Bush Moves to Privatize Social Security

[Champ]

By LEIGH STROPE, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Fresh off re-election, President Bush is dusting off an ambitious plan to overhaul Social Security, a controversial proposal that had been shelved because of politics and the administration's focus on tax cuts and terrorism.



Bush envisions a framework that would partially privatize Social Security with personal investment accounts similar to 401(k) plans.


A starting point is a plan proposed by a presidential commission in 2001 that would divert 2 percent of workers' payroll taxes into private accounts. The remaining 4.2 percent — and the Social Security taxes employers pay — would go into the system, helping fund benefits for current retirees. That leaves a shortfall of at least $2 trillion to continue funding benefits for those current retirees.


Bush said his commission, headed by the late Democratic Sen. Patrick Moynihan of New York, provided "a good blueprint."


For future retirees, base benefits would be cut by tying them to inflation instead of wage growth, with stock market gains assumed to make up any shortfall. The concept gained support in the stock market boom of the late 1990s.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&ncid=693&e=1&u=/ap/20041110/ap_on_go_pr_wh/second_term_social_security

[htuttle]

1. Stop! Thief!

[July]

105. IIRC, Kerry was called a fearmonger by Bush for saying

they'd be doing this by JANUARY.

[jdj]

107. and a dead guy is in charge, WTF???

I guess they can't accuse Moynihan of having a vested interest..

[GHOSTDANCER]

218. They already took it. This just makes it legal in the eyes of the Lord.

We got drawers and drawers full of IOU's??????? As if they...I mean we .... I mean our kids....I mean them????????? could ever pay us..I mean Our kids I mean Them?????........ back?

[goclark]

Please stop, don't mess with my SS

They are talking about future enrollees right?
I just made it, got my first check yesterday.

[Yupster]

177. Proposals I've seen are for

people aged 40 or less, and voluntary.

[goclark]

202. Thanks so much my mom couldn't

sleep! She is 86 and she hates Bush.

[Name removed]

219. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[demnan]

2. Fucker wants to put my Mother in the Poor House!

[wildflower]

3. Think anyone who voted for him this time around is already regetting it?

I'll bet there are at least a few.

Maybe they'd be interested in taking a look at the election problems.

-wildflower

[sniffa]

8. no

my mother-in-Law thinks it's a wonderfuL idea! despite the fact that she'd be screwed.

[bendeminga]

12. It IS a great idea.

Right now if you get SS and you die 2 years after getting it--where does the hundreds of thousands of $$$ that your worked hard for go? Back to the government. I want what I have worked hard for to go to my family or whomever I will it to. If I want to will it to the Wildlife Fund, I can. But I can't now!
Besides, they are only talking about partially privatizing--I think we should TRY and look at the good instead of criticizing and try and make the best of it.

[FlaGranny]

15. No way - if Bush says it is good - it is

good for someone other than me and that someone is someone who doesn't NEED social security.

[bendeminga]

17. I skimmed over one part....

The 2 trillion shortfall for current retirees....

This better be good.

[kysrsoze]

90. I read a lot about it in the Paul O'Neill book. I think it's a good idea

However, there is the huge shortfall, which O'Neill predicted. No way to pay for it now with all the tax cuts to the rich and corporations.

I would still like to see it setup so the contributions to private accounts are pulled right from peoples' salaries as they are now. Then they could be invested into a mix of mutual funds, bond funds, etc. from multiple investment firms with limited fees, to be selected by the individual. Allowing people to opt out of funding their retirement could result in serious ramifications for individuals and society.

[papau]

116. The Clinton approach was a voluntary 2% for accounts for those that want

them.

O'Neills book is bull shit - he tries to pretend a disaster is at hand by doing a present value of things 100 years from now.

The actuaries report says no problem until 2052 - and then raise retirement age for full benefit from Reagan's 67 to 70 (keeping early retirement beginning at 62.

Kerry wanted just a wage base increase - but that affects rich - and GOP will not do that

[Name removed]

137. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[papau]

115. That is 10 year - actually 4 trillion in time - 13 to 15 trillion if 100%

becomes private accounts.

As the GOP says we fund it at 100 to 200 B a year via higher payroll taxes (they might even raise the wage cap a bit so as to keep the tax increase down a bit) - or we fund it via debt.

And something that is not broke MUST BE FIXED - PER GOP!

[bigluckyfeet]

86. Exactly

If the chimp says it is good,I don't want it.I have already send letters to the white house and my 2 repuke senators.

[trogdor]

19. No...

...the name of the program is Social Security, and that does not mean taking part of the money and wagering it in the stock market. Do that with your IRA and/or 401K, but not with the last thing that stands between you and the pavement below.

Just because you know how to invest in the stock market doesn't mean everyone else does. I am sure there are fly-by-night operators drooling all over the floor at the possibility Bush might manage to get this passed, and they're just waiting to steal people blind.

[mistertrickster]

22. Right, and if you don't die, what happens to all the money you used

to buy life insurance?

Social security is not your money. It is a gov't plan to keep old people from starving to death.

If you want to save toward your retirement, go right ahead. I am, and pretty aggressively too, if I do say so myself.

But SS is not a savings account, never was, and never should be in my opinion.

Think of it this way, who's going to pay for YOU if you don't die and put all your money into Enron? Other taxpayers . . . or you starve, take your pick.

[Sideways]

24. Great Idea My Grannies Arse

Try and look at it like this, if it is an idea coming from the Boosh administration it is fucking good for one group of people the ELITE and their Investment cronies. Oh sorry that is a redundancy. You are being most unhelpful peddling your spurious trash.

[Chef]

27. SS

The "hundreds of thousands of $$$" went to pay the benefits of retirees, widows, orphans and disabled while you were working. You are parroting the * argument that you aren't getting a return on your money paid in. The average retiree gets back all of the "hundreds of thousands of $$$" they paid in within three years.

What I pay today, pays the benefits of current retirees.

[papau]

117. a return on your money paid is a illogical bullshit idea for pay as you go

transfers between generations.

[PA Democrat]

30. How do you propose to come up with the estimated $2 TRILLION

in transition costs required to do this? Increase the deficit even more, or cut benefits and let grandma Millie either freeze to death or starve to death?

Also, consider that Wall Street will skim off a nice chunk of money to manage these private accounts. I have seen estimates that put fees associated with privatized accounts at 3 to 5 times the administrative costs of the current Social Security system.

If people want to "privatize" their retirement funds, they already can do so through an IRA.

[bendeminga]

42. I appreciate your arguments on this subject...

Instead of calling me names, like I expected!

I have major questions as well--like how do we make absolutely SURE that no one loses benefits? (Current and future)
I'm not an expert, but Historically, I believe that when you invest in the stock market LONG TERM and you are decently diversified (not all eggs in one basket) you always come out in much better shape.
What they are trying to do is not eliminate SS but to hopefully have us invest better than they are(they aren't investing at all)--they are just paying benefits out to retirees now. That way, we'll draw on our investment--so there's more in SS for those that need it.

I'm not trying to push *'s agenda, it just looks like it's going to happen anyway and I'm looking to make the best of it.

I'm still willing to hear your ideas!

Ben

[Bridget Burke]

55. No, what they are trying to do is eliminate Social Security.

And Medicaid, Medicare, Public Education, etc.

That's precisely the plan.

[RedCon1]

88. F*ck this

They're forcibly taking money out of American paychecks via the SS tax and then giving it to corporations via the stockmarket. Americans should be able to choose whether or not they want to be unequal partners with a cabal of billionaire crooks. I personally wouldn't trust corporate executives with my lunch money let alone my national poverty security net. Who in their right mind would want the Ken Lays of the world managing their retirement or their parents retirement or grandparents retirement?

[Hotler]

159. AMEN!!!!!

n/t

[goclark]

157. My feelings exactly

[amandabeech]

91. You must hope that you don't need that money during or after

a stock market crash or bubble bust.

It took 25 years at least for stock prices to recover after the Great Depression.

Look at the NASDAQ today. In 2000 it was at 5000, now it's at 2000. Many people lost huge amounts of their retirement savings.

It's true that on average over many, many years, stock market returns are good.

However, most people live about 12 -15 years after retirement, not decades. They can't wait for a lengthy rebound to replenish their accounts.

[OzarkDem]

97. You haven't answered the question

Where will Bush get the money for the $2 TRILLION shortfall?

[bendeminga]

101. I'm with ya--exactly my question as well! n/t

[papau]

120. I am an expert - and equity returns - if that is goal -are easy to get by

moving out of government bonds in the Social Security Trust Fund and into equities.

