Bush's plan to forfeit your SS account profits - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Seaver · 02-04-2005, 11:45 AM

Wow, such a long post that continues to discuss something that was proven immediately to be false.

Manx · 02-04-2005, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

I have been wondering when this would be mentioned here.

Before I spend time on a lengthy post, I have two questions for the thread starter:

#1 - What are the details of the SS plan the White House has given to Congress for approval?

Oh wait, there are none, because there is no plan yet. We are looking at options. There is no proposal, there is no specific agenda.....how do you target something that is merely being discussed? Especially when the floor for discussion has been opened up to everyone, regardless of the letter after their name. So, we are going after a guy who sees something that has problems and wants to come up with a way to fix it.

I love this, it is almost too funny to believe. "Bush is gonna [insert favorite catch-phrase] to [insert favorite group of people]" How can any say that something specific is going to happen when there isn't even a formal plan proposed? i.e. people are going to lose benefits Based on what information? This tired out crap is getting so old.

#2 - You cannot try and further the argument from your link until you offer one little piece of information: ROI. What is the expected ROI of the Bush plan? What is the current ROI for a person in their 20's or 30's under the current plan (hint: it is a really depressing number).

How can we discuss ROI if we are offered absolutely no facts whatsoever from the person starting this thread?

Along with the ROI discussion regarding SS, another little important tidbit kepts getting left out: Ratios.

Forget about ROI

Forget about the amount of money SS has or will have

Look at the freakin' history of the ratios. Looking at the ratios alone gives us more than enough reason to consider some type of major change to the SS system. I am not 100% set on the type of change, but when I look at the payee/payor ratios and where they are heading, I am scared and willing to look at almost any proposal for change.

Another note: That link is nothing but fearmongering. The information "offered" up in the link completely contradicts the factual minimum requirements already set in place for any proposed change to SS.

Why should we even spend a moment of time offering a solution?

The first step is to demonstrate that there is a problem or "crisis". Bush has failed to do that and there certainly is no agreement on the matter. So instead of Bush attempting to prove the necessity of significant change, he is pushing some kind, any kind, of significant change. He skipped the validation portion of the process. So instead of receiving plans for change, he is being attacked.

Makes perfect sense to me. Until it is demonstrated that significant change is required, all talk of significant change is nothing more than a scam.

KMA-628 · 02-04-2005, 12:16 PM

o.k. Manx,

If there isn't a problem, please explain away the plummeting ROI and the ratios that are quickly heading to 1:1? At what ratio should I stop be concerned?

If there isn't a problem, why was the SS tax increased?

If there isn't a problem, why did Gore need a "lock box"?

If there isn't a problem, what do we da about the SS IOU's?

stevo · 02-04-2005, 12:26 PM

But I thought when the dems were in power clinton talked about the need for SS reform and how it was going to be a huge problem, but now that they aren't in power anymore it is suddenly not a problem. Sounds fishy.

flstf · 02-04-2005, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

Why should we even spend a moment of time offering a solution?

The first step is to demonstrate that there is a problem or "crisis". Bush has failed to do that and there certainly is no agreement on the matter. So instead of Bush attempting to prove the necessity of significant change, he is pushing some kind, any kind, of significant change. He skipped the validation portion of the process. So instead of receiving plans for change, he is being attacked.

Makes perfect sense to me. Until it is demonstrated that significant change is required, all talk of significant change is nothing more than a scam.

Even if you don't agree that the current plan is heading for trouble, what's wrong with giving us a real retirement plan like the bureaucrats have? Congress has exempted themselves and government employees from SS and has given themselves a much better plan. I think it would be only fair that we be given the same consideration.

I don't think we can depend on companies to continue to offer retirement plans, they seem to be cancelling them more and more. We will have to take care of ourselves. The money we put away for retirement including SS should at least be able to be invested and build up and grow. I don't understand how anyone can be against this.

host · 02-04-2005, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

Even if you don't agree that the current plan is heading for trouble, what's wrong with giving us a real retirement plan like the bureaucrats have? Congress has exempted themselves and government employees from SS and has given themselves a much better plan. I think it would be only fair that we be given the same consideration.

