Reid: 'W's Plans To Privatize Social Security Dead'

[Nbadan]

President Bush's plan to partially privatize Social Security is dead, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said in a visit to Pittsburgh yesterday.

Reid along with Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, chairman of the Senate's Democratic Policy Committee, and Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, came to Coraopolis for a town meeting about Social Security.

Afterward, Reid told the Post-Gazette editorial board that he had enough votes in the Senate to block President Bush's proposal to introduce private savings accounts as an alternative to the existing federal retirement plan. "It's dead," Reid said. "The president just hasn't acknowledged it yet."

The minority leader also told the editorial board that the Pennsylvania Senate seat held by Republican Rick Santorum is the Democratic Party's principal target in the 2006 elections. Reid also expressed concern that if Senate rules are changed to put an end to filibusters to delay action on judicial nominees, a vital protection for minority-party rights would be lost.

Post-Gazette (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05113/493250.stm)

Best news in weeks. Only if we could have filibustered the immoral bankruptcy bill W recently signed into law, justice would have prevailed.

[exstatic]

You don't fuck with AARP. Man, did they ever put out an aggressive anti-campaign.

[Clandestino]

so, then we should stop paying into ss now.. it is going bankrupt and the fucking demos have no plans, just complaints...

i see zero problems w/letting people have a choice with their money.. it was not free rein, just a set of limited options...

[exstatic]

It was a half-assed plan to begin with, and really did nothing to address the underlying problems with SS. My personal opinion was that it was designed to get people pissed off with SS when they were making bad decisions about their accounts. Further down the road would be the death, and dismantling of SS.

[Clandestino]

It was a half-assed plan to begin with, and really did nothing to address the underlying problems with SS. My personal opinion was that it was designed to get people pissed off with SS when they were making bad decisions about their accounts. Further down the road would be the death, and dismantling of SS.

exactly.. ss will begin paying out more than it takes in 12 years.. that will make for its death unless taxes are raised or the age limit for ss is raised.. i personally would love to ss axed 100%.

[cherylsteele]

so, then we should stop paying into ss now.. it is going bankrupt and the fucking demos have no plans, just complaints...

i see zero problems w/letting people have a choice with their money.. it was not free rein, just a set of limited options...

Sometimes no plan is can turn out better than a half-assed plan.
If the privitizing didn't work the blmae game would start over again...as if it hasn't already. I seem to recall that when the Demos wanted to do something a few years back, the Republicans did anything possible and killed any try to help SS then.....

It is called gridlock.....part of the problem is many people only back one party no matter what and NEVER listen to anyone else....all they can do is blame the side.....that is what we get when alot of people vote for the party and not the actual person.

[Clandestino]

well, no plan in this case WE KNOW already means BANKRUPT SS... that is no good..do you agree.. anything is worth a try...

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Well what do you think the solution should be Dan? Those of us paying into it today are not going to see a fucking dime out of it.

Yeah, you definitely should be happy about that. :rolleyes

[Clandestino]

Well what do you think the solution should be Dan? Those of us paying into it today are not going to see a fucking dime out of it.

Yeah, you definitely should be happy about that. :rolleyes

Ex-fucking-actly! we are just paying money for no reason...

[cherylsteele]

Ex-fucking-actly! we are just paying money for no reason...

So are you implying to just get rid of it totally?

I agree something should be done...but it needs to done right....if it is not done right we will be talking about it again 5-10 years later saying we should have done it right this time.

[Nbadan]

well, no plan in this case WE KNOW already means BANKRUPT SS... that is no good..do you agree.. anything is worth a try...

Then lets think of a plan that actually keeps SS solvent instead of proposing a plan that does nothing to solve the long-term problem.

[Clandestino]

i have a plan.. get rid of it entirely.. make people responsible for their own retirement... EVERYONE has the ability to save...

[scott]

Privitizing SS was one of the few good ideas Bush has ever had, and now its dead because a bunch of old farts are no good with math.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Howabout... Give everyone a 401k plan when they turn 18 with $1000 in it. Advise them on the advantages of putting more into it, and let them invest when they get a job and have money?

I don't even know the math on something like that, but it seems simple and something that people could do more with and come out with more to show for it.