But the GOP HATE THIS IDEA as it means SS holds a large equity position, and banks will have to finance the tax cut for the rich that is currently being financed by the surplus in the SS system. (2.4 trillion in surplus over next 4 years is what the GOP is trying to steal)

[stevebreeze]

150. IN fact investing in the stock market is UNlikely to give larger returns

then the current system. The stock market can not grow faster then the economy and so is unlikely to return more then the current system of investing in T-bills.
clink here for details.
http://www.cepr.net/Social_Security/cepr_renews_challenge.htm

[SCRUBDASHRUB]

153. Welcome to DU, Ben.

[creeksneakers2]

165. You don't ALWAYS come out better

The past average has been higher than government bonds pay, but there are countless people who lost money in the stock market, even if they were diversified.

Also, the idea that that private investment would pay more is based on past stock market performance. (Usually taking out the great depression but including everything since.) There is no reason to believe the market would behave in the same way in the future. If the government compels people to invest, then investments would no longer be a free market. Its hard to predict how the markets would be skewed.

Government bonds also sell in the free market. They sell at a lower interest rate because they carry far less risk. The only way to increase yield is to increase risk.

All of this is academic because there is no money to do this with. If we really cared about future generations and we had more money, we could pay down the debt. That is the 100% sure way to make sure that those who come after us are better able to sustain S.S. Free them of the debt payments and they'll have more for S.S. and more to take home.

[stevebreeze]

220. You also have to consider that the stock market is NOW overpriced

by historical measure. It is currently at about 20-1 P/E. Historically this if much higher then the average 14/1, and so unlikely to return higher then average returns over the next dozen years or two.

[papau]

118. True :-)

:-)

[KitSileya]

50. So what happens if you live as long as my great grandmother?

Who died at the ripe old age of 95? That's 28 years of SS - we only work a decade and a half more.

But you are right, we should try to look at it and twist it to the advantage of the poor and lower class workers instead of dismissing it out of hand. It's not as if such a dismissal would affect anything, weak as we are on the national level.

[papau]

121. WE ARE NOT WEAK - THIS WILL NOT PASS UNLESS WE CAVE.

There has not been a bill twisted to the advantage of the poor and lower class workers since the GOP took power of all branches in 2001.

[KitSileya]

132. I dunno how they can stop this, tho'

The dems are even weaker now than they have been in a long time, and I wonder if they really have the power to do anything substantial. We have our number of DINOs, even of we got rid of Zell Miller, so the advantage is slim. Must have a really, really strong whip, that's for sure.

[papau]

146. 40 Dems in the Senate stop it.

AARP stops it.

Mass demonstrations stop it.

GOP fear of the 06 elections stop it.

[iamjoy]

70. And If You Die A Few Years After Paying Into It

Your spouse gets the benefit (or any minor children)
Also, if you are disabled, it pays a benefit.
That's assuming there's no disqualification for lack of quarters.

Social Security is not just a retirement account. It is death and disability insurance. As far as I am concerned though, Social Security is a tax and welfare system to protect the most vulnerable. Privatize it and you do away with the protection that is the whole purpose of Social Security. Why do we need to have private Social Security accts when we have IRAs & 401(k)s? Why not offer more incentives for companies to offer retirement plans or ways to make it easier for the self employed to save?

Plus, who is going to help people decide how to invest their money? Oh yeah, investment bankers/financial advisors. The same type of people who probably were pushing Enron and WorldCom in the summer and early fall of 2001.

[bendeminga]

84. I think the real question is this:

Good suggestions, by the way, Iamjoy...

SS is not the best plan now--They are trying to do something to fix it, I personally don't think it's a bad idea--but it's only 2% of the 6% that's allocated to SS.

So--if this isn't a good idea--What's the best answer to handle a failing SS system? What else, like Iamjoy, do you suggest?

[RedCon1]

99. well, for starters

There are way too many people abusing the SS security system imho. I have worked in a mental hospital for a while. Just about every single psycho, schizo, manic-depressive, dysthymic, out cast in the place was collecting SS benefits because they can't get a grip. The vast majority of these individuals have never contributed a dime to SS. I'm sorry, that's not what social security is for. That's what state funded welfare programs are for (again, imho). Furthermore, I know of an individual collecting social security owing to her brain damaged status. She is a multi-millionaire thanks to the lawsuit that resulted from the incident causing the brain damage but she still collects that SS check every month. She has not contributed a single red cent to the SS fund. She became impregnated by a bi-polar schizophrenic(who has never contributed) who also collects social security BTW ad from what I understand, the child is eligible for social security benefits also in some capacity or another.
There is a bum I know of attempting to convince the SS administration that his back is thrown out and he deserves SS benefits as a result. He has never contributed a dime to SS. He's lying through his teeth and hasn't collected anything but I'm sure others are succeeding where he failed. This is not what the SS security system was meant to be about. These are just a few examples of fraud, waste, and abuse of the SS system. I think it's safe to say that there are plenty more. SS is a safety net for retired people born out of the hell that was the Great Depression. FDR didn't plan for his program to be used as a general tax to fund every social program that came down the pike. It had a limited purpose and that purpose has been expanded too much. As far as I'm concerned, if you didn't contribute, you aren't eligible for a dime of SS benefits.

[mistertrickster]

104. This is the standard right-wing method--take a couple of anecdotes

and blow them way out of proportion to the good the program does.

SS is the most successful and popular program ever created. If a few people have figured out a way to game the system, that's fraud and the gov't has every right to investigate and punish them.

But that doesn't mean the system is wholly bad, anymore than car insurance is bad because some people make money off it who don't deserve to.

Privatizing wouldn't remediate any of the abuses you describe.

By the way RED CON (for what? red state conservative?), did it ever occur to you that mentally ill people might not have paid into social security because they are, oh, I don't know, maybe, uh . . . . MENTALLY ILL AND CAN'T WORK?

Okay, this is it--I've had enough for today.

This thread is drawing FReeps like bees to honey.

[RedCon1]

112. Direct your anger somewhere else

I never claimed that privatization would fix the problems I described. I believe I flatly stated that I was against privatization in fact. The question was posed, what do you propose to do if not privatize? The only other options are raising the retirement age, reducing benefits, or eliminating fraud, waste, and abuse and prioritizing who should receive SS benefits. I believe that my mother, who has paid in for 30 some years, is a priority over anybody who has not paid a single dime into the system. She should not have to accept reduced benefits so some malingering POS can sit at home and collect free money. She shouldn't have to put her retirement off for another day because Texas doesn't want to provide anything for their mentally ill. The psychos living in Texas are not my mother's problem, they are the problems of the Texans. They need to fix their problem with their state money, not with federal SS money.
Oh, we could always raise taxes to fix it. That sounds like another brilliant winning Democratic strategy there. Or, we could shift money away from things like...Iraq...if we had any power left to do something like that. Of course we don't. Furthermore, I voted for and fought for Kerry so quit calling me a Freep. Attaching labels to people who disagree with you is about as Republican as you can get BTW.

[mistertrickster]

210. You didn't say you were against privatization in your first post.

You simply attacked a bunch of institutionalized people with severe disabilities and attacked the victims for society's problems.

For not being right wing, that sure sounds like what the right wing does.

Now it's your poor mother whose SS is going to be cut because of all the frauds and fakers. It's called the either/or fallacy--either we restrict SS to people who have "earned it" or we cut benefits to all.

Wrong, the gov't has plenty of money. It's the priorities it sets. Don't blame the mentally ill for what the crazies in Washington do.

********
And what does RedCon stand for, anyway?

[LightTheMatch]

217. Malingering?

Find me these 'malingering POS's' ...... my father was a social security attorney for many years. Almost everyone on SS disability DESERVES and NEEDS that help.

[papau]

123. No they do not succeed - getting DI from SS is quite hard to do!

The plan is not expanded too much if there is no problem until 2052.

Or how do you define a problem?

[RedCon1]

147. I don't know...

I have seen a lot of DI handed out to the mentally ill. They lose all incentive to get better when they learn to associate free money with continued illness too. This may be more of a mental health community problem than a SS problem though. It seems like a little of both to me. Unfortunately, however, every person I have ever known that collects SS, except for the elderly, did not deserve it and should not have been collecting it. That's a problem as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say about the lack of expansion until 2052 barring any problems. The way I see it, we are currently borrowing money to keep America afloat. That's a pretty serious problem as far as I am concerned. That means we're not collecting enough in taxes to cover current SS expenditures, other social programs, and wars in Iraq and elsewhere. That means we're going to have to start making choices pretty soon. Tennessee is making choices right now I see by reducing medical coverage for indigent children. Because Democrats have limited power in congress now, I think we can safely predict how those choices are going to pan out for America. I'm sure we'll continue to borrow money to hide from the reality but, it will only make the choices more painful and limited in the longrun. Social security is being used in Washington as a second income tax to fund things like Operation: Destroy Iraq. Once both income taxes run out, we have to borrow. That will suck more of our income taxes out of the social programs requiring further borrowing necessitating painful choices or more borrowing. Where does it end? Maybe this all makes sound finacial sense in your house, but in my house, it equals utter ruin. This is my definition of a problem.