I don't think we can depend on companies to continue to offer retirement plans, they seem to be cancelling them more and more. We will have to take care of ourselves. The money we put away for retirement including SS should at least be able to be invested and build up and grow. I don't understand how anyone can be against this.

Doesn't anybody GET IT? Bush gave away the only potential for the federal
government to pay back what it has already borrowed from the SS Trust
Fund, via his outrageous tax cuts that clearly favor the rich. He destroyed
the tax revenue vs. debt obligation that the Clinton administration had put
in place for the country before the 2000 election.

This "PLAN" includes Bush's intention for the government to default on the
repayment of the trillions already owed to the SS Trust Fund. In your wildest
dreams, do you really believe that the criminal thugs of the Bushco are
expending their rhetoric and "political capital" to do something FOR you?
Wake up America !!!! The Bushco thugs WASTED the State of the Union Speech on more of their deceptive wealth redistribution scheme, at a time
of several timebombs of their own making. A crises in the condition of military staffing and in readyness, in energy policy, evironmental policy, and in the rapidly eroding toilet paper of a currency that their fiscal policy is in the process of completely destroying!

Quote:

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41423-2005Jan1.html">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41423-2005Jan1.html</a>
washingtonpost.com
Revamping Social Security
Experts Disagree on Severity of Shortfall's Consequences
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, January 2, 2005; Page A08

In just 14 years, the nation's Social Security system is projected to reach a day of reckoning: Retiree benefits will exceed payroll tax receipts, and to pay its bills the system will have to begin redeeming billions of dollars in special Treasury bonds that have piled up in its trust fund. <b>To redeem those bonds, which represent money taken in years when Social Security ran a surplus and used for other government operations, the federal government would likely have to cut other programs, raise taxes or borrow more money.</b>

as lifted the elderly and disabled from poverty. To those who wish to preserve the system, it is merely the day when Congress must own up to its past profligacy and begin repaying Social Security for the trillions of dollars it has borrowed to fund immediate tax cuts and spending.

How this debate is resolved could decide the fate of Bush's ambitious plan to revamp Social Security.

"In 2018, Social Security has a legal claim above and beyond the revenues it is collecting," said Charles Blahous, the White House's point person on Social Security. "The question is what is the most sensible policy going forward so costs and benefits are spread out as equitably as possible."

"Many times, legislative bodies will not react unless the crisis is . . . upon them," Bush warned Congress at a news conference late December. "I believe that crisis is [upon them]."

Peter R. Orszag, a Brookings Institution economist who heads the Pew Charitable Trusts' bipartisan Retirement Security Project, countered that there are less drastic ways to cover the cost of trust fund redemptions than Bush is contemplating.

The White House could consider rolling back its tax cuts, the size of which, he said, dwarf Social Security's funding deficit. Over 75 years, the president's tax cuts will cost the Treasury $11 trillion, nearly triple Social Security's gap during that time.

"I do think they are trying to create an artificial sense of crisis," Orszag said.

Few economists or politicians question the demographic challenge to a system that supports 47.4 million Americans. A wave of Baby Boomers will begin drawing Social Security benefits as soon as 2008, putting unprecedented demands on the New Deal-era system that has become the nation's main retirement program. The ratio of workers to Social Security retirees has been declining steadily since the system began, and it is now down to three to one. It is expected to fall to two to one over the next three decades or so.

But there is considerable debate about how dire the problem is. For example, the scope of Social Security's "problem" may be as much as $10.4 trillion or as little as $3.7 trillion, depending on whether the analysis extends infinitely into the future, as the White House prefers, or extends to 75 years, the standard actuarial window.

Also, even by mid-century, when Social Security is likely to have depleted its trust fund of Treasury bonds, it would still be able to pay 73 percent of promised benefits out of the payroll taxes. Bush asserts the system will then be "bankrupt," but opponents question that terminology, since a 27 percent benefit cut would still leave the average payment above today's level, even after adjusting for inflation.

