Has bush*Co done the math to show how piratization saves SS?

[tk2kewl]

I have yet to see the break-even analysis for this plan. There are claims of bankrupcy in the future and the $1-2 trillion cost has been out there, but how is the piratizing supposed to raise the dough to pay that back?

[Liberal Veteran]

1. Tee-hee: I like that "piratization"

:D

[Zebulon]

2. You don't *really* think

that this is about "saving Social Security", do you?

[tk2kewl]

4. No

but you'd think that if that is the claim it would have to be supported

[Zebulon]

5. Re: you'd think that if that is the claim it would have to be supported

They aren't trying to convince people that it is a good idea. They are trying to "market" it. It has nothing to do with logic or reason, only fear and emotion.

[tk2kewl]

7. Well, I think they need to be called on that

flat out... "Mr *, when does your plan break even?"

[Zebulon]

8. Here's another question:

"How much money does the securities industry stand to make off your plan?"

[KC21304]

3. That is sweet. Piratization.

You hit it out of the park with that one.

[SammyWinstonJack]

6. Fuzzy math?

How does diverting funds from SS save it? :shrug:

[Zebulon]

9. Well, I expect

it will benefit the retirement prospects of Wall St. types.

[SammyWinstonJack]

10. Exactly!

That is the point of this, to pay back bush**'s Wall Street *bidness* buds. bush** is all about paybacks! We Texans learned that when he was Gov. He turned a record surplus into a deficit while Gov. While running his scam for the US Presidency, he was asked in Sept of '00, about the impending Tx deficit. He replied that he hoped he wouldn't have to deal with it, that he was seeking a higher office. Meaning that he was fixing to do to the Country what he did to Texas and guess what, he did.

[BamaGirl]

11. Of course not

That would put them in the "reality" community and they clearly don't want to live here with us.

I love piratization. We should all run with that lol.

[visceral]

12. Why The Fear?

Why are you so afraid of altering the Social Security System? Aren't Democrats supposed to be all about Progressive Thinking? If something can be improved why not try and improve it? Where's the solution from the Dems? I haven't seen one. Have you?
To answer your question, the impending bankruptcy will result from those now under 50 who begin to withdraw benefits, not from those currently making withdrawals. The answer is to provide an alternate funding source for those who will be eligible for benefits in 15 years. Under a privatization plan, the interest will come from free market investments. Anyone who has researched the statistics should know that there is enough to pay out all benefits for those 50 or older. Personally I like the idea of being able to reinvest my interest in MY OWN RETIREMENT, not have it borrowed to be placed into the GENERAL FUND. Do some research.

[Zebulon]

13. Why don't you first explain

what the problem is, before you accuse Democrats of failing to come up with a solution?

And, uh, facts, please, not vague fearmongering.

[visceral]

14. The problem.......

is bipartisan. Reps and Dems alike in Congress have taken the surplus which has accumulated in the SS fund from interest, and have borrowed against it to bloat the General Fund. So, the SS surplus isn't there anymore. There's no safety valve to fall back on. At the current contribution/withdrawal ratio, Social Security is barely staying afloat. If future projections happen to be underestimated by a little, the money for pay-outs will have to come from somewhere. Where? Social Security is failing, almost every leading world economist (including Greenspan) recognizes it. The choices are simple: 1. Save it. or 2. Come up with something better.
I consider myself a moderate Democrat, but we can't allow partisan politics get in the way of fixing a problem this serious - that effects millions of Americans across party lines. Can we?

[Zebulon]

15. You do realize

that there never has been a separate 'fund' for social security?

I don't see the SS system as being in danger of failing anytime soon. And I think there is substantially more risk in ramming through poorly-conceived wholesale changes, than in tweaking it as necessary.

[tk2kewl]

17. The question is: "How and when does the plan pay for itself?"

Bush has been pushing this idea since the 80s. This plan isn't about solving a problem. It is about ideology. But if you and the boy king want to sell it as saving SS, then explain how it does that. Don''t just say SS is doomed and we want private accts. Explain how private accounts solve the problem. When does the plan break-even?

[tk2kewl]

16. I didnt' say anything about fear. Do you always put words in others mouths

You also said "To answer your question, the impending bankruptcy . . ." but I didn't ask a question about the impending bankruptcy. I asked when the plan will begin paying for itself. It has been well established that it is likely to cost between 1 and 2 trillion dollars (Even though your boy king says 3/4 of a trillion dollars). Where is the analysis of the break even point. If you cant prove that it will pay for itself I don't see how you can say it is an improvement.