[papau]

151. No - not true - The SS DI exam is very tough to pass - but I agree that

SS is used as a second income tax

Indeed this wholeprivate account idea is just a way to avoid raising taxes on the rich and corporate. Theres 10 years ahead that total 2.4 Trillion of SS surplus that should be used to pay down the debt = the lockbox idea of 2000 - and not be used to help the rich avoid paying FIT taxes.

I agree that as long as the rich are protected from taxes, utter ruin via no money for anything other than welfare grants to the rich and corporate will be the future - as you say - this defines a problem.

So how does stealing from Social Security define an answer? At least it is not an answer that I want Dems to endorse.

Medical costs must be controlled via national health - and even then there will be Tenn/OR type limits on what is covered. Indeed the rich will get better care than the rest of us - as if that is not the current situation! :-)

Borrowing from the future is the GOP way - the national debt will go up - and interest rates will be higher than they would otherwise be so that job creating growth does not happen. A lousy economy will mean "low interest rates" - just not low enough to spark growth.

The EU does not use our pretend GDP growth growth via "improvements" in product that the US uses, and the EU has moved future growth estimates from 1.8% to 1.5% to reflect the slower world economy as Bush screws the world. The US will report GDP growth between 2 and 3% over the next 4 years - while actually having less than 1% (measured EU style) real growth.

[Lerkfish]

205. right wing talking points...

sorry, but the "welfare mothers' and other anecdotal examples of abuse does not make the system invalid anymore than someone stealing a loaf of bread means we should close down the grocery store.

[DebJ]

209. my son gets SSDI because of mental illness. He works when he

can, and is suffering horribly when he can not. HOW ABOUT THE FACT THAT MY FAMILY AS A WHOLE has paid into SSI for generations now, and
in just my grandparents generation, two died before collecting a dime, two died shortly after they began collecting SSI. I can tell you, if they can see down here, they would have no problems with THEIR money paid into the account helping my son.
And it costs maybe $10,000 a year to help him this way...or you can let him go off his meds, kill someone, and then pay $45000 a year or more for the rest of his life to keep him in prison, not to mentioning the suffering of the family of the deceased.
Glad to meet you, compassionate conservative.

[Porcupine]

222. So do we starve them or open death camps?

I hate the arrogant SOB's that propose eliminating support for this or that segment of the populace because they are "lazy."

Here's a clue a@@h*l#, all the hard working good folks you think shouldn't be supporting somebody else will be infirm someday. ALL OF THEM.

Huge numbers of "hard workin 'mericans" are right now developing entirely preventable cases of heart disease and type II diabetes. Should we just kick them out the door too? "Sorry you're dying buddy but you shoulda taken a walk every day like the surgeon general said."

The reason we have social security and medicare is that it SAVES MONEY that we would otherwise spend dealing with the civil unrest caused by social inequity.

If you want low taxes move to one of the many low tax/no service countries in South America. Not likely. Low tax/low service countries are hell on earth for the majority of their people.

[papau]

122. THERE is nothing that needs to be fixed until the year 2052!

Why do folks at DU treat GOP lies as if they have an ounce of truth?

[RedCon1]

148. I disagree with that n/t

[papau]

155. Ok - refer to the Social Security Trustees Report/Actuaries projection and

tell us what needs to be fixed.

Please

I am very curious. But just Social Security please.

Do not run away to problems in medical insurance - because we all agree that indeed needs to be fixed.

[0007]

161. My god, are these payed troll or what.

[RedCon1]

171. No

I have already given my opinion on this matter. You seem to be operating under the assumption that the SS tax and Medicare tax and Federal Income tax are separated. That's not the case at all. It's all the same general revenue and, therefore, what affects one, affects the others;furthermore, I doubt anybody can accurately project the long term viability of SS or any other social program funded by tax dollars so long as we continue to use deficit spending to conceal the actual health of our economy, or lack thereof. Bush's tax cuts are reminiscent of the Mellon tax cuts of the 1920's and as far as I'm concerned, those tax cuts had a hell of a lot to do with the Great Depression. How shocked were Americans when they learned that those tax cuts allowed J.P. Morgan and his 19 partners to avoid paying any taxes at all throughout the Great Depression. How shocked will America be again when we drive our economy into another Depression which will be exactly what the neo-cons require as a reason to shitcan all social programs that require employer matching funds, namely social security. Regarding your optimistic outlook based on some government report, I would remind you that in 1928, during his Republican nomination acceptance speech, Herbert Hoover's optimism led him to declare that "we in America are nearer to the final triumph over poverty than ever before in the history of any land." I guess if he meant that the poor were close to finally being defeated he wasn't lying but I don't think that's what he meant. You can continue to believe in your SSTRAP but I'm going to maintain amy pessimistic outlook anyways.

[papau]

194. If same revenue why no payroll tax cut in the Bush tax cut for the rich?

Actually we agree! :-)

I agree the game is starve the gov of revenue and spend for corporate welfare (defense up 40% under Bush without any increase in manpower!)

pessimistic outlook is only reasonable if you feel folks will not cause a change - either with logic or with force applied to the GOP and their lazy lackeys in the media -

[mulethree]

175. The problem before 2042

"Annual cost will exceed tax income starting in 2018 at which
time the annual gap will be covered with cash from redeeming
special obligations of the Treasury, until these assets are
exhausted in 2042."

"assets held in special issue U.S. Treasury securities grew to
$1.5 trillion." expected to grow to "to $3,584 billion at the beginning of 2013"

"Interest on investments. . . 75,228" (in millions)

THE 2004 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE FEDERAL
OLD-AGE AND SURVIVORS INSURANCE AND DISABILITY INSURANCE TRUST FUNDS

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR04/tr04.pdf


So in 2018 the trust fund stops having more tax income than payouts, but it keeps growing a few years because the interest payments from the treasury will be about $220 Bln by then. At some point, around 2012, it begins to recieve more in interest than it pays in exchange for new bonds. Then around 2020, starts to shrink, redeeming bonds to keep up with payouts. It will stop disguising a big chunk of our deficits and start adding onto either the tax load or the international bond market.

By that time other countries will be dealing with their own baby-boom-retirement situations and will be more interested in redeeming the US Bonds they hold than in buying new ones. It becomes harder to find buyers for bonds so we pay higher interest to entice more buyers.

So if SS can be 'fixed' so that it's trust fund grows, then we can continue borrowing from it instead of selling as many bonds on the open markets. We can grow the debt to even higher levels and put off even longer this problem of paying the money we owe.

It's said deficits will be paid for by our grandchildren. Well in the current situation they will be paid by our children, who will be so strapped by taxes that they won't be able to afford to give birth to grandchildren. By 'fixing' social security so it's trust fund grows another 20 years, we both get to have grandchildren and even better fulfill our promise to leave them a huge mountain of debt.

[Yupster]

179. You're sounding like the trust fund surplus is sitting somewhere

earning interest which can be used later.

It isn't.

There is no money in any trust fund earning any interest.

It's just an accounting ledger where the government says it owes the social security trust fund $ 200 billion, $ 700 billion, $ 2 trillion. The number doesn't matter because the government doesn't have the money to make the debts good and has no forseeable prospects of ever having money to make the debts good.

It's nice having the IOU's I guess, but they are very meaningless. There is no money in any trust fund making any interest anywhere.

[papau]

196. Bonds are IOU's-your point?Say sell bonds in capital market & buy equities

you say "You're sounding like the trust fund surplus is sitting somewhere earning interest which can be used later. It isn't."

and that is a lie - a GOP mis-statement - a way to put down any Bond investment that is a "discount bond" - see your stock broker to learn about discount bond investments. Capital market investments depend on "credit worthiness" - is the Tax stream on the rich going away so that US creditworthiness sucks for all the bonds - the National Debt - that we have issued?

"There is no money in any trust fund earning any interest." - again a mis-characterzation about how a discount bond investment works.

"It's just an accounting ledger where the government says it owes the social security trust fund $ 200 billion, $ 700 billion, $ 2 trillion. The number doesn't matter because the government doesn't have the money to make the debts good and has no forseeable prospects of ever having money to make the debts good." - A gov bond is a claim on future taxes - so you are saying all gov bonds are worthless because the US Credit is worthless - so the capital markets should avoid all bonds sales by the gov? Or do taxes only get used for this bond - and not that bond? Indeed the destruction of SS is the Bush plan to avoid future tax increases on the rich that would in effect pay SS back for the monies stolen by Bush to finance the current tax cuts for the rich.