What frustrates me right now is that all the sorry ass democrats are doing nothing but fucking bagging on Bush's plan, while offering nothing of their own. All I see is bitch bitch bitch, Bush sucks.

You know what? Shut the fuck up and come up with a better idea. I don't think Bush's plan is perfect, but it's a lot better than either SS or anything I've seen come out of the liberal camp.

I'm out.

[Nbadan]

i have a plan.. get rid of it entirely.. make people responsible for their own retirement... EVERYONE has the ability to save...

That's the great thing about America, everyone does have a opportunity to save for their own retirement. SS is meant as a safety net that is supposed to keep people from eating out of garbage dumps and living in cardboard boxes. Remember that not everyone has been as fortunate as maybe you have.

[Clandestino]

That's the great thing about America, everyone does have a opportunity to save for their own retirement. SS is meant as a safety net that is supposed to keep people from eating out of garbage dumps and living in cardboard boxes. Remember that not everyone has been as fortunate as maybe you have.

you don't have to be rich to save money.. that is the cop out of lower income people. instead of buying cigarettes or potato chips or whatever else.. put that money in a savings account or mutual fund.. even if it is only $1 a day that is 30 bux a month.. that adds up over the course of a years and years of compounding...

[mookie2001]

What frustrates me right now is that all the sorry ass democrats are doing nothing but fucking bagging on Bush's plan, while offering nothing of their own. All I see is bitch bitch bitch, Bush sucks.

You know what? Shut the fuck up and come up with a better idea. I don't think Bush's plan is perfect, but it's a lot better than either SS or anything I've seen come out of the liberal camp.
I'm out.


i have an idea for A&M's starting tailback to get more than -6 yards rushing in the cotton bowl, but they have nothing better, so all i can do is bitch...

[Nbadan]

you don't have to be rich to save money.. that is the cop out of lower income people. instead of buying cigarettes or potato chips or whatever else.. put that money in a savings account or mutual fund.. even if it is only $1 a day that is 30 bux a month.. that adds up over the course of a years and years of compounding...


And what happens if you get morbidly sick or your in a unfortunate accident? Under new bankruptcy laws you could lose your home, car, all your savings, and your pay check can be docked.

[Clandestino]

1 dollar a day invested at 6% a year...after 45 years that is 87,334.. not too bad..and that is at a conservative 6%... at 10% it is $315,000!

[Clandestino]

And what happens if you get morbidly sick or your in a unfortunate accident? Under new bankruptcy laws you could lose your home, car, all your savings, and your pay check can be docked.

why would you have a pay check if you were morbidly sick?

[Nbadan]

why would you have a pay check if you were morbidly sick?

You wouldn't, unless you became permenantly disabled. My point is that you have to look beyond your own circumstances. There are people with serious mental and physical problems out there. Many of whom are unable to care for themselves. It's fourtunate, but its the reality we live in today. Without a safety net for these people, its estimated that 1/4 of SS recipients live solely on money they receive from the program, they would be living on the streets and eating from dumpsters.

[mookie2001]

dan is right
again

[Clandestino]

You wouldn't, unless you became permenantly disabled. My point is that you have to look beyond your own circumstances. There are people with serious mental and physical problems out there. Many of whom are unable to care for themselves. It's fourtunate, but its the reality we live in today. Without a safety net for these people, its estimated that 1/4 of SS recipients live solely on money they receive from the program, they would be living on the streets and eating from dumpsters.

many people choose to save at all bc of ss... that is why 1/4 only have ss and nothing else...

the u.s. was not based on socialism... why do you want us to be socialists???

[Clandestino]

dan is right
again

LOL!! dan is almost never right.. he is also posting distorted stuff left and right...

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

So because there's a few people living in mental homes we should tell the other three hundred million people living in this country tough shit?

Well, I'll say this for you, you're definitely a far left liberal.

Here's a thought: come up with a seperate plan for those that you're discussing, one that helps deal with those medical costs, and let the other hundreds of millions in this country do something besides give money to SS that they have no hope of seeing come back to them down the road.

That's another thing I hate about liberals. If something's affecting someone, somewhere, the rest of the country has to suffer for it as well, instead of dealing with that circumstnace fairly and letting the rest of the country live their lives.

If you want socialism move to Cuba.