[visceral]

19. Under the privatization scenario...

the plan will become totally self-sufficient, when the people born prior to 1945 who are withdrawing from it, die out. At that point, the majority of participants' contributions will be made in market investments not into a Federal "lock box." That is, unless the plan becomes optional, in which case there may still be a few who choose to participate in the old system. You'll have to figure out when the last of these old timers will die out. I'm not sure anyone could accurately come up with that specific date.

[tk2kewl]

20. and the $2 trillion?

[visceral]

24. Hell, take it out of foreign aid, the military budget, or .......

just borrow it from the Chinese like we always do. One way or the other, it'll get paid. You've got to think about the long run.
You know, someone should start a poll on this forum that asks the following: If given a choice, would you rather:
A. Keep contributing to the Social Security Plan as it now exists. OR
B. Keep the money you now invest in Social Security and decide for yourself how to invest it - given certain free market options.

If posters answered honestly, we'd see just how much faith Americans have in the current system.

[tk2kewl]

26. bush's plan is not B

If I could opt out completely I might consider it. But that is not the plan.

On edit: it isn't only about what I could do better with the money. It is a social program. It is supposed to help everyone regardless of their intelligence and ability to invest.

[tk2kewl]

29. also... that is a pretty cavalier attitude regarding trillions of dollars

Do you have any idea how much money that is? We could pay for a 20 year plan to develop an alternate energy infrastructure for our country and remove our dependence on foreign oil.

[visceral]

50. Or...

we could just open up the ANWAR and drill our own damned oil.

[Zebulon]

53. Re: we could just open up the ANWAR and drill our own damned oil.

Which would be a drop in the bucket at current levels of consumption.

I have to say that you don't sound much like a "moderate Democrat" to me.

[visceral]

58. Well I have voted for Democrats in the past 4

Presidential Elections and in every Gubernatorial and Congressional Election in my state since I've been an eligible voter. But I have to say that I'm so fed up with partisan politics getting in the way of true progress as of late, that I'm thinking of declaring Independent in the next elections. Since Clinton left office, I've also been quite disappointed in the goals and performance of Democratic leadership. We need people who are more dynamic, who aren't afraid of change. I guess you could call me a Kennedy-era Democrat. My father also worked a wage-an-hour job his entire life and I never attended a private school! If it makes any difference to you.
I just don't like being a sheep, following the rhetoric and playing the same old song and dance. It's called being a free thinker, you should try it sometime.

[Zebulon]

64. Re: It's called being a free thinker, you should try it sometime.

Gosh, could I make snide comments then, too?

So far, all you've done is claimed there is a problem. You haven't provided any evidence to support your assertion that SS will go bankrupt in 15 years. You'll forgive me if I don't simply take your word for it.

[tk2kewl]

73. I hope you stick with the Dems

I have great hope for the party when Dean takes over!

I agree that we need better leadership. We need to stand up for what is right whether it's fiscal responsibility, diplomacy, peace, sponge bob, gay rights, the environment, or social programs that protect people from the cruelties of free market capitalism.

[tk2kewl]

59. now, did you ever really believe he was?

:eyes:

[Zebulon]

65. Re: now, did you ever really believe he was?

You mean, I can't simply take him at his word? (snicker)

[tk2kewl]

57. oh brother

we could also clearcut every forest to burn wood and top every mountain to burn coal. No need to worry about the environment the Messiah will return before the place is uninhabitable

[visceral]

61. Whats in the proposed Anwar site?

Snow? Ice? Show me a reputable environmental study that says drilling in the select sites will do irrevocable damage to the environment.

[tk2kewl]

66. i was also talking about reducing our dependence on fossil fuels

ie global warming

alternate energy = less dependence on oil and reduced greenhouse gasses

but i suppose you think global warming is "junk science" and intelligent design makes perfect scientific sense

[visceral]

70. Who's putting words in whose mouth now?

I never mentioned Global Warming.

[tk2kewl]

76. i didn't say you did. I said I did.

:D

[Zebulon]

22. Two questions

1. When, in your estimation, is the SS system in danger of going broke?

2. How much does the securities industry stand to benefit from the Bush proposal?

Oh, and you never did respond to my point that social security has *never* been a separate 'fund'.

[visceral]

46. Answers.

1. 15 years give or take.

2. Probably a hell of a lot! But if we did it smart, we'd provide only no-load bond funds and stock funds for contributors to invest in.

I don't understand the last question. I guess it's a matter of semantics. Maybe your definition of a "fund" is different than the rest of the world. Most people do refer to it as the Social Security Retirement Fund. What's your point?