IOU's = bonds
bonds = capital markets - including home mortgage

should I tell my bank the IOU - home mortgage - they hold on my home is worthless, so I will just stop payments? The is what Bush is doing - saying SS is worthless so no more taxes will be paid by the rich to fund it

[papau]

193. fix SS by ending it so as to avoid tax increase on rich - "fix" Defense

spending first -or is that a no-no and Bush's 40% increase in Defense spending in 4 years is a given - as if there are rules about how to reflect the lack of revenue caused by tax cuts for the rich?

[Yupster]

178. That 2052 number is assuming

The social security surplus is available when needed.

Surprise !!

It's not available and won't be. It's already been spent on missiles and things.

My retirement will be fine as long as my brother-in-law gives me the $ 500,000 he promised me. Unfortunately he doesn't have it and has no prospect of ever getting it, but it still makes me feel better saying everything will be fine.

[iamjoy]

168. Other Unpopular Stuff

The Conservatives will never be happy acknowledging Social Security as anything other than an investment which is why they think private accounts are a good idea. Of course, the more greedy are just being "bribed" by the Financial Services industries.

I say we take a look at the income caps. The way it's set up, the more you pay in, the more benefits you receive. But some people make so much money, they don't really need that much more when they retire and really should save more while they work. A worker trying to raise a family on $20,000 a year doesn't have much left to set aside for retirment. That's not necessarily the case for some one making $100,000 a year. We could increase the wage cap (currently around $75,000). So right now, some one making that amount pays the same Social Security tax as some one making $200,000, $1,000,000, etc. If you embrace liberal economic policies and believe the purpose of Social Security is to be a safety net for those who need it most instead of a government sponsored retirement plan, this seems wrong.

[Yupster]

180. This could work if

it's coupled with a proposal to bring workers not in the social security system back into its fold.

Most teachers in Texas and other states were allowed to set up their own much better retirement plans and decline social security.

If teachers were put back into the system and the income cap was raised, I think it could be done politically.

Republicans would swallow a tax increase on their wealthier supporters, and Democrats would convince their most powerful union supporters to swallow replacing their cherry retirement plan and be treated like every other worker.

I think those two proposals could pass if they were done together.

Take off the income cap, and every worker must be in social security, even public schoolteachers.

[Still_Notafraid]

198. I

have watched a lot of cspan on this topic,and there has been many experts of s.s saying that there is no threat it would be a easy fix if we would just have fiscal discipline,they also say we had the same hysteria about s.s in the 70's, but it was just hype and that is what this is.

The reason Republicans want to do this is to some how undermined S.S,you have to remember there ultimate goal,and that is as little government as possible, they want to privatize everything so they can get there 10% tax bracket for the wealthy why everyone else is living social Darwinism.

[bigluckyfeet]

92. Two of my Grandparents

lived to the age of 93,one 90 and the other 87,they collected way more than they paid in.

[SoCalDem]

110. okay.. so what? Here's what..

Without social security for THEM...YOUR PARENTS would have had to shoulder the entire burden, and YOUR care ,and the financial security of your family woould have suffered greatly..

Social Security is an Inter-generational Promise.. WE pay now for those before us, in exchange for the promise that we too, will get help when we can no longer work..

The boomers not only paid "our fair-share", we were "asked" forced to PRE-PAY our own share when we were just hitting our stride (The Reagan years)... coupled with raging inflation and horrendous interest rates, but we DID it...only to amass a huge pile of cash that "our dear leaders" just could not resist stealing from us.

So now that we are nearing the end of our 45-50 yrs of labor, we are supposed to just use the emily litella approach and say.."never mind"?

I don't THINK so...

All that needs to happen is THIS... Take off the "cap".. and be patient , young ones... when the boomers are gone (sooner than you would think, probably), there will be more of everything for you guys..

[mulethree]

176. Probably but include compounded interest

Figure compounded annual return on the money they put in and it works out better. Figure 5% per year but then subtract inflation.

If it was completely private then they would stop recieving income when their contributions ran out? And the guy who dies at 64 would have his contributions and accumulated investment income paid to his kids instead of it's being used to continue payments to those who lived longer than expected?

[papau]

113. A simple term insurance feature provides the estate benefit you describe

This is meant to screw you

There is no good side.

It rips 1/3 of the payroll tax that goes into these new accounts out of funding your benefit and sends it to Wall Street as expense payments.

[Yupster]

181. Can't use term insurance for a

75 year old in poor health though.

[alarimer]

160. they really want to elimnate it

Dems need to be saying this over and over again.

[Mountainman]

162. Rule of thum, if it is proposed by repubs it's not for the benefit of the

working class.

What I like about the bush election is that your going to get screwed too only you probably asked for it I didn't.

[Art_from_Ark]

173. Abso-freepin'-lutely

With a couple of exceptions, the Repug Party has been against the working class since the days of Grant, or even before.

[Andromeda]

172. There is no 'good side...

to this plan. The neocons just want to bankrupt Social Security instead of assuring seniors a guaranteed income in their last days.

Be suspicious of this because Bush just wants to find a way get his hands on SS money for his own purposes.

[RapidCreek]

195. There is no best of fascism chief.

You sort of remind me of Germans who said "we should try and look at the good of Naziism instead of cricizing and try and make the best of it".

Lovely....you try and look at the good of going 2 trillion dollars deeper in debt and levying a birth tax of $100,000 dollars on every child born after such a plan is put into action.

Explain to me what is good about hating children and ripping off old people.

RC

[demnan]

10. My Mother

would have sooner walked on hot coils than voted for George Bush. She hates all Republicans now, even though she voted for Republicans most of her life.

[Inland]

4. Bush isn't going to fund the shortfall. I'm screwed, along with

all but the young (whose private accounts might accumulate wealth over time) and current retirees. Fuck you, Bush. Fuck you.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

21. The young will have a tough time too...

Lack of SS benefits means people won't retire, or will wait until they're physically incapable of working. So young people are going to have a much tougher time finding jobs, unless they find positions with companies that fire older employees.

And we can kiss tenured positions goodbye, too. That's just not going to happen anymore.

[Inland]

154. They have a chance. At least, they don't know for sure they are

screwed. But the math for anyone between youth and retirement age is impossible. Bush isn't going to fund the change. I'm screwed.

[VegasWolf]

5. Wall Street payback time! n/t

[Sequoia]

6. Invest and then the corporation goes belly-up

All people over 50 will be kilt 'cause we can't support you.

[denverbill]

7. Let's see. How's he coming on my list?

Well, obviously nothing counts until it's approved legislatively, but he's sure on track.

[Yavin4]

9. If You Think The Corruption That Halliburton Did With the Military Was Bad

then you aint seen nothing yet. Wait until the Wall Street boys get their hands on SS. The coke and Whores will be flowing like the river Jordan down Wall Street.

[Trillo]

11. What if I choose to not give any money to corporate?

Does this protect my choice?

[papau]

124. No - fees will exist just for the account

:-(

[Yupster]

182. You could either

stay with the current system since the change would be voluntary, or you could go with the change and just choose the CD option to put your money in.

[RapidCreek]

197. uh huh but I pay the price if the stock market tanks either way.

and going along with that would be plain fucking stupid....now wouldn't it?

Then again, that's what Bush and his pals depend upon....and with great success, I might add.


RC

[FlaGranny]

13. BASTARD!!

Nothing else to be said.

[byronm]

14. So much for social "security"

Thanks Bush.

Rich get richer and poor get poorer

[mistertrickster]

16. Stop and think about this for a second--why was SS created to begin with?

To prevent abject poverty among retirees who are not able to fully work in productive jobs anymore. Americans believe that old folks should not freeze to death because they can't afford heat for their dilapidated apartment, say, or slowly starve to death because they can't afford cat food.

SO . . . let's say that a lot of folks take Bush up on his "plan" to invest their SS into blue chip stocks. Some of those folks will invest heavily in companies like Enron, and since Bushitas are doing even LESS regulation of Wall Street than when Enron melted down, this is more and more likely.

NOW . . . we're right back where we started. We've got old folks who saved all their lives and have nothing to show for it. What happens? We let them starve? I don't think so, we taxpayers help them out ANYWAY. SS is finagled so that poor old folks who got cleaned out by corrupt corporations still get gov't money, but now they haven't contributed to it.

However, those who invested and did well don't have to pay into the system at all--it's their money.

THUS, it's just another way to PRIVATIZE profits for rich people and SUBSIDIZE losses for all the rest of us.

Good plan? You bet it's not!