Blahous focuses his attention on the year 2018, when the Social Security payroll tax receipts will not cover benefit payments. "The government does have to come up with more money after 2018; that is the fiscal reality," he said.

By that time, spending on Social Security will have climbed steadily, from the current $492 billion, or 4.3 percent of the total economy, to nearly $1.3 trillion, or 5.3 percent of the economy, according to the Social Security trustees. To finance a bill of that magnitude would amount to a massive shift of wealth from younger generations to the elderly, those who want to revamp the system say.

To those resistant to dramatic changes in Social Security, redeeming the bonds shouldn't be the problem. "These 'IOUs' are Treasury bonds, one of the world's safest investments," said Robert Greenstein, executive director of the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "The Treasury, the White House and Congress cannot choose not to pay interest on the bonds or not to redeem them -- unless they're willing to have the U.S. government default for the first time in history."

The problem, rather, is facing the whole government, not just Social Security. When payroll taxes were last raised, in 1983, Congress knew that new revenue would be used to reduce the budget deficit, not saved to fund future obligations.

But when the time came to pay back Social Security, it was understood that the burden would be shared by taxpayers and the government at large, said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, who dubbed Social Security "the phony crisis" in a 1999 book by that title.

"They deliberately raised the Social Security tax, an extremely regressive tax, to supposedly pre-fund Social Security," Baker said. "If Congress had said that money would be used to fund the government, then cut from Social Security when the time came to redeem those bonds, they would have been run out of town."

"Morally, this has to be seen as a burden that falls on the general government," Baker concluded.

"But," Blahous responded, "it's not much consolation to the worker of 2025 that there was an understanding in 1983 that he foot the bill."
<b>
Resolving whether and how to fund the debt owed to Social Security is critical. If the system is allowed to redeem all of its IOUs, it would remain healthy for decades to come. The trustees currently put the date of trust fund "exhaustion" at 2042.</b>

But that date has proven extremely sensitive to economic conditions. In 1994, the Social Security trustees projected the system would run out of IOUs to redeem in 2029, 35 years into the future. But economic growth steadily pushed that date further out. By 2000, the date of exhaustion was 2037. By 2003, it was 2042.

And it could be even further than that. The Congressional Budget Office this summer projected the date of exhaustion to be 2052, a 10-year difference stemming from very small changes in economic assumptions. Many economists -- conservative and liberal -- say the economic future is considerably brighter still.

The trustees assume annual economic growth will slow to a crawl by 2015, and will remain at an anemic 1.8 percent through 2080. That is about half the growth rate the United States has averaged since the Civil War, said James Glassman, senior U.S. economist at J.P. Morgan Chase, who sees no reason why that would happen.

"There still are problems, but it's not the fiscal doomsday that people imagine," said Glassman, who delivered that sanguine outlook at a White House economic conference earlier this month.

Marc Summerlin, a former Bush White House economist, noted that under the current Social Security system, faster economic growth can delay the date of reckoning, but it cannot save the system. Initial Social Security benefits are set by taking workers' average salaries, then raising them by the rate of annual wage growth over their lifetimes. Faster economic growth may push back the day of reckoning, but it raises the size of benefits owed once the date is reached.

But growth does help. Once workers begin drawing Social Security benefits, those benefits rise annually with inflation. If the economy grows faster than the inflation rate, more taxes will flow in to support beneficiaries.

If benefits could be completely unlinked from economic growth -- for example, by setting initial benefit levels according to some combination of wage and price growth -- faster economic performance could go a long way toward saving the system with no other changes to the benefit structure, Orszag said.

Given all these uncertainties, it would be foolish to commit now to dramatic structural changes that may prove unnecessary, Baker argued. After all, lawmakers design and redesign the tax code, knowing full well that future Congresses will undue their work. The Medicare system, which faces far greater financial pressure than Social Security, was bulked up last year with a prescription drug benefit, with the understanding that lawmakers in the future would have to revisit the program. Why then, he asked, does the White House insist Congress in 2005 fix Social Security in perpetuity?