[cherylsteele]

you don't have to be rich to save money.. that is the cop out of lower income people. instead of buying cigarettes or potato chips or whatever else.. put that money in a savings account or mutual fund.. even if it is only $1 a day that is 30 bux a month.. that adds up over the course of a years and years of compounding...

What happens if you make just enough money to get by and pay bills like rent, electricity, water, food, etc.....I know people like that and at the end of the month they have almost nothing left to save. There are alot of people who make just over minimum wage and CAN'T save.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Even if they make just over minimum wage, they're still having their paycheck docked for SS.

Even if it has to be a mandatory thing, put that 4-6% or whatever it is being taken out of their checks into an IRA or 401k plan.

[Clandestino]

Even if they make just over minimum wage, they're still having their paycheck docked for SS.

Even if it has to be a mandatory thing, put that 4-6% or whatever it is being taken out of their checks into an IRA or 401k plan.

yup... all jobs are required to take out for social security..no matter how little you make...

[Nbadan]

Here's a thought: come up with a seperate plan for those that you're discussing, one that helps deal with those medical costs, and let the other hundreds of millions in this country do something besides give money to SS that they have no hope of seeing come back to them down the road.

That's another thing I hate about liberals. If something's affecting someone, somewhere, the rest of the country has to suffer for it as well, instead of dealing with that circumstnace fairly and letting the rest of the country live their lives.

If you want socialism move to Cuba.

Fascism or Socialism?....though choice. I don’t think anyone is against people having the choice to decide what to do with income, but Social Security is a safety net that has worked for almost a generation, and it can continue to work for another generation if we just apply a few fixes instead of trying to rebuild the program from the ground up. If we start defunding Social Security now, which is essentially what the Bush junta plan attempts, there is no turning back later if stock market returns were to flatten out over the next two decades. Millions of people could be left devastated, and that’s not much of a safety net. I ask each of you, would you borrow money at 3%+ today and invest it in today’s stock market? This is essentially what you would have to do each and every year under the Bush Plan no matter the economic circumstances at the time.

[Clandestino]

yes, i would... i could earn over 3% taking a dump...

[Nbadan]

yes, i would... i could earn over 3% taking a dump...

Yeah, but now the government has had to borrow trillions of dollars to fund your and everyone else's market gamble and to meet its yearly expenses, which would be much worse in deficit if they weren't spending your yearly Social Security surplus. There is only a finite amount of money and foreign credit and when the government is forced to borrow more, that leaves businesses and consumers, like you and I, competeing for the few credit-dollars that are left. So you get higher interest rates, you see over-all consumer purchasing power decrease because businesses have to charge more for their product and services to meet their higher cost of borrowing(your dollar is worth less), and consumers are squeezed by ARMs, interest only loans, and adjustible-rate debt. And if the foreign capital that has been funding Americas deficit spending was to suddenly stop, the market would go into such a slide that millions of Americans would never recover for decades.

[Clandestino]

Yeah, but now the government has had to borrow trillions of dollars to fund your and everyone else's market gamble and to meet its yearly expenses, which would be much worse in deficit if they weren't spending your yearly Social Security surplus. There is only a finite amount of money and foreign credit and when the government is forced to borrow more, that leaves businesses and consumers, like you and I, competeing for the few credit-dollars that are left. So you get higher interest rates, you see over-all consumer purchasing power decrease because businesses have to charge more for their product and services to meet their higher cost of borrowing(your dollar is worth less), and consumers are squeezed by ARMs, interest only loans, and adjustible-rate debt. And if the foreign capital that has been funding Americas deficit spending was to suddenly stop, the market would go into such a slide that millions of Americans would never recover for decades.

investing is not gambling... i take you have no money invested then?

[Spurminator]

The process to raise the retirement age needs to begin soon.

[Clandestino]

investing is gambling

not really...

[spurster]

The solution is some combination of:

1) raising retirement age
2) means-testing
3) increase salary cutoff
4) ensure all workers pay in

[2centsworth]

you don't have to put money into SS
you can opt not to have it taken out of your paycheck
that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

[2centsworth]

investing is gambling
That's the second most stupidest thing I've ever heard.

[Clandestino]

The solution is some combination of:

1) raising retirement age
2) means-testing
3) increase salary cutoff
4) ensure all workers pay in

they are all bad except for maybe 2..