[ohtransplant]

144. Bingo!

Again, who pays the $2 trillion? Maybe we could sell gift wrap door-to-door. I know, let's have another tax cut. That will help.

There is nothing that stops me from investing my account badly or in a corporation that goes belly up like....all together now...ENRON!

When that happens to those whose accounts are depleted? Warfare? Where will that money come from? More debt? More taxes? OOOHH, Goody, Sign me up.

Who do you think will grab huge management fees for managing these accounts? The middle class? If this passes, those who have two cents to rub together should invest heavily in the big brokerages.

This does not allow anyone to opt out of Social Security. Understand that fact.

The only winners here are the wealthy. It's the poor saps in the middle and lower income levels that fall for these false promises of our great paternalistic president *. Isn't that what happened last week?

[Yupster]

183. I would be surprised if there was

an individual stock option. My guess is it would be like most 401(k)'s where you'd have a fixed option and a spattering of bond, growth and income and growth mutual funds.

[SouthStar]

18. Personally

I would opt out of SS today if I could. People can far better provide for themselves and their elder years with private accounts than they will ever get from SS.

I do not understand why so many people in my party are dead set against SS privatization and clearly have an overriding feeling that people can not be trusted with their own retirement.

I really wish Clinton would have made a serious move on the matter instead of only talking about in his SOTU speech.

[FlaGranny]

23. Because a good chunk

of your privatized insurance money is profit for wall street. Because there is no quarantee your investments will be good ones. Because you might become disabled and unable to contribute to your retirement. Because your job might be outsourced and you will wind up working in Walmart. Because . . . . fill in the blanks.

[SouthStar]

25. Because, because, because

Should I stop contributing to my 401(k) and Roth IRA as well because of the reasons you listed?

[FlaGranny]

29. Of course not, but you'll still have

your social security if you don't pick the right stocks.

[Bridget Burke]

33. Gamble all you want with your 401(k) and Roth IRA.

You may be glad that Social Security is there for you. If it is.

[jus_the_facts]

38. one bad day on Wall Street and you don't HAVE a 401K or IRA...

....keep gambling with your future if you so choose...don't make it LAW that others are FORCED to gamble with the ONLY option they'll EVER have.... :eyes:

[SouthStar]

40. Only option?

There is no requirement in 401(k)s, IRA, or a potential private SS account that a single dime be put in the stock market.

[jus_the_facts]

43. Keep believing the CORPORATE BS........

....ignorance must be BLISS! :nopity:

[SouthStar]

46. So, ignorance

and corporate BS is knowing for a fact that I am not required in anyway to put a dime into stocks.

Seems you are the ignorant one on the matter.

[jus_the_facts]

60. just because you aren't REQUIRED to doesn't negate the FACT.....

....that those accounts were set up for gambling in the stock market to the whimsy of CORPORATE GREED....regardless of any REQUIREMENT or NOT...the GOV'T is THERE to ensure that the minority isn't screwed over by the elite...privitization is all about the opposite....it's THAT simple....obviously you're bein' taken care of...AT PRESENT...by the CORPORATE LIES....better HOPE that it lasts... :eyes:

[SouthStar]

64. Do you have a retirement account?

If so, why? Seems you are 100% opposed to them. After all, evil corporate bastards are just gonna rob you blind.

[jus_the_facts]

78. LOL....hell NO I don't...I make a whoppin' 6 bucks an hour.....

....with no offer from my employers to gamble away any pennies I don't have left over....go sell your retirement RICHES stories somewhere else goddammit! :eyes:

[SouthStar]

85. Well

if you don't ever start a retirement account don't come crying to me when you are trying to scrap by on SS.

They can be started for $50. $25 here and $25 there adds up over the years. As Einstein said, the most powerful force in the universe is the power of compounding interest.

[jus_the_facts]

96. DID YOU NOT COMPREHEND.....I DON'T HAVE ANY LEFT TO INVEST.....

....AND DON'T WORRY...I'D NOT COME *CRYIN'* TO YOU FOR SHIT....it's the GOV'T that'll TAKE it from YOU and YOURS again one day...since you're sooooo smart and prosperous! :eyes:

[mistertrickster]

106. This is the standard right wing line--You're poor because of your

own damn fault. Shame on you. You can't save money because you have no discipline.

Not like Rush Limbaugh, who actually WENT ON WELFARE FOR TWO YEARS, the hypocritical bastard.

Didn't you hear Ahnold at the Reich National Convention? People who complain about having to take bad jobs are "economic girl-y men."

[papau]

129. Give up on SouthStar - just a freeper selling bull shit

:-)

[DebJ]

212. oh, gee, that works well. Right now I'm trying to get a SECOND

job to pay for my transmission overhaul to keep my POS vehicle on the road. Oh, yes, I can afford $25 here and there. Hey, come get my paycheck and live on it for 6 months, THEN talk like the American Dream is real.

[Yupster]

184. You can save as little as $ 25 a month

I urge you to do it as soon as possible.

[mistertrickster]

213. Right, 25 a month for 40 years is a whopping 12,000. Including

compounding at 8 percent a year (despite the fact that no one can get 8 percent and no one has gotten 8 percent since Clinton), you might have enough to live comfortably for maybe two years after you retire.

Look, saving for retirement is a great idea, and I encourage any and all to save as much as they can possibly squirrel away. But this is not the policy answer we need from our gov't.

We probably agree on that . . .

[papau]

127. Nope - DU knows the facts - and Fox News lies do not become

truth when you post here.

[Trillo]

56. But I don't want to put my money with Corporate!

How does this protect that choice of mine?

[SouthStar]

58. Bonds

You can put money in bonds as one example.

[Trillo]

67. Isn't the 401K type(the new 2% SS) account itself held by corporate?

[SouthStar]

71. Corporate

Do you have a bank account? Isn't that held by "corporate"?

[Trillo]

74. Yes to your second question. I don't want my money there.

"the world is run by greedy bankers."

How does this privitazation "free me" to keep my new SS "private account" out of corporate hands?

[SouthStar]

81. so you don't have a bank account?

So you don't have a bank account because of "greedy bankers?"

[SouthStar]

83. Are you employed?

Are you employed? And if so, do you work for a corporation? And if so, aren't you just growing the greedy corporate beast by your labor?

[jus_the_facts]

95. take that paradox BULLSHIT arguement somewhere else.........

....WE DEPEND ON A GOV'T TO PROTECT ALL OUR INTERESTS...NOT JUST THE INTERESTS OF CORPORATIONS AND WALLSTREET *INVESTORS*...which is the sole purpose of ALL THAT IS PRIVATIZED...

[Yupster]

185. You could choose to stay with the current system

Any proposal will be voluntary.

Or you ca leave the current system and invest your account only in government bonds.

[papau]

130. And with bonds your projected benefit does not replace Bush Benefit

Cut -

But why talk about that when we can try to sell bull shit slogans

[papau]

126. YET without prentend equity returns the cut in SS benefits is too obvious!

What bull shit

[Bridget Burke]

28. Are there really many people in your party against privatization?

Social Security is not just a retirement fund.

However, it is a legacy of FDR; your party has never gotten over their hatred for him.

[SouthStar]

32. Democrats hate FDR?

Thats news to me.

[Bridget Burke]

52. What Democratic policies DO you support?

Hint: A National Sales Tax is not a Democratic plan.

[SouthStar]

59. Sales tax

Please find for me a post where I proclaim support for a national sales tax.

[flaminbats]

149. why would you support a massive new sales tax?

I support it to help pay down the debt and for the war. Don't most conservatives oppose new taxes?

[papau]

131. No - you hate FDR - based on your posts and partial truth answer that

cover up the disaster the Bush is planning as he steals the SS projected Surplus of 2.4 trillion over the next 10 years.

Why have you sold out to the rich and corporate?

What was your price?

[fwiff]

31. You can still invest all you want privately

I do, and with good tax benefits. The point is, that private investment is no guarantee that you will increase your earnings. Many people have lost their shirts. And while we may say, you're on your own, sow what you reap, etc., massive poverty is a bad thing for a capitalist economy no matter how you look at it. What would you propose to do if you, a friend or family member were wiped out?
What would you do?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

37. It's called Social Security..

...INSURANCE for a reason.

It's very helpful to understand the origins of many of the New Deal programs. SSI was created so that folks could depend on at least one stream of retirement cash in the worst case scenario that all their private investments went belly up.

You know, like all those folks who dumped all their cash into those red hot tech stocks in the 90s and are now in the financial crapper???

Hands off Social Security INSURANCE!!