Blahous said such a question only underscores the problems of past congressional efforts.

"In the past, Social Security has been subject to a lot of temporary fixes, and if you make a fix that you know is temporary, by definition you are leaving a gap that some future generation is going to have to step forward to fill," he said. "We have to hold ourselves to a higher standard than a temporary fix this time."

flstf · 02-04-2005, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

This "PLAN" includes Bush's intention for the government to default on the repayment of the trillions already owed to the SS Trust Fund. In your wildest dreams, do you really believe that the criminal thugs of the Bushco are expending their rhetoric and "political capital" to do something FOR you?

Well, I'm pretty cynical of just about anything the professional polititians do both Democrats and Republicans. But if this change means that we can get a real retirement plan instead of the paltry returns we get from SS them I'm all for it. I will believe that they really care about us when they either let us have a real retirement plan like they have or when they decide to join us in paying for SS.

Manx · 02-04-2005, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

o.k. Manx,

If there isn't a problem, please explain away the plummeting ROI and the ratios that are quickly heading to 1:1? At what ratio should I stop be concerned?

If there isn't a problem, why was the SS tax increased?

If there isn't a problem, why did Gore need a "lock box"?

If there isn't a problem, what do we da about the SS IOU's?

I'm sure I could address every single one of your concerns. However, I do not have time to do the research and post it here for you. Though, you will probably find answers to many of your questions at the Economic Policy Institute website: http://www.epinet.org/ - whether you agree with them is another matter.

But that is all really a seperate issue. The issue here is that Bush and those that agree with him have not demonstrated that there is a crisis. Until they do, the talk of significant changes is nothing more than pushing an agenda through without regard to the necessities of the agenda. I.E., a scam.

Manx · 02-04-2005, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

Even if you don't agree that the current plan is heading for trouble, what's wrong with giving us a real retirement plan like the bureaucrats have? Congress has exempted themselves and government employees from SS and has given themselves a much better plan. I think it would be only fair that we be given the same consideration.

I don't think we can depend on companies to continue to offer retirement plans, they seem to be cancelling them more and more. We will have to take care of ourselves. The money we put away for retirement including SS should at least be able to be invested and build up and grow. I don't understand how anyone can be against this.

The solution here is to remove this extra special retirement plan from the government. There is little to no likelyhood that the government can afford to provide the plan that they have to all citizens.

And just to be clear, the privatization of SS is not supposed to improve an individuals retirement benefits, it is very specifically supposed to remove the governments obligation to provide it (whether it improves benefits or not is a secondary intention). The exact opposite of what you are looking to gain.

flstf · 02-04-2005, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

And just to be clear, the privatization of SS is not supposed to improve an individuals retirement benefits, it is very specifically supposed to remove the governments obligation to provide it (whether it improves benefits or not is a secondary intention). The exact opposite of what you are looking to gain.

Even if that is true Manx, if you were 25 and had $10K to invest for your retirement if you put it into a mutual fund you would have many times more after 40 years than if you put it into SS. I can't imagine there will be many younger workers who will not opt to put their money in their own personal accounts rather than SS.

Manx · 02-04-2005, 03:35 PM

What you are suggesting places risk on the individual. SS does not have risk. Regardless, the governments purpose in privatization is to remove their responsibility, not to make you more money.

KMA-628 · 02-04-2005, 03:35 PM

All right, so I read through the SS info on EPI.

First, the "issue guide" suffers from the same aversion to the truth as the article that started this whole debate. Many of the claims made in the article (from the thread starter) are identical to claims made in the "issue guide" compiled by EPI.

That, in and of itself, makes me wonder who really is behind this propoganda.

anyways...

As to ROI's in a death spiral and ratios nearing 1:1, the "issue guide" completely avoids the issue. I didn't see one reference to these problems that are very core to the problem/crisis/whatever that is Social Security. The very ommission of these problems makes the whole "guide" suspect to me--i.e. why avoid 'em, its not like nobody is discussing them and they are hidden problems.