[Zebulon]

49. Re: What's your point?

The point is that, in your second post on the thread, you said, "Reps and Dems alike in Congress have taken the surplus which has accumulated in the SS fund from interest, and have borrowed against it to bloat the General Fund. So, the SS surplus isn't there anymore."

There is no separate "SS fund", and there never has been. The funds received from collected social security taxes have always gone into the general treasury via "borrowing against it".

1. 15 years give or take.

And what is your source for this?

[visceral]

54. I agree, but my point is SS has always been funded on a ...

pay-in, pay-out basis. But contributions currently generate around 1.5% interest. When you consider 650 billion dollars, that's a hell of alot of interest. Dem leaders claim that SS is not indanger because of this "supposed" surplus. The generated interest is supposed to be there to safeguard the system bu it gets put back into the GF and spent. So the claims are false. This money is not and never was there. We simply take just enough out of the GF to cover our pay-out each year. Is this fiscally sound?

In 15 years we should see the largest single group of people becoming eligible (all at once) for benefits in any single year in history. Baby boomers.

[Zebulon]

55. In 15 years

Please provide a source/documentation that, if nothing is done, the SS system will go broke in 15 years.

[visceral]

69. http://www.cbpp.org/1-11-05socsec.htm

Pay close attention to the figures. If you define bankrupt as I do (paying out more than you are taking in) then in 15 years if nothing is changed US Treasury Reserves will have to be used to supplement payouts. But payouts will only be funded at 70% or 80% of your contributions. That's 70 or 80 cents on your dollar - losing money. In the real world we call that Bankrupt.

[tk2kewl]

71. i don't think that's bankruptcy

inability to pay is bankruptcy.

basically we have 15 years to figure out how to stop SS from going bankrupt in 45 years

[visceral]

72. Try paying only 70% of your bills ...

and see how far around the corner default (or bankruptcy) lies!

[tk2kewl]

74. thats why we shouldn't have had tax cuts and an unwarranted war

but bush did both precicely to try to destroy SS (along with a host of other neocon ideological motives).

SS has been on his hit-list for 20 years

If the trust fund werent being pillaged we would be ok. And the pillaging can be reversed. and it certainly shouldn't be rewarded with more pillaging by piratizing SS.

[tk2kewl]

79. that isnt the same as taking in less than paying out

by your definition, w/o SS all retired people would be bankrupt because they are living off their savings. taking in nothing just paying out of their savings.

[visceral]

75. Frankly, I'm bored of your one-liners ...

and your pessimistic attitude tires me. If you can't see the writing on the wall today, you probably never will. Good luck getting your big Social Security benefit when the time comes. I'm checking out, for good. This was my first time posting but this site is obviously devoid of people with vision and open minds. It seems to be infected with hate mongers. I don't think I'll be back.

[Zebulon]

77. Re: Frankly, I'm bored of your one-liners ...

YOU claimed that SS would go bankrupt in 15 years. I (very reasonably) asked you to substantiate your claim. Instead of doing so, you whine that you're "bored" of my one-liners, and accuse everyone here of being "devoid of vision and open minds". What a pathetic way to avoid having to answer the question. If your posts here are representative at all of the way Bush plans to sell his SS plan, it's gonna go down in flames. A mishmash of fearmongering, emotion, and rah-rah 'optimism', but no actual substance.

I don't think I'll be back.

Buh bye.

[tk2kewl]

60. even the boy king give SS to 2048

where the heck do you come up with 15 years?

[tk2kewl]

25. and what happens when . . .

there is a market crash or an Eron or a WorldCom? Who picks up the pieces for those folks about to cash out? I already invest a portion of my income and I view SS as a saftey net, something to supplement my retirement.

[Coastie for Truth]

37. ???????????? SS is "insurance" not "savings"

Social Security is not savings.

It is insurance - and about $800/year (level premiums from ages 22 to 62 assumed) is "insurance premiums." Nobody on the GOP or FREEPER or Libertarian side ever figures that $800 in.

It is one leg of a three leg package--

1. Social Security
2. Your savings - including your contributions to an IRA, 401(k)
3. Your "employer" or "self employed" contributions - including ERISA "Defined Contributions" and/or ERISA "Defined Benefits" or Keough, or whatever else is tax preferenced.

[TheFarseer]

78. Democrats have alot of ideas

First and foremost was the locked box, which would have kept money meant for social security IN social security. The surpluses we are enjoying then and now could have been put toward insuring that future generations would have social security. Failing in that effort - It has been proposed that we raise the limit to which wages can be taxed, raising the retirement age, means testing, diverting funds from the general budget to shore up social security. I think the best thing to do is quit raiding the God Dang SS trust fund and balance the budget so we have money to play with.