[HockeyMom]

158. Loss Of Job

OR your job goes offshore and you are FORCED to cash in your 401K to pay the mortage, bills, feed your kids? If this happens when you are in your 40s or 50s, wont BE enough time to make it up. THAT is the security blanket of Social Security. Happended to US and many others we know.

[mistertrickster]

39. WRONG, who's going to pay for you if your "investments" don't work

out?

See, if you aren't a disruptor, you're someone who's bought into the radical right-wing BULLSHIT that private investment is always better than government programs.

I'm in SS (of course) and in a state pension fund as a public employee, and those two programs are doing WAY BETTER than the mutual funds I keep plunking 100's of dollars a month into.

Unless you're a real whiz with investments, and VERY FEW ARE, SS is going to pay off way better than your investments. For one thing, do you save 15 to 20 percent of salary/wages for your retirement? Not many have the discipline to do that.

The average SS recipeant gets all his / her money back after 7 years in SS. The rest is gravy. That's a helluva good deal, and if I could get an investment that would guarentee that, I'd take it in a minute.

DOW JONES is down 10 percent over Bush's last four years. Think of the poor bastards that thought they could retire in 2004 and now they're DOWN 50 percent of where they thought they'd be.

[happynewyear]

45. go ahead, opt out

and pray to God if you believe in God that you never develop some sort of serious progressive disease and you have no job anymore because no one will hire you and you are too damn sick to work.

Think about that would you?

It MIGHT happen to you and it does happen to "the other person out there" ...

Furthermore, you want all of the money for yourself now. What if your husband or wife dies and there is no pension money for you to collect as a result of the death? What if you have living children and they have no money to live on because there is no social security? Are you able to and willing to pay all of these expenses IF this happens to you.

God help you if you might live to be old. You'd be thinking twice about it all believe me as life changes and people in your life disapper, suddenly you just might find the only thing left that you do have is SOCIAL SECURITY!

:grr:

[SouthStar]

48. see post 36

And I can't opt out. Not allowed.

[papau]

133. Yes it is allowed - just convert wage income to investment return and

you pay no Social Security tax.

But that is for rich folks!

:-)

[papau]

125. Rate of Return is not the question - this is an intergenerational transfer

You do not have an account - that is what makes it cheap.

Accounts make it too expensive to run - so benefits get cut and SS ends.

If SS should invest in equity than have them sell their gov bonds on the open market and use the money to buy equities. THE GOP WOULD GO NUTS AND STOP THIS IMMEDIATELY. IT IS NOT ABOUT RATE OF RETURN

[The Zanti Regent]

167. What if you have a stroke tomorrow?

Will you still be stupid enough to support privitization?

What if you have a stroke at age 30? Tell me how you will make payments into your account? Do you expect Jesus to make them for you?

[rman]

199. how are people on minimum wage going to provide for themselves and

their elder years? they can not save up money because they have nothing to spare.

if SS is failing it is because it is being robbed by corporations aided by RW politicians.
see Molly Ivans' "Bushwacked".
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375507523/002-8563694-3648064?v=glance
http://www.ebookmall.com/ebook/103356-ebook.htm

[DebJ]

211. speak for yourself when you say people can far better provide

for themselves. Do not speak for the more than 6 million children living in poverty, nor their parents, who have ZERO chance of ever making enough money to save anything at all. You are not going to wear shoes full of holes to school every day if your SSI money is in your wallet now.
I raised two children, one handicapped, by myself for twenty years. I did not eat two days a week for two months, until I ended up at the ER with serious malnutrition. That's just one little lovely highlight. I WORKED MY ASS OFF TO MAKE RICH WHITE MEN, WHO ARE THE SONS OF RICH WHITE MEN, EVEN RICHER. As payback, these people increase CEO's wages 500% and give us NOTHING, except cuts in health care and cuts in hours.
Good for you that you can provide for yourself, or so you think right now. You never know what tomorrow will bring, sugar.
My mother was able to provide for herself until she was hit head on by a drunk driver.
You just never know.

[fwiff]

20. Um... we're all screwed...not just recipients

I can't wait, millions of people slide into poverty out of the economy. Investment firms get richer AND charge the country interest.
That 'radical social program FDR started' is a safety net not only for people, but stability for the economy. What will happen to our consumer culture when the middle class are gone, shrink or just plain can't afford 'things' anymore?

[thedailyshow]

26. "I hurt you because I really do love you, baby"

aka Jon Stewart.

[RevCheesehead]

34. Wait until we hear the ROAR of the Grey Panthers!

Was I dreaming, or did I hear shrub say (campaign? Debate?), "I am not going to privatize Social Security!"?????

[American Tragedy]

68. He also said that he would not cut benefits for retirees

I can't wait to see how he pulls this off.

[papau]

134. Only in pay retirees get promised benefits - and even here future

benefit increases based on US wage growth may be cut.

[fwiff]

35. Is the AARP going to claim this is a 'good thing', too? n/t

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

63. I'm a new member and I say hell no!!

Diverting of money to the favored brokerages and corporations to make asshole republicans richer.

Fuck that noise.

[SouthStar]

36. Someone find for me a single person....

Someone please find for me a single person who was able to opt out of social security who wishes they had not and had stayed in SS.

There are hundreds of thousands of people in America who are NOT part of the SS system through employment at various levels and departments of the government who have private accounts and have for many many years.

All I ask is that someone find me ONE person in this scenario who wishes they had not opted out. Just one.

[jus_the_facts]

49. Ooooo those luuuuuucky gov't employees....

....why don't you ask former ENRON peons about how they opted for those 401K accounts and lost their collective ASSES and are UNEMPLOYED NOW...without a pot to piss in! :eyes:

[SouthStar]

53. If you think

that a private SS account would allow 100% of the investments to be put into a single stock you are wholly misinformed or purposefully using examples that are not possible to try and scare people.

[jus_the_facts]

76. it's called REALITY.....try SEEING it...instead of ignoring it.......

....you expose true self with every lame assed arguement you post...Social Secruity becomes UNSECURED in the hands of GREEDY CORPORATE INTERESTS....A PROVEN FACT....YOU are the misinformed one and are purposely spewing BULLSHIT all over this thread....that tombstone will look GREAT on you! :puke:

[SouthStar]

79. By what evidence

do you contend that a private SS account would allow for 100% of the account balance to be in one single stock?

[Yupster]

186. You really think any social security private account idea

would allow you to put all your money in a single stock?

It's not believable to me that you would believe that.

You're joking or just don't have a lick of investment knowledge.

[papau]

136. Gov regulation - now that is a nice GOP idea!

:-)

You will invest the way I tell you to invest!

[mistertrickster]

54. My uncle in Colorado is one. He taught at a major college there, and

as I state employee he paid into a state plan that made him ineligble for all of his SS benefits.

He's mad as hell that he isn't eligible for full SS.

Also, where is this "100's of thousands" invested into SS coming from?

I make an above-average salary (now finally) and I probably won't even have 100 K in SS by the time I retire. SS is only something like 6 percent of your gross. That's really not much if you're seriously trying to maintain your lifestyle after you retire.

You'd have to invest a lot more of your private funds to do as well. I think a lot of people, South Star, have inflated opinions of how well the private sector can reward investments.

[SouthStar]

57. So, your uncle

would rather forgoe his state retirement and only get full SS benefits.

Ya, right.

[mistertrickster]

100. No, he'd rather have paid in fully to SS and get full benefits.

It shouldn't be either/or in Colorado.

[papau]

138. Ya, right. - Oh you are fun - I forgot the limited intellect of the right

Glad you could remind me!

LOL

:-)

[Yupster]

187. Texas Teacher pension instead of FICA

years of experience times 2.3 equals % of pay.

For instance a teacher retires at age 62 making $ 55,000 a year and having worked 36 years.

36 X 2.3 = 82.8 % of $ 55,000 per year or about $ 46,000 per year.

Yeah, I bet teachers really miss social security.

A non-governmental worker who made the same money for the same years would get about $ 18,000 per year from social security.

[happynewyear]

65. ok I'll bite, I AM ONE

I was a federal employee paying into their pension system. I began working for them when I was 18 years old.

I quit the job after doing it for 10 years - paying into their pension system.

It used to be that when you quit a Federal job, you could collect the money you had paid into their pension system. Now you cannot collect the money until you are 65 years old IF you live to see it.

So, I paid nothing into social security for 10 years and then I took another job and paid into it for over 10 years.

Today, the only income I receive other than a small pension from my former employer is Social Security. I grabbed that money from the Feds when I quit being I had heard that Raygun was going to lock it so you could not get it.

When I got the money, I blew most of it very quickly. The furthest thing from my mind at the age of 29 years was retirement - going to Europe looked far more interesting at that point in my life. So now, I have very little other than an IRA that I started with some of the money from the Federal job. This money was in the stock market up until 2001. Over 1/2 of it disappered very quickly and yes, it can and it will happen again. Looked at the DOW lately?