1. it is already at 65.. you want people working til they are 70-75? wtf???

2. elaborate...

3. so, if someone pays more they will take more out.. won't fix anything..

4. most workers pay in unless they are part of a different system(i.e. my mother is a teacher and they have their own system, they don't pay into ss). even self-employed are required to pay ss..

[spurster]

they are all bad except for maybe 2..

1. it is already at 65.. you want people working til they are 70-75? wtf???

2. elaborate...

3. so, if someone pays more they will take more out.. won't fix anything..

4. most workers pay in unless they are part of a different system(i.e. my mother is a teacher and they have their own system, they don't pay into ss). even self-employed are required to pay ss..
1. Yes, increase it above 65. If we are living longer, doesn't that mean we can also work longer? I do not want to retire later when I get there, but why should the gov't pay for me if I can still be very productive?

2. People who are rich don't need SS.

3. As as been already pointed out, people do not get exactly what they put in. SS is more like insurance than a IRA or 401k.

4. Yes, there are workers in different systems but it become less workable if special classes of workers can opt out.

None of these options are very satisfying, just the hard decisions you need to make if you make to make it work.

[Clandestino]

1. Yes, increase it above 65. If we are living longer, doesn't that mean we can also work longer? I do not want to retire later when I get there, but why should the gov't pay for me if I can still be very productive?

2. People who are rich don't need SS.

3. As as been already pointed out, people do not get exactly what they put in. SS is more like insurance than a IRA or 401k.

4. Yes, there are workers in different systems but it become less workable if special classes of workers can opt out.

None of these options are very satisfying, just the hard decisions you need to make if you make to make it work.

1. wal-mart can only hire so many greeters and sam's club can only hire so many receipt checkers.. not many other companies hire over 65 people...

2. you think rich people should pay for the poor??? move to a socialist country... there should not be a disincentive to making something of yourself..

3. why do you hate the rich? make some money so you won't to try to take it away from those better off than you.

[Nbadan]

When it comes to restructuring SS, W maybe his own worst enemy


Some congressional Republicans who have been trying to craft a Social Security reform package say their efforts have been undercut by an unlikely source: conservatives whose top priority is to restructure the program.

As President Bush has struggled to gain traction on Social Security reform, Republicans have repeatedly criticized Democrats for refusing to negotiate on changing the entitlement system.

But some say that Bush should look to his right for scapegoats if Congress does not pass a Social Security bill this year. They blame conservatives for drawing several lines in the sand and refusing to consider compromises.
...
A Senate Republican leadership aide expressed frustration with conservative groups’ rhetoric. While Bush and GOP congressional leaders say they are open to many ideas, conservatives have panned the everything-is-on-the-table approach.
...
“There is a splinter in the Republican Party on how this should be addressed,” another Senate Republican aide said.

More...


Peter Ferrara, a senior fellow at the Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI) who is credited as the author of the Ryan-Sununu bill, wrote an op-ed in The Washington Times two months ago that mocked the White House for trying to send the president out to sell personal accounts with a message that they don’t really solve the problem.
Ferrara wrote, “Is it any wonder then that the more George W. Bush talks about personal accounts the lower they sink in the polls?” :lol

Ferrara told The Hill he is trying to help Republicans get on track on Social Security. He accused top Bush administration officials — including Rove and White House Chief of Staff Andy Card — of urging people to tell him to “shut the hell up.”

Ferrara, who is scheduled to testify on Social Security before the Senate Finance Committee today, said Rove, Card and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Josh Bolten lack expertise on the entitlement system and mistakenly believe some Democrats are close to embracing the president’s plan."

The Hill News (http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/042605/gop.html)

[Clandestino]

i don't know what part of ss will go bankrupt that people don't understand...

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

f we start defunding Social Security now, which is essentially what the Bush junta plan attempts, there is no turning back later if stock market returns were to flatten out over the next two decades.

1. What later are you talking about? Social Security is going to be broke in the next 10-15 years. There is no future, no "later."

2. According to the most rabid stock market guru/401k guy at our company, there is no 11 year period since WWII that the stock market that did not realize at least an 8% gain.

I don't get why you're going on about the future WRT SS. There is no future. It's going to be bankrupt. Soon.

[Nbadan]

i don't know what part of ss will go bankrupt that people don't understand...