It does, however, have really good info on the program itself, so, if you want to bone up on what SS is, it is a good read.

smooth · 02-04-2005, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

That, in and of itself, makes me wonder who really is behind this propoganda.

Quote:

Raw Story has acquired a copy of Saving Social Security: A Guide to Social Security Reform, printed by the House and Senate Republican Conferences as a guide for Senators and Representatives to market private accounts for the Social Security system.

The document is filled with suggestions for communicating with constituents such as, "Talk in simple language: Your audience doesn't understand financial jargon," and "Offer an alternate reality." The first several pages of the 103-page document are posted here.

The playbook, first reported on by Raw Story, has been subsequently reproduced by various liberal weblogs.

View the entire document in PDF format here (2mb).

flstf · 02-04-2005, 06:04 PM

I didn't realize until recently that FDR proposed supplanting SS with self supported accounts:

Quote:

Franklin Roosevelt, the same man whom Bush quoted as saying that "each age is a dream that is dying, or one coming to birth"; the same man who gave birth to Social Security in the midst of recession; also said, in his Message to Congress on Social Security on Jan. 17, 1935:

"In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, noncontributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps 30 years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities that in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."

Those are the same principles Bush is upholding today, and those Democrats who booed Bush derided them with the same exhalation of breath.

As the new Washington Examiner editorialized in its first edition:

"Consider this: If we let a worker earning a $24,000 invest all his and his employer's Social Security taxes in a modestly performing basket of stocks and bonds, he could retire with a nest egg worth more than $875,000. Social Security, by contrast, promises him benefits worth only $292,230. In effect, Social Security will rob this worker, and millions like him, of half a million dollars." http://www.techcentralstation.com/020305H.html

Sorry KMA-628, I see you covered this already in a previous post.

smooth · 02-04-2005, 06:10 PM

sheesh, from the posts thus far, I'm wagering that not very many of you had your investments tied up in the stock market during the last 5 years.

If you don't remember what happened to retirees, ask your grandparents or parents. I asked mine, and they are none to happy about their future prospects.

stevo · 02-04-2005, 06:27 PM

5 years is not very long term. When you are talking about investing for retirement you are thinking long term. For those in their 20-30's, 25-30 years. Do some homework, get a few mutual funds, and diversify. There's really not much more to it.

If your so averse to risk, get a 30-yr t-bond. But don't keep me from investing my money how I see fit.

flstf · 02-04-2005, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

sheesh, from the posts thus far, I'm wagering that not very many of you had your investments tied up in the stock market during the last 5 years.

If you don't remember what happened to retirees, ask your grandparents or parents. I asked mine, and they are none to happy about their future prospects.

I've been about 50% to 75% in stocks. The market was about 10,500 5 years ago and is about 10,500 now. However it was at about 4000 10 years ago so I have done rather well. As you get older you should begin to pair back the amount of money you have in stocks.

I'm 55 and have just finished re-balancing my portfolio to include more fixed income devices like bond funds. But if I were younger I'd go for stock funds. I have to be more conservative now since I'm retired and drawing out money every year to live on.

smooth · 02-04-2005, 09:39 PM

lol, typical posts arguing over the trees at the expense of the forest.

To clarify, the wonderful panacea of the free market was actually a bunch of greedy corporate heads ransacking the public's money. Maybe you don't think that will happen again, whatever. The truth of the matter is that young investors may rebound, but many people who are retired right now are fucked.

Their investment plans unraveled, not through any fault of their own, but through the lack of government oversight and greedy individuals. That's the shell-game people are urging others to play by banking their future retirements on whether unscrupulous people will take their money and run. My post had nothing to do with rates of return, but plain thievery.

I didn't, but could easily have, asked how someone making minimum wage or slightly above that, is going to get $1000 dollars per month to invest in their own retirement. Our economy is shifting to a service economy, and low-paying jobs. People are going to have a hell of a time preparing for their own retirement when they can't even afford to pay their own rent and health care at the same time.