So there is your answer from just one insignificant person, and YES, I wish I had paid into social security during those early years of my life. I'd have a whole hell of a lot more now to live on!

:kick:

[papau]

135. ME - State employment opts out - and screws my retirement.

:-)

[Inland]

152. Idiotic question. Do you have any idea how SSI works?

Current taxes pay for current retirees, more or less. The payback should come when its your turn to retire.

The people who opted out of the system not only got retirement benefits from their work--our tax dollars, by the bye--but they got to dump the responsibility of the cost of current retirees on us.

Of course, they are happy. They got the best of both worlds, and that is exactly the bait that Bush pretends to be offering you---that you will be able to keep your taxes and escape the burden of current retirees. Of course, the magic in allowing just a few municipalities to opt out is that we don't notice the extra burden on us, but when EVERYONE is allowed to opt out a signficant degree, suddenly two trillion dollars in shortfalls appear, and your parents show up on your doorstep.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

163. Hey SouthStar

I'm a teacher in TX, which means I don't pay into SS, but rather the state teacher retirement system.

WHICH THEY JUST STARTED PUTTING INTO HIGH-RISK INVESTMENTS!

Guess who gets screwed?

Me. :hi:

So much for you.

[KansDem]

41. I don't see how this will float...

...in the wake of Enron, Arthur Anderson, Harken* and all the rest.

What will happen I suspect is that the Bushistas will look for some way to take away from SS taxes for private accounts, then, have some kind of "safety" measure in place so that if the accounts go belly up ala Enron, the federal government will "step in" and replace the "lost savings," ala FDIC.

This is a scam to benefit the wealthy and Wall Street and as such should be scrapped immediately!
________
*In the case of Bush and Harken, not all of us have access to insider trading...

[Tracer]

44. Social Security reforms will be coming, no matter who's in charge.

I just finished "Running on Empty" by Pete Peterson, who seems to be a fair author since he castigates Reps and Dems almost equally (Reps more so).

His suggestions:

1. Index New Benefits to Prices, Instead of Wages.

Ñ this one is too complicated for my economically challenged brain to get around, but is used in Britain successfully.

2. Mandate that all working adults put aside 2-3% of wages into personally owned, highly regulated accounts (that the government can't touch).

Ñ "Australia requires all workers to pay into fully funded retirement account, and not surprisingly Australia is the only developed country that has no worries about either the long-term afordabiity or adequacy of its pension system".

3. Fortify Social Security's Safety Net.
Ñ The federal government would contribute into personal accounts on behalf of low-income workers.

There's a lot more info in this book, but it's really hard to condense into a paragraph or two.

[papau]

139. This is Clinton Plan - does not really hurt SS - BUT IT IS NOT BUSH PLAN

:-)

[Straight Shooter]

47. Here it comes, folks, retirement age being bumped up to 72

Who the hell is going to hire someone who is fired by a corporation when they're in their sixties? Huh?

Outta my way, old man, old woman, you haven't got what it takes for this job anymore.

There's a reason why we have retirement in the early sixties, or used to have, anyway. It's because manual labor gets more difficult, and someone ought to have some kind of reward for supporting this g*damn country all their lives.

Me? I've had jobs since I was seven, starting with rolling up newspapers for my brother's paper route. I work with my hands. I honestly don't think I can do this until I'm 72. Save money? Hell, I'm barely getting by as it is.

This generation of baby boomers is getting squeezed out and squeezed to death.

edit: let me add, I do have an IRA, but it sure makes life boring when every extra cent goes to a retirement you may never enjoy because what I'm saving for was the extras, but now it looks like it will barely cover the basics.

[SouthStar]

51. How would your situtation be today

if instead of 15% of your pay going to SS it went into an account you own throughout your entire working life?

[Bridget Burke]

62. Let me tell you about MY situation.

My father died when I & my 2 siblings were pre-schoolers. He was killed in a service-related accident so we got some money from that; there was an insurance policy but he came from a poor family & had no fortune. But we also got social security through college. (I believe Reagan cut it off at 18, later.)

Our mother got social security all her life. She went back to work after we were all in school & worked until retirement. So she got her retirement money, as well. Don't worry, she didn't have that many years to drain your resources.

Social security is not just a retirement fund.

Are you a stock broker or someone else who will benefit especially from the new plan?

[SouthStar]

72. still waiting

still waiting for you to produce a post by me declaring that I support a national sales tax as you stated above.

[Bridget Burke]

82. A lukewarm sort of support....

End of this thread:

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=114&topic_id=12235#12345

[SouthStar]

87. not a show of support

just pointing out some facts on the matter. No more, no less.

[papau]

143. No - you do not point out facts - you lie via partial truth - the standard

GOP way the media is used to sell all the war on the poor/middle class ideas of the GOP.

[Yupster]

188. All the plans I've seen

suggest a small percentage of your 13 % premiums to be privatized. The disability and survivor benefits would remain.

I am a long way from supporting privatization by the way.

I can't see how the transition can possibly be funded.

I don't agree with the chicken little crap about losing all your money in Enron or taking grandma's check away from her though. The problem's tough enough to solve without dishonest or ignorant people further convuluting it.

[mistertrickster]

66. Okay, who else thinks South Star is a disruptor just being a pLick?

Look at your last pay stub. Take the amount you paid into SS and divide by your gross. It will be somewhere close to 6 percent--not even F'ING CLOSE TO 15 percent.

Take hand . . . find ass . . . before posting, please.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mistertrickster]

75. Not to me, it doesn't.

You really have drunk the cool aid, haven't you?

I suppose now you'll tell me that my benevolant and wonderful employer would give that money to ME, if only it didn't have to pay into that big, wasteful gov't program.

Go back to FReeperville . . .

[SouthStar]

80. So

with privatization the government would eliminate the employer contribution? I don't think so.

[Straight Shooter]

89. As a self-employed person

I think my ass is getting kicked. bush is dismantling every safety net in this country, and you can bet your bottom dollar on that one.

And bush had the gall to make fun of a "tax gap" because Kerry wanted to improve Homeland Security for port inspections.

[mistertrickster]

93. Of course they'll be done away with. That's the whole idea--less

taxation on corporations. Otherwise, you'd have the untenable situation of corporations BEING FORCED to help their employees to buy stock in a competitor's company or buy bonds in gov'ts that the US hates.

The way it is now, neither my nor my employer's contributions benefit me directly. They benefit the people drawing SS now, as their contributions could theoretically benefit me if I need them.

The employer contribution is another good reason why SS can't be privatized. Powerful corporate interests are in no way going to be compelled to help people invest in entities that run counter to their interests.

It's much more likely that the employer contribution will be waived for people opting for the privatized plan.

I'm glad you reminded me of the employer contribution--it makes it even more obvious why privatization is going to be a screw job for the average worker.

[happynewyear]

73. I'd say you are right

*alert* ... :grr:

I can't stand such idiocy at this point in my life!

[July]

102. i wonder if the republicans are getting a big lie going already nt

[papau]

142. I would've watched my parents starve to death as their SS check would not

have been funded.

[Yupster]

189. No you wouldn't papau

You would have helped them. You would not have watched your parents starve to death.

Social sceurity is one of our biggest long-term problems.

Bush has a solution, but it is wildly unaffordable.

Can we suggest some solutions other than nonsense.

[papau]

207. true - but the answer is welfare - another item that the GOP are not hot

for!

:toast:

:-)

And why suggest a solution when there is no real problem - the GOP are trying to define the discussion as "we must cut SS as Fed revenues are down" - not payroll tax revenues being dowm - but Fed revenues being down.

Can we say increase Fed revenues by killing the tax cut for the rich that has produced zero jobs!

Seems that is the only "solution to low future Fed revenues" that we should discuss!

[papau]

141. a 30% cut in benefits avaiable at 62 - but it is actually a fair idea if

we can not get rid of the wage base cap. Besides the age increase is not needed until after 2052 - if then.

[iamjoy]

169. This Is Two Problems, Really

First, people are living a lot longer than they did in 1935. And the fact that we are potentially paying benefits out over a greater number of years IS a burden on Social Security. In this sense, raising the retirement age for young people is not necessarily illogical. Besides, some people didn't save much for retirement, even full social security isn't enough so they're working anyway.

Maybe working until 70 isn't such a bad thing for a secretary, but what about a factory worker? Mental alertness does decline as we age, do we really want some 72 year old flying our jet cross country? Raising the retirement age also does not address the issues you brought up about older people having a hard time finding jobs.

Overall, I would embrace raising the retirement age (as long as they don't raise it for Medicare) before private accounts or reduced benefits.