SS isn't going bankrupt, that's just it. You've fallen for the big lie. Worst case scenario, if we do nothing they have to minimize some of the payments. If you talking about the IOU's in the SS fund, remember that those IOU's are government bonds and securities and if we can't or won't pay those back we are all fucked anyway, because that would mean we have no intention of paying back our debt to anyone.

[Clandestino]

SS isn't going bankrupt, that's just it. You've fallen for the big lie. Worst case scenario, if we do nothing they have to minimize some of the payments. If you talking about the IOU's in the SS fund, remember that those IOU's are government bonds and securities and if we can't or won't pay those back we are all fucked anyway, because that would mean we have no intention of paying back our debt to anyone.

you are incorrect... demos and repubs agree that in 12 years ss will be paying out more than it takes in... that is going bankrupt to me...

[Nbadan]

you are incorrect... demos and repubs agree that in 12 years ss will be paying out more than it takes in... that is going bankrupt to me...

Not when you have a over trillion dollar hedge fund sitting in the bank.

[Nbadan]

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/050426/markstein.gif

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/wpswi/2005/wpswi050428.gif

[spurster]

3. why do you hate the rich? make some money so you won't to try to take it away from those better off than you.
Bush must hate the rich, too. From NYT:

President Bush called Thursday night for cutting Social Security benefits for future retirees to put the system on sound financial footing, and he proposed doing so in a way that would demand the most sacrifice from higher-income people while insulating low-income workers.

[Clandestino]

Bush must hate the rich, too. From NYT:

the most, but not A L L the sacrifice. too many times in this county the poor are looking for handouts

[The Ressurrected One]

What I don't understand is why the President's opponents believe we're too stupid to be free and why we let them get away with overtly expressing that sentiment.

As a perfect example, I give you the New York Times:

"Survey Finds Many Have Poor Grasp of Basic Economics," (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/27/business/27survey.html?ex=1272254400&en=8bfe7b27304f698b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss) reads a New York Times headline. No doubt many do, but reporter Mary Williams Walsh immediately draws policy implications that suggest she has a poor grasp of how a free society works:


"With Washington considering whether to strengthen Social Security by giving Americans more responsibility for (How about, "...more control over...") their own retirements, a survey released yesterday suggested that the typical American does not know enough about economics to prosper in such a system. . . ."

"Other analysts said they thought that the findings added to a growing body of evidence that the typical American is poorly equipped to take advantage of what proponents call the ownership society: a future in which individuals are free to invest their own retirement money, rather than having to accept the returns offered by the Social Security program or a group retirement program at work, like a pension plan. . . ."

"'It is abundantly clear that there are a large number of Americans who are completely unprepared to make these decisions,' said Steve Blakely, the [Employee Benefits Research Institute]'s editor and communications director."

To see why this argument is faulty, consider an analogous one: Most Americans don't know much about medicine, therefore the government should control health care. Or: Most Americans don't know much about journalism, therefore the government should control the press.

Americans who don't understand economics don't need the government to make their decisions for them. There are people in the private sector with the expertise to help them make their decisions. But apparently Mary Williams Walsh has never heard of accountants or financial planners.

Anyone else in here remember when Bill Clinton said we couldn't be trusted with our own money...that we would squander it if allowed to control our own incomes. Even if that's true, this is still a free country...or is it?

[spurster]

But apparently Mary Williams Walsh has never heard of accountants or financial planners.
Yes, we've heard of them. Unfortunately, all too many of them are good at stealing your money. No, not the large majority, but still too many.

[Clandestino]

Yes, we've heard of them. Unfortunately, all too many of them are good at stealing your money. No, not the large majority, but still too many.

what are you talking about? you're referring to the fly by night con men, not the licensed ones. those guys make money if you do, it is in their best interest for them to create a winning portfolio for you...

[The Ressurrected One]

Yes, we've heard of them. Unfortunately, all too many of them are good at stealing your money. No, not the large majority, but still too many.
What do you think the federal government is doing with your Social Security contributions now?

Please, please, don't tell me you think Uncle Sam knows better how to invest for your retirement than do you.

Hell, investing 100% of your contribution in T-bills would be better than the screwing you're getting now. At least they're guaranteed.

