't have the money to pay our known debt to SS while at the same time trying to make the tax cuts permanent.

It's sort of mind boggling.

I'm all for investing my own money like I do now instead of being forced to participate with in some sort of government sponsored pyramid scheme.

The problem as I see it lies with the people who (unlike me) are already sort of locked in the system. You can't just say "okay nobody needs to pay us for social security anymore" because the only way that the people who put money into it already would be able to get their benefits are from the people working now paying for them.

If there was an easy way to just cut off SS cleanly while still paying out to the people who need it I'm sure it would've been done a long time ago.

Vander wrote:
I guess I'm just having a hard time seeing how anyone can trust an administration that took office with a budget surplus (which was basically accounted for by overpayment of SS tax), gives that money back through income tax cuts, and then says we don't have the money to pay our known debt to SS while at the same time trying to make the tax cuts permanent.

It's sort of mind boggling.

Whats mind boggling is how you conveniently overlook Bush inherited the Clinton recession, used tax cuts to stimulate the economy to its present robust state all the while fighting a war on terrorism.

Haha! I know, I know, he hit the trifecta or whatever.

Bush's tax cuts were on the table well before the "Clinton Recession." He campaigned on them for a year and a half, claiming that any surplus was "stealing" from the American people. The tax cuts as "economic stimulation" appeared after the recession did. Apparently, big tax cuts suitable for good times and bad.

Vander wrote:Apparently, big tax cuts suitable for good times and bad.

Well...Yea!

Seriously, any over taxation should be returned, period.
If at the same time you need to raise revenue because of some shortfall then pass a tax increase.
Two different things, two different solutions required, period.

But the overtaxation was deliberate! It was to establish the "trust fund" to help ensure SS solvency!

If they raised the rate to increase their imaginary fund then it wasn't "overtaxation". If the congress then managed to lower taxes a la the Bush tax cut and actually returned the money to us before the thieves could steal it from the imaginary fund then good on them for doing one thing right.

Did they first vote to raise the tax rate and then vote to cut the rate before they spent it? Do you want that kind of person to manage your financial future?

Or did they project a surplus and then realize due to the dot.com bubble busting that there was no surplus so they took that vapor-money and both claimed Clinton raised the money and Bush lost the money when in fact there was no money just a projection that never was realized?
And finally, isn't politics fun

woodchip wrote:Whats mind boggling is how you conveniently overlook Bush inherited the Clinton recession, used tax cuts to stimulate the economy to its present robust state all the while fighting a war on terrorism.

oh c'mon woody.
i'm no political historian but i know that during reagan's 8 years they dipped deep into SS to pay for MX missiles... ★■◆●, they even perverted ketchup into a "vegetable" to fulfill nutrition requirements in public school lunches to pay for that weaponry.

Vander wrote: Bush's tax cuts were on the table well before the "Clinton Recession." He campaigned on them for a year and a half, claiming that any surplus was "stealing" from the American people.

Lets try and think this thru rationally mmmkay? Your the guy running against the incumbent party and they are chortling over a "surplus". If there is a surplus, isn't it good politics to give a portion of that surplus back to the people who generated it?

TheCops wrote:

woodchip wrote:Whats mind boggling is how you conveniently overlook Bush inherited the Clinton recession, used tax cuts to stimulate the economy to its present robust state all the while fighting a war on terrorism.

oh c'mon woody.
i'm no political historian but i know that during reagan's 8 years they dipped deep into SS to pay for MX missiles... ****, they even perverted ketchup into a "vegetable" to fulfill nutrition requirements in public school lunches to pay for that weaponry.

Go to bed Copsey

oh,
i keep forgetting only american 'right wingers' get to make tiny quips around here. if you question anything the gang bang is pushing you have to write the bible of politics to prove a case... but if they agree with you... you don't.

look it up lazy ass.

and it is about bedtime.... say prayers for that turkey... i'm funna hid it.

Me kisses Cops "Good night" and tucks him in.

The real point is why isn't Social Security offered as the optional system it is? You don't have to have a number, and you don't have to pay into it. You could use the money instead for truly private investments.

Your complaints should be why you are putting money into it in the first place.

isn't it good politics to give a portion of that surplus back to the people who generated it?

Not with the deficit we're running! Any surplus, and we should have @#$%loads more than we're told, should be going into paying down the debt.

Brian, so basically, you're against Bush's plan? Unless, of course, you now believe Bush can be fiscally responsible.

Bush is moving in the right direction with his budget cuts. I don't trust almost any politician to be fiscally responsible (e.g. bush's tax loans). I think we will be OK with his SS plan if we can move to budget surpluses in the next 10 years--definitely something that is doable when the war in Iraq tails off and hard choices are made (and if the tax loan is not renewed).

guess I'm just having a hard time seeing how anyone can trust an administration that took office with a budget surplus (which was basically accounted for by overpayment of SS tax), gives that money back through income tax cuts, and then says we don't have the money to pay our known debt to SS while at the same time trying to make the tax cuts permanent.

It's sort of mind boggling.

I agree, but we're stick with the pile of sh1t hand we're dealt. I'm being somewhat selish here, and somewhat principled.