[DebJ]

215. Hey, I'm just going to be 49 this December, and employers don't

want to hire me at 49. How in the hell will I be working at 70?

Oh, yes, that's right, we don't need EEOC anymore....ha!

[MallRat]

61. OK. What happens to CURRENT RETIREES???

I've yet to see any Republican answer this question.

-MR

[American Tragedy]

77. That's the 2 trillion dollar question

Either deficits go up or benefits go down.

[Yupster]

190. That's why Bush's plan won't work

You have to keep the current checks going, so there's no money to pay the incredible transition costs.

It's an interesting proposal until you do the arithmetic.

So what's our proposal?

[moondust]

94. Stocks are already overvalued.

For years there has been far too much money chasing too few good stocks. Pouring billions more in is simply piling excess upon excess. And when the bozos lose their money gambling on overvalued stocks they'll demand a gov't bailout (and probbaly get it).

[hunter]

98. Can I put my Social Security money into Euros??? Pretty Please?

This is a last cynical and desperate act by men who know the United States economy is circling the drain. They will convince the ignorant public to buy their crap financial instruments (airline stocks, anyone???) and put all the money they wring out of the general public into something safer, something that will retain its value when the dollar goes down the drain.

[Yupster]

191. You probably could

When John Edwards released his financial statement, his largest holding by far was the American Funds Euro-Pacific Fund.

I don't see why you couldn't pick a foreign bond fund.

[bvar22]

103. Let's check the "WayBack Machine"...

...back to a time where ALL Americans managed their OWN retirement plans.....
See the Old Folks Homes and Poor Houses!
See the aged working until they Drop Dead!
See the many, many old people starving, ill, and poverty stricken!


This is HISTORY. This is why Social Security was established.
I have NO DESIRE to return to the past.

SS is NOT BROKEN!
Social Security works exactly as it was established to work. It is one of the MOST SUCCESSFUL government programs ever established. It operates with a very low overhead (2%). It is TOTALLY TRANSPARENT. It is COMPLETELY EQUAL OPPORTUNITY. No wonder the Republicans HATE IT.

Don't Privatize SS. Raise the cap so that the rich pay their fair share!

[mistertrickster]

108. Exactly right--good post, thanks

:yourock:

[Art_from_Ark]

221. I second the motion

:yourock:

[papau]

145. Excellent point

:-)

[Inland]

156. Well said. SSI took a generation out of poverty.

Frankly, all the "solutions" to social security sound worse than the disease. Worst case scenario, thirty years from now, SS will pay 75% of today's benefit. Bush's plan just guts it.

[reggaehead]

109. A tax hike by any other name

The working class has been contributing to this plan our entire careers. In my case, the statement I recieve from the social Security Office every year is a 6 digit number. Now for them to just say I have no claim on any monies I have contributed to the plan except the stinking 2% is nothing more than a tax increase. The way jobs are being offshored. And the lower pay associated with the ones coming in means these privatized accounts are not going to accrue rapidly. And once they are privatized what to keep Keeny Boy lay and his type from raiding them like the did the employee retirement accounts. Especially since Bush did not include any whistleblower protection to his corporate finance reform bill.

[mumon]

111. What we need is a married couple in a commercial...

This can be "Hilary's health care planned"

If you know what I mean.

[Yupster]

192. You're right mumon, which is why

I don't think Bush will ever get to the point of actually proposing anything.

I think he will just talk generally about the idea.

It just can't be funded.

[Chimpanzee]

114. Good luck, mutherfucker

[cap]

119. what's so darn wrong with guaranteeing everyone a

minimal level of subsistence in their old age...

what happens to people who invest poorly?
old sick people cant go back to work.

I know. You're the "I got mine crowd". I dont care about people who have made mistakes. Just say it. I have no sense of charity.
Oh yeah, my church makes sandwiches for the poor once a month. Or I cough up $1 a week for my church poor box. Yah, right. Eat that.

[Karna]

128. hahhahaha old people! you voted for bush...

now get some!

[flaminbats]

140. those who make $80,000 or more a year will make a killing..

they will see $1,600 a year going into 401k plans. But if you make $20,000 a year, only $400 a year will go into a private account.

While the rich make more at the expense of Social Security, the middleclass will make less as their Social Security checks become worthless. Bush is determined bankrupt the remaining part of our Federal government which is still solvent.

This is what being conservative in the 21st century is all about, unlimited government spending with no need to pay for it.

[Deja Q]

164. Anybody else note how the stock market has taken HUGE dips

every time oil goes up a dime and has to be artificially rescued?

Duck for cover, retirees, yo money is gonna become no money.

[lovuian]

166. This will increase the Deficit!!! Thats the irony of the whole thing!!!

I can't wait to see the results

Republicans destroy SS and the deficit increases

[iam]

170. Another scam

The people won't be investing the 2%, the Gov't will. If I want part of my money invested in the stock market I WILL INVEST IT, NOT SOME CROOKED CONSERVATIVE POLITICIAN. Give me a 5% tax break and let ME pick my own investments. This is a scam to funnel MORE money into the pockets of conservatives from the general population. Simple.

[Amigust]

174. shortfall of at least $2 trillion = starve the beast

great for the pug agenda, bad for social programs and the economy

[phylny]

200. I'll admit I'm really not the sharpest tool in the shed when it comes to

understanding this stuff. The money I pay now is going, basically, to my 95 year old grandma, who depends on SS to live and other retirees. She had almost NO money put away. So, what I pay now isn't being saved somewhere for me, but is being used right now for retirees. If Bush privatizes Social Security, and allows me to put aside some of my money in the stock market, etc., how on earth will we fund social security NOW, since less of my money currently will be going to the general fund?

Thanks in advance for answers/clarification.

[iam]

201. Good question phylny.

If everyone asked that simple question there wouldn't be an issue. But to answer the question, either taxes would be raised, other services cut or the national debt would increase. All bad things.

[phylny]

208. Thanks!

At least I know I'm on the right track!

[Tab]

203. It's not 2%!!

...divert 2 percent of workers' payroll taxes into private accounts. The remaining 4.2 percent...

So, it sounds like it's not 2% of payroll taxes - it's nearly a third of of the SocSec taxes. That's minimizing, because the bulk of the payroll taxes are FICA (Federal Income tax), then comes SS and Medicade.

The way they're phrasing it makes it seem like it's just 2% and 98% are unchanged, but it's really a THIRD.

- Tab

[mermaid]

204. Well, I Will Say This...

I am now 33 years old. I have paid into social Security for FIFTEEN GODDAMN YEARS. And now, the shit isn't gonna BE there when I retire.

They wanna start "private savings accounts" or whatever the fuck?? Fine. then they better give me back EVERY FUCKING RED CENT I put into Social Security over my so far 15-year working career...start MY private account out with that much money in it.

Be DAMNED if I think it is fair that an 18-year old, just starting out...with 15 years more time for his retirement to grow than I have...should start at the same level I do!

Horseshit! I paid into the fucking system for 15 years, and that damn well ought to ENTITLE me to start out with more in my account...after all, I got less time to make it grow into a decent retirement than the 18-year old does.

They best as HELL not be asking ME to start all fucking over again, at 33...they can KISS MY ASS!! I want my fucking money back!!

I have averaged earnings of roughly 24,000 a year over my working career, some years more than others, but about $24,000 is a good, close average.

This means that, over 15 years, I have earned $360,000. with SS taxes being at 7.51%, I have therefore paid $27,036 in Social Security taxes. They better start out my account with that much PLUS interest. Since they say the average stock market investment doubles in value in seven years...mine would have since quadrupled. Because I have been working more than fourteen years.

So, I'll call it close if they start me off with, say $100,000 in my account. That would be fair. Think they will? MY ASS!!

FUCK YOU, UNCLE SAM!! Or, in this case, this is Uncle Sam saying FUCK YOU, POOR AMERICA!!

[mistertrickster]

216. You're selling out cheap, Mermaid. The gov't doesn't owe you

the money that you paid in. The gov't owes you the money you paid in, plus the interest YOU LOST on the money over 15 years that you couldn't invest.

That thumbnail figure would be somewhere in the neighborhood of TWICE the money you paid in.

You youngsters (heh) have to keep SS viable not for the soon-to-be retired, but for yourselves.

[5thGenDemocrat]

206. This is Polly...John's SO...I have a question...

What is going to happen in the states where jobs are somewhat hard to find? Here in Saginaw, MI...jobs ARE hard to find.

As I understand it if you don't work, there will be nothing to put into a "savings acct."

[snooper2]

214. They can privatize my SS

After they re-pay me every dime I've paid in for the past 12 years.
...

(29 years old BTW)