No one is stopping anyone from privately investing in their future retirement. I do it already, and a number of you lament at how you are prevented from doing so in one post, yet brag about your earnings in another. Which is it? What has been your average rate of return?

Just to break even you need to achieve a 3.3 rate of return. You're going to suddently strike it rich because you get to put money into a special fund yourself? hmm, right. Well, here's something for you: how much to employers contribute according to this plan? That's something I haven't been seeing. Do they still match their employees' contributions?

trickyy · 02-05-2005, 09:11 AM

i'd definitely opt out of SS if i could. that sounds like a great idea. there is some REAL choice.

AARP is soiling their depends on this. but do they expect payouts to be high forever? i really don't think my gramps needs 1-2 grand per month. he buys a new van every 3 years. he drives around aimlessly with no passengers. the point is that SS $ should probably be reduced, which is no doubt going to happen.

also, notice democrats say "privativization" while republicans say "personalization."

as for the plan itself, there is no bill to analyze as mentioned. so we are speculating, but with a general idea of the issues. i'm just wondering why this is such a high priority. i thought this was funny.

i do think some of the risk has been exaggerated. mutual funds are a stable investment. bad things happen, of course, but it's not like a game of chance. bush's plan could work, but i don't like the $1-3 trillion estimated price. he sould have saved some money to do this.

the democrats have no strong ideas. their response to the SOTU was very weak. what have they been doing in all those conferences for the last 3 months? bush is probably going to push this through just like everything else he wants to do.

flstf · 02-05-2005, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

No one is stopping anyone from privately investing in their future retirement. I do it already, and a number of you lament at how you are prevented from doing so in one post, yet brag about your earnings in another. Which is it? What has been your average rate of return?

Just to break even you need to achieve a 3.3 rate of return. You're going to suddently strike it rich because you get to put money into a special fund yourself? hmm, right]

Of course no one is stopping us from investing. We just want to be able to invest the money we put into SS as well. To answer your question the SP500 has returned about 10% over time.

Quote:

Long-Term Investing Has Averaged Out Volatility
Despite market ups and downs, the historical average annual total return for the S&P 500 Index from Dec. 31, 1925–Dec. 31, 2003, was 10.4%. The first plot point represents the average annual total return from Dec. 31, 1925, through Dec. 31, 1926.LINK

smooth · 02-05-2005, 10:18 AM

according to the article, you need to achieve a rate of return over 3% above inflation to break even. You don't just get to look at whether one obtains a 10% return, but that return minus the average rate of inflation from 1925 to 2004 (measured by the CPI), which has been 3.1%. So that places your real rate of return closer to 6-7%.

a) are you going to get to invest in the S&P 500? so I guess I'm just wondering what relevance it is to post the rate of return for the S&P 500 if you don't get to invest in it.

b) hopefully you don't turn 70 on any of those down decades, or your retirement will be sitting on the floor and you'll be waiting for 15 years for it the market to regain traction

c) I am more interested in the median rate return, which is resistant to outliers. Both the mean and the median are "averages," so which one is being used here? I suspect the mean is since that portrays the average in a better light than the other two measurements: the median and the mode (which one might also be interested in knowing, since that gives the most often occurence).

All this ignores my larger concern regarding the one point in time someone decides to run off with your money or any large dip in the market. it only takes once and you are screwed if it happens at the wrong time (e.g., right when you retire)

flstf · 02-05-2005, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

according to the article, you need to achieve a rate of return over 3% above inflation to break even. You don't just get to look at whether one obtains a 10% return, but that return minus the average rate of inflation from 1925 to 2004 (measured by the CPI), which has been 3.1%. So that places your real rate of return closer to 6-7%.

Any way you look at it, it is a far better return than SS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

a) are you going to get to invest in the S&P 500? so I guess I'm just wondering what relevance it is to post the rate of return for the S&P 500 if you don't get to invest in it.