This idea that the democrats don't have any new ideas is a huge myth. We have things we want to do, but it's like we're in an antique store with out 3 year old son, George W, and he keeps almost tipping over all the vases. We're to busy opposing his craziness to do anything ourselves.

[devilgrrl]

18. No. Social Security has Weapons of Mass Destruction!!!!

All kidding aside, they may as well put it that way, because it's just another BFEE scam.

[ben_packard]

21. Something i'm not clear on...

Ig it is seen as more beneficial to use the money in the free market then fine. But every credit agreement i've ever signed tells me I am in danger of losing my house. Isn't there a risk associated? What happens is there is a depression, for example?

I'm not necessarily trying to make a point but genuinely asking.

[Zebulon]

23. There is no 'increased return'

without risk. If there were a depression, those people relying upon 'private accounts' who were near retirement age would be SOL.

[tk2kewl]

27. and that is exactly what SS is intended to prevent

As I said above, I invest, but SS is a safety net in case my investments take a hit at the wrong time. Of course one could shift their investments into less risky propositions as they age, but you can always get robbed by the Milkens and Lays of the world.

[visceral]

28. Anyone who knows anything about our market economy

knows that it is cyclical. There will be ups and downs. But social security was meant to be a long-term investment, most workers aren't eligible to start withdrawing, on average, until 30-40 years after they begin paying in. I challenge you to find ANY 30-YEAR PERIOD IN HISTORY when the Market Index did not rise SIGNIFICANTLY (20% return in the past 30 years just as an example). YOU CAN'T cite an example.
Anyone who invests in the market and leaves their investment untouched for 30 years while making regular contributions will see significant returns. History is on your side, IT HAS NEVER FAILED TO HAPPEN.

[Zebulon]

30. That's fine as long as

the next October 1929 doesn't hit right before you plan to retire. Sure, the market recovered, eventually. But that wouldn't do much good to someone who lost 50-90% of their value at age 65.

[tk2kewl]

32. yeppers

and guess what. . .

That is why we have SS in the first place.

[visceral]

34. Let's Be Optimistic

We now have much more of a "world economy." 1929 was a completely different era. Does anyone honestly believe that our economy is capable of total collapse as in 1929. Be realistic. The banking industry now has safety nets that it did not have in 1929. While it saddens me to say this, there are too many other nations and international corporations that have entirely too much invested in America's economy to sit back and watch it bankrupt. Do you know anyone whose predicting total economic failure any time soon? Do you really have that little faith in our open-market system? Don't let pessimism ruin your day man!

[Zebulon]

36. Sorry, but

"don't worry, be happy" doesn't sound like a wise retirement planning philosophy to me.

[tk2kewl]

38. Maybe we could also pray to Jesus for a bull market

:eyes:

[visceral]

40. Maybe we could CONTRIBUTE to a Bull Market!

Investments are what makes it Bullish!:D

[Zebulon]

42. visceral

can you please address my questions in reply #22?

[tk2kewl]

43. Look . . .

I do invest money. I prefer real estate, but also invest in mutual funds. I don't have the time, patience or interest in following stocks.

However SS is also for people who have less money and less on the ball than me. And it also provide disability insurance. What happens when 10 years into your private account program you get hit by a bus and survive? You won't even have $100,000 in your account.

[visceral]

47. My father paid in for 30 years......

and he's now disabled at age 54. His "Great" disability check isn't enough to pay rent and buy groceries. Boy, what an incentive!

[tk2kewl]

52. its better than a big fat nuffin if he were unlucky enough to be disable

at a younger age and had only private investments.

On edit: I am sorry to hear of your dads troubles. I do hope he also made some other investments and purchased supplementary disability insurance.

[visceral]

63. Thanks.

Fortunately he is a Veteran and at least has use of the local VA Hospital. I have three brothers and we chip in for his other economic needs.

[visceral]

39. You fail to see the "risk" inherent in Social Security as well......

You could pay in all your life, retire, get your first SS check, then die. Where's the return there? Oh sure, your surviving beneficiaries will get a fraction of your benefits, but what if you don't have beneficiaries? Nearly everything has inherent risks. By the way, if the US experiences the economic catastrophy that you refer to, do you honestly believe that even Social Security will come out unscathed? Reality check needed. Remember, the only two things guaranteed in life are death and taxes. So what's wrong with taking your OWN risks and not having the boys in D.C. do it for you?
Aren't we supposed to be FREE THINKERS here?