[spurster]

Enron

[SPARKY]

The solution is some combination of:

1) raising retirement age
2) means-testing
3) increase salary cutoff
4) ensure all workers pay in


Pretty much. Turning it into more of a pure transfer program makes a lot more sense than the current system of taxing young minimum wage workers at ever increasing rates to pay benefits to wealthy retirees. Also that should keep payroll tax rates where they are if not actually allow for a decrease in those rates.

Forget about private accounts within SS, I don't want to be stuck with a limited number of shitty child proof investments offered by a limited number of fund companies who bought off enough politicians to make unlimited fees off of me.

I can't wait to see one of the resident fascists refer to me as a socialist. Oh well, for everything there is a season...

[The Ressurrected One]

Enron
And?

[2centsworth]

Yes, we've heard of them. Unfortunately, all too many of them are good at stealing your money. No, not the large majority, but still too many.
Avg financial planner makes 160k per year. Why would they want to steal the pennies you put into social security?



enron
People with financial planners fared a lot better than the people without. Planners forced employees to diversify out of Enron stock. People without financial planners were not diversified and paid a significant price. Enron is a primary example of why you should have a financial planner.

[Nbadan]

Avg financial planner makes 160k per year. Why would they want to steal the pennies you put into social security?

Financial planners make their money by churning investments. If they just diversified your money into mutual funds of various risks they wouldn't make any money at all.

The Average person knows didly about investing and market diversification. This is why we have people who are financially devastated when companies like Enron or WorldCom go bankrupt. Under W's proposal, anyone who does not invest wisely would have no safety net left over at all.

[Nbadan]

People with financial planners fared a lot better than the people without. Planners forced employees to diversify out of Enron stock. People without financial planners were not diversified and paid a significant price. Enron is a primary example of why you should have a financial planner.

People who can afford financial planners typically do better than those who cannot. Most small investors do so independently on web sites like Schwabb to avoid front or back load and administration and set-up costs. Greater returns aways equal greater risks. For instance, If someone has been caught up the tail end of the markets of 00-04 they are probably still on the losing end for this period. This could force people who were thinking about retiring soon to accepting higher risks for greater returns which ultimately will wipe some of them out. Then what? Dog food and cardboard boxes?

[Clandestino]

first, of all, the bush plan is not giving people free reign over their investments. you will not be allowed to put all your money into one single stock(like the dumbasses at enron, they deserved to lose everything for being retarded). also, financial planners will make money because the whole public will be using them vs just the wealthy. dan, if you like giving your money away and having no control, that is fine, but tell us why you like it like that? you talk about the government taking away your rights, but you don't complain about this. what is the deal?

[exstatic]

Privatized accounts proposed by Bush are dead. He made the mistake of going after AARP. Not smart.

[GoldToe]

What I didn't get was Bush said that the SS fund is just a bunch of IOU's and then he turns around and says we can invest in Treasury bonds? Are those not IOU's too?

Huh?

Are the not both owed to us by the US govt?

[The Ressurrected One]

What I didn't get was Bush said that the SS fund is just a bunch of IOU's and then he turns around and says we can invest in Treasury bonds? Are those not IOU's too?

Huh?

Are the not both owed to us by the US govt?
Treasury Bonds are guaranteed.

Oh yeah, they perform better than an empty account.

[GoldToe]

Treasury Bonds are guaranteed.

Oh yeah, they perform better than an empty account.

Why isn't SS guaranteed?

If the govt is already taking taxes then why not invest it in Treasury bonds so we all get a better return?

Pulling it out of a govt fund to put in back into another govt fund just doesn't make sense to me.

[The Ressurrected One]

Why isn't SS guaranteed?
Because, by definition, it's a Ponzi scheme...and, well, scams are hard to guarantee.

If the govt is already taking taxes then why not invest it in Treasury bonds so we all get a better return?
Good question...My guess is there is a lobby against such common sense. Kind of like the same mentality that's opposed to you and I being allowed to take our own money and invest it in T bills.

Why is the government the best vehicle for insuring my retirement?

Pulling it out of a govt fund to put in back into another govt fund just doesn't make sense to me.
It's not placed in a government fund now...it's spent.

[Clandestino]

i still can't believe why people don't want to be able to invest their own money..they would rather just give it to the government.. wtf is wrong with you people????