There are mutual funds designed to match the SP500. I use Schwab's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

b) hopefully you don't turn 70 on any of those down decades, or your retirement will be sitting on the floor and you'll be waiting for 15 years for it the market to regain traction.

I think 15 years is a bit long but you have a good point. That's why as you get older you should re-balance your holdings to include more fixed income funds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

c) I am more interested in the median rate return, which is resistant to outliers. Both the mean and the median are "averages," so which one is being used here? I suspect the mean is since that portrays the average in a better light than the other two measurements: the median and the mode (which one might also be interested in knowing, since that gives the most often occurence).

I don't know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

All this ignores my larger concern regarding the one point in time someone decides to run off with your money or any large dip in the market. it only takes once and you are screwed if it happens at the wrong time (e.g., right when you retire)

By using mutual funds that follow the entire market, no one or two bad stocks will effect overall performance much.

smooth · 02-05-2005, 11:20 AM

ok, your responses lead me to suspect that you believe you will get to invest your retirement funds whereever you want.

Do you think that?

You won't get to invest them in anything other than a special, low-risk fund the government designs. There's your choice.

BTW, your last statement isn't accurate anymore. That's what the pundits were telling people all through the last decade. The panacea of mutual funds has now been skunked.

Anyway, you really need to tally in the big picture, such as, fees and commissions, market volatility, and inflation, along with unforseeable crap like thievery and currency blips, before you make a solid assumption about getting a lot more than SS will give.

I'm not saying that you won't get more. I'm saying you need to weigh the risks before deciding if that more is worth it. If you are only going to obtain 25K to 35K more over the course of your lifetime, is that worth risking your entire retirement fund?

KMA-628 · 02-05-2005, 11:22 AM

don't forget, under the privatization plan, the plan becomes my property.

Under the current plan, if I die, the money I invested goes away because of the design of the system.

Under the privatization plan, the money is now part of my estate, to do with as my will states.

Rate of return and long run averages mean nothing if you're going to lose 100% of the money. Something to pass on to my kids is lot better than a broken system that they will have to pay into and have the same problems with.

KMA-628 · 02-05-2005, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

ok, your responses lead me to suspect that you believe you will get to invest your retirement funds whereever you want.

Do you think that?

You won't get to invest them in anything other than a special, low-risk fund the government designs. There's your choice.

Smooth -

There is already a similar plan in place for fed employees that is performing quite well. If I can, I will see if I can find some more info on it, but the existing plan and the proposed plan are very similar.

host · 02-05-2005, 11:34 AM

Interesting that there was no reaction by the anti "democrat party" posters to my referenced (Washington Post is one of three national
"newspapers of record") posts that detail Bush's true intention.

Bush destroyed the tax revenue flows that were in place when he took office
four years ago. Bush demonized inheritance taxes, for example, by spinning that
very necessary tax, judging by the fact that with it in place, the top two
percent of wealth holders still increased their portion of total national wealth
from less than fifteent percent in 1970, to thirty three percent by 2003,
renaming it the "death tax", and then repeating that phrase over and over.

Bush's latest "Goebbels like" schtick, is to correct anyone who, in his presence,
refers to Bush's "plan" as privatization of SS, or to private accounts; he
has been programmed to reflexively tell one and all to call them "personal
accounts".

It is pathetic that the only thing Bush can contribute is to parrot the result
of Karl Rove's favorability polling, playing word games to get this done.

Bush does not want his legacy to result in what will happen if he doesn't
get this done. He took office with Roosevelt's original SS (retirement security)
plan requiring only the repayment of the money that the federal government
had borrowed from the SSA surplus since the 1940's. The tax structure was
in place in early 2001 to make it possible to collect this money owed to
SSA without large federal borrowing. SSA would have had enough money
in it's trust fund to pay most benefits for 60 to 70 years!