[tk2kewl]

45. "So what's wrong with taking your OWN risks . . . ?"

See 43

[PapaJoe]

81. E ho'opohole 'oe i ko'u mai'a

The stuff is in treasury bonds, what could be better than investing in your own country?

[tk2kewl]

85. That is just like taking 2nd and 3rd mortgages on your house

at some point you have to make good

[tk2kewl]

31. it isnt simply an issue of "not losing money"

for argumetens sake, if you invest 5,000/yr over 30 and get 5% annully that will give you 348,803.95 for your 150,000

but if you take a major hit in year 30 and you still don't "lose money" maybe you still have 200,000, guess what...

you just lost the equivalent of 10 years of SS payments, so die young.

[Coastie for Truth]

41. It's like the flight attendant says before an emergency landing

Grab your ankles, head on your knees, now bend over and kiss your butt goodbye.

Seriously, interest above consumer price index inflation represents

1. "Pure interest" - payment for the temporary unavailability of your money. That was about 1.25% per year.

2. "Risk of loss" - which is the premium above Inflation + Pure Interest.

Some bond backed pension plans, and some "widows and orphans" plans, and some CalPers and NY State Civil Service plans do buy bonds that are "insured as to principal and interest" - and that premium is about 1/2 to 2/3's of the "Risk of loss" in 2, above.

[Zinfandel]

84. Sorry, thought we were talking 'bout....Hmmmm...

:smoke:

[Coastie for Truth]

33. Norm Ornstein, on Al Franken's show,

said (implied) that the issue is ideology --- not economics.

My own though on the "impending bankruptcy of SS" - including the US defaulting on the SS trust fund assets -- that is exactly the kind of hyperbole that is driving the dollar down and could drive the Japanese, Chinese, and Saudi Finance Ministries out of US Treasuries - then you will see the apocalyptic collapse of the US dollar and the US government.

Bush's self-fulfilling, apocalyptic prophecy.

[tk2kewl]

35. yup . . . (see #17) *bush has been after SS since the 80s

[liveoaktx]

44. Humorous vid clip from Countdown-Bush doin' the math

Bush struggles to explain SS

[tk2kewl]

48. LMAO . . . "The a-thousand grows"

dope!

[Cadence]

56. It's funny how some people on the left still argue that he really is

very intelligent and people have just underestimated him. WTF? All I ever see is a bumbling, inarticulate bafoon that obviously isn't THINKING about what he's saying and has just been told what to say. Even Clinton at the world economics forum said he was "intelligent"

"The a-thousand grows!" Right, I hear really intelligent people speaking like that all the time.

[tk2kewl]

62. he hasn't been underestimated . . .

he has been misunderestimated

[Zebulon]

67. Re: he hasn't been underestimated . . .

Sounds to me like he's been misoverestimated.

[tk2kewl]

68. lol

by about 52 mil people

[Cadence]

82. LOL! Maybe we'd see his hidden "genius" if "gynecologists

were finally allowed to practice their love with their patients." Maybe we just don't see the "big" picture. I'm going to look for it on the other internet.

[bpilgrim]

51. too funny

sooo sad :crazy:

thanks for sharing :toast:

here's what some of our reps think about his ss 'theory'...
http://news.globalfreepress.com/mp3/bush/sotu-boos.mp3

peace

[PapaJoe]

80. piratization? That's it!

the very "personification" of the scheme. Euphemisms are merely palliatives. There is a deep seated ideological antipathy to social security as it is both social and security, both concepts run counter to conservative values. They require individual and fear.

[obnoxiousdrunk]

86. These Cons just

want to take the security out of Soc Security.

[tk2kewl]

87. They definitely want to take the "Social" out of it too

and guess what that leaves you with.

   Social Security
-         Security
   Social
-  Social         
...Ummmm, Nothing

[Zinfandel]

83. Does it matter? If the corporate media debates it as fact...

It becomes, unfortunately, debatable bullshit.

Just pure convoluted whore logic..You would never, ever do it...but we're the minority, and there are so many standing in line for the big time.

(Lotsa whores, never ending...so don't fret)...Condo in Manhattan, summer home, sail boat and the back-slapping, good ole boy frills...How does one resist? Sell your soul, sell out the truth, it's only a quick lifetime.

Personally, But (ready to pontificate)... HMMMM...NO...That's what I really, really don't understand about these people...

My beautiful eleven year old twin girls is what's it's truly ALL about.