[Nbadan]

Because, by definition, it's a Ponzi scheme...and, well, scams are hard to guarantee.

Once again, if the IOU's in the SS trust fund are a 'ponzi scheme' then the entire debt load that the U.S. owes to foreigners and to ourselves is also a 'ponzi scheme'. Those IOU's are treasury securities and bonds.

[Nbadan]

i still can't believe why people don't want to be able to invest their own money..they would rather just give it to the government.. wtf is wrong with you people????

No one is against people having the ability to invest their own money. You can spend or you can invest the 75-80% of your income that you take home, your choice. What smart people are against is the $2-5 trillion dollars in new government spending that W and the 'so-called' conservatives want to bury all of us under for a ponzi scheme that will do nothing to save SS, but will make the investment industry, heavy Republican contributors, millions of dollars in extra profits.

[Clandestino]

No one is against people having the ability to invest their own money. You can spend or you can invest the 75-80% of your income that you take home, your choice. What smart people are against is the $2-5 trillion dollars in new government spending that W and the 'so-called' conservatives want to bury all of us under for a ponzi scheme that will do nothing to save SS, but will make the investment industry, heavy Republican contributors, millions of dollars in extra profits.

you skip the point.. why should i give the government any of M Y money for them to invest for M Y retirement? i am a big boy and can invest on my own. i guess you don't like making your own decisions.

[NameDropper]

From what I've heard the costs to get these individual accounts setup is staggering.

[Clandestino]

From what I've heard the costs to get these individual accounts setup is staggering.

that may be true. we wouldn't know exactly til we started.

but i think having the system go bankrupt costs more. what sucks is the fucking demos won't help come up with a plan bc they don't want bush to get credit for it. they just sit on their asses and complain. if the demos don't win the next election then they will still vote against any ss legislation, and they won't try to come up with any plans. if they are for the poor people they would help on this issue. what they are doing now is nothing more than we do in here...bitch! haha

[exstatic]

we wouldn't know exactly til we started.

I kind of want to know before that. I haven't been impressed with this administration's read and react actions. The Iraq war was supposed to cost $30B, a staggering sum to be sure, but nothing compared to the latest estimates of $300B.

[Clandestino]

I kind of want to know before that. I haven't been impressed with this administration's read and react actions. The Iraq war was supposed to cost $30B, a staggering sum to be sure, but nothing compared to the latest estimates of $300B.

but you do know one thing as of right now. ss will pay out more than it takes in 12 years. and be officially in the red by 30 years...

why won't demos come up with a plan???

[Clandestino]

this should truly be a bi-partisan effort, but demos won't do anything... what is the deal? everyone will be affected by ss, demos and repubs

[Nbadan]

this should truly be a bi-partisan effort, but demos won't do anything... what is the deal? everyone will be affected by ss, demos and repubs

Progressives have a plan to save SS, but the adminstration doesn't want to save the program, it wants to destroy it. Republicans have never liked SS because it doesn't make them any money.

[Nbadan]

Social Security: Help for the Poor or Help for All?
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
and EDUARDO PORTER

WASHINGTON, April 30 - In attempting to fix Social Security's long-term problems without raising taxes, President Bush has chosen to recast the 70-year-old retirement program as one that would keep the lowest-income workers out of poverty but become increasingly irrelevant to the middle class and the affluent.<snip>

But those earning an average income, about $36,500 in today's dollars, would see big changes. Instead of replacing 36 percent of that person's working pay, as promised under today's system, benefits would cover only 26 percent of pay by 2075. And people who earn $90,000 a year in today's dollars would continue to pay as much as ever in taxes but would receive benefits equal to only 12 percent of their pay.<snip>

But critics, including most Democratic lawmakers, say that such an approach would undermine a central bargain conceived during the New Deal: that Social Security is not just a welfare program for the poor but a form of social insurance that people at all income levels pay into and reap rewards from.<snip>

That one change (remove wage cap) would affect 6 percent of all workers, the very highest earners, but actuarial experts estimate that it would raise almost enough money to eliminate the projected shortfall without needing to cut benefits at all.<snip>

NY times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/01/politics/01social.html)

Well, so much for Progressives not having a plan.

Maybe the real problem here is that the whore Mainstream Media is to busy pissing themselves over some bad Pickle0 puns.