The money owed to SSA was entirely from contributions of 6.2 percent of
all wages earned, matched by equal 6.2 percent contributions from each
wage earner's employer. Self employed people payed in the entire 12.4 percent themselves. Bush and his "advisors" knew that the federal government had an obligation to pay SSA nearly $2 trillion in funds and
interest the federal gov. had borrowed, and it chose to drasticallly, but
"temporarily" cut taxes, instead. Bush wants tp make those tax cuts permanent now. The only way to do that is to default on paying back the
money that the federal government had borrowed from SSA surplus
contributions. Thos contributions were made by you and by your employer.
SSA only has expenses of one percent to administer benefits, including
retirement benefits and disability and survivors benefits.

In the mid 1990's SSA was made an independent entity, much like any
private enterprise. It is owed this money. Bush's plan includes defaulting
on paying back the SSA, to preserve his tax cuts that primarily benefit the
rich, and have glaringly not resulted in the huge creation of jobs that he
had predicted. The national media has not bought into Bush's new wealth
redistrubution scheme, so he has taken his propaganda apparatus to small
town America. Buy his Bush Shit at your own peril. One result is that
Brokers will charge 5 percent of principle to "invest" your money for you !

smooth · 02-05-2005, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

Smooth -

There is already a similar plan in place for fed employees that is performing quite well. If I can, I will see if I can find some more info on it, but the existing plan and the proposed plan are very similar.

KMA,

Similar is not the same, do we agree?

So now you and I need to ask ourselves and each other why we are not getting the same? Why is Bush not allowing us the option that federal employees recieve, if he is really for choice and not just using a political wedge topic in an attempt to discredit the democratic party?

I mean, if we want to talk about "similar" programs, shouldn't we be looking to see how similar this plan is to Clinton's? I suggest that you do so, you might be surprised to learn that it is more similar to the Clinton plan than to the TSP.

smooth · 02-05-2005, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Interesting that there was no reaction by the anti "democrat party" posters to my referenced (Washington Post is one of three national
"newspapers of record") posts that detail Bush's true intention.

It is pathetic that the only thing Bush can contribute is to parrot the result
of Karl Rove's favorability polling, playing word games to get this done.

Which is more pathetic? The point you made or the fact that I posted the 130+ page playbook detailing the manuevers required to reframe the issue, published by the republican party itself for its members to follow, and it doesn't appear that anyone has read the document.

KMA-628 · 02-05-2005, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Bush destroyed the tax revenue flows that were in place when he took office
four years ago.

You might want to check your facts on that statement.

Either that, or tell us how you define "destroyed", because I do not think it means what you think it means.

For example:

Tax Revenue for 2001: Greater than any year Clinton was Prez except 2000 (not bad considering the recession)

Tax Revenue for 2002: Greater than any year Clinton was Prez except 2000.

Tax Revenue for 2003: Greater than Clinton years except 1999 and 2000.

All categories are on the rise and either meet or exceed revenues from Clinton's best years.

The info is easy to get, just go to the IRS website.

KMA-628 · 02-05-2005, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

Which is more pathetic? The point you made or the fact that I posted the 130+ page playbook detailing the manuevers required to reframe the issue, published by the republican party itself for its members to follow, and it doesn't appear that anyone has read the document.

*ahem*

Hey Smooth, over here.

I read it but I can't say I am all the better for it.

It is a playbook, pure and simple. And I hope you are not trying to say that this is a one-sided thing.

I would still like to see how the "No Crisis" crowd answers my questions.

KMA-628 · 02-05-2005, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

KMA,

Similar is not the same, do we agree?

So now you and I need to ask ourselves and each other why we are not getting the same?

I agree.

And.....

I am working on figuring out the differences (I kinda have similar time constraints that you have). In fact, I shouldn't be here right now......but.....I......can't.....help.....myself.

host · 02-05-2005, 12:00 PM

I'm fascinated that cheerleaders for this riip-off can't advocate leaving the
system alone and simply investing four percent of their own funds in any
method of their own choosing. How about in gold, for instance, to offset
risks to the solvency of the US dollar. Gold has risen from $250's per ounce
in the early days of the Bushco to