We can lock each citizen in their houses, feed them with an IV tube with perfect nutrition and prevent them from doing anything dangerous and force them to exercise. People will live longer, but this is not what life is about, or america is about. America is partly about the opportunity to succeed; with that opportunity comes the possibility of failure. Those that do not choose to manage their own investments and choose the government accounts are getting (from what I understand--I haven't had ample time to read profusely on this one) the identical benefits. However, those of us who can manage their own investments safely are going to see a huge benefit from this plan.

Whats mind boggling is how you conveniently overlook Bush inherited the Clinton recession, used tax cuts to stimulate the economy to its present robust state all the while fighting a war on terrorism.

You are so out of touch with economic reality its unbelievable. Recessions and Booms do not belong to a president. They can be accentuated in either case, but the world economy largely determines the bumps and valleys in the ongoing larger curves' progression. You also forget that republicans are responsible for the largest overall loss in value for tax dollars: The budget deficit. Reagan and both bushs have flushed trillions of tax dollars down via debt amortization, largely based on an economic system that has never been proven and is essentially a farce. Yes, the tax cuts helped us out of the recession -- but not nearly in the same way demand-side cuts would have. Simple marginal propensity to consume. Do some economic homework and come back in 5 years when you stop rooting for and against politicians like you would a baseball team.

Lets try and think this thru rationally mmmkay? Your the guy running against the incumbent party and they are chortling over a "surplus". If there is a surplus, isn't it good politics to give a portion of that surplus back to the people who generated it?

Only if you don't have to take a loan to give those people their money. It doesn't make any since to take out a loan to make a tax cut, unless you like paying back all the money you got with compounded interest.

Not with the deficit we're running! Any surplus, and we should have @#$%loads more than we're told, should be going into paying down the debt.

Finally, someone with sense. I would have agreed with bush's tax cuts if we didn't have a massive debt. Since we do, we basically shot ourselves in the foot.

We're always going to have a debt. It's at what, $7 trillion right now? Unless we can pay off almost the entire damn thing at once it's still going to be there.

We're always going to have a debt.

Certainly not true. What a self defeating attitude! It's especially gotten worse since the late 70s, early 80s. In a historical context, we are doing very poorly in terms of what we've done in the past in terms of debt. That we can't get rid of the debt is a pure myth politicians would love the american people to believe to prevent them from making hard, but important unpopular choices. The politicians won't make it happen as long as you think it won't, or don't care about it. As soon as we all think it is an important issue, believe me it will happen.

It's at what, $7 trillion right now? Unless we can pay off almost the entire damn thing at once it's still going to be there.

Strange logic. Only if we pay off the entire thing at once can it be paid off? Huh? Explain that one. That seems like the only way it is *not* going to happen. Removing the debt is a simple formula: Pay off all your interest payment, plus a % of the debt and it's not that hard to calculate how long it would take.

At the very least we can vastly reduce the debt. Don't be silly.

One problem that I have not yet seen Bushy-poo address regarding the privitization of Social Security is what exactly is going to be done for SS Disability beneficiaries. If someone is disabled and receiving benefits, then they have been found to be unable to work. If they cant work, then they wont be contributing FICA taxes and wont be in a position to contribute to their "personal account." If they aren't building their personal account, then they are going to end up with a much lower benefit rate, which is going to have to be made up by another form of subsidy. If all the workers who contibute to the Disability trust fund are paying less in FICA contributions because they are gambling the balance away on their investment portfolio, are the states going to be forced into raising taxes to support other forms of social welfare? The number of disability applicants is skyrocketing and their numbers are going to go no where but up. If their isn't something done to provide some equity, this proposal isnt going to be much of a fix.

From what I understand of Bush's plan, those who don't opt in to the "personal accounts" don't risk any cuts. That would include those on SSDI. So yeah, they'd end up at the "lower" rate, meaning, at the same rate as they're currently at. They probably wouldn't have the ability to create their own accounts.

Of course, that's no reason to hold back the whole plan -- "everybody would get extra benefits, except these people who'd keep the same benefits." "Oh, well then, scrap the whole thing..."

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if personal accounts relieve the pressure on the system to the point where SSDI benefits can be greatly increased. I haven't heard the point being addressed, but I'd hope something like that would come out of this.

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if personal accounts relieve the pressure on the system to the point where SSDI benefits can be greatly increased. I haven't heard the point being addressed, but I'd hope something like that would come out of this.

Not likely to happen. Those who will opt for the personal accounts are much more likely to be wealithier individuals. SS acts as a form of wealth redistribution. Without many of the richest people adding their higher amount of $ into SS, the system will likely actually need more money when they opt for personal accounts. It's true that the plan is to keep people who do not opt-out at the same level of benefits, but it may be hard. Taxes may end up having to pay for SS, and we know who pays those anyways

Read this BS straight from the AARP website. Are any of you who are over 50 (or know anyone who does) actually believe that SS has assets? http://aarp.typepad.com/socialsecurity/ Socialist InSecurity is totally dependent on new money coming in from younger workers. It is unable to pay out from it's own funds. It cannot sell off anything to meet obligations because it owns nothing. It is a giant federally-sponsored taxpayer-paid Ponzi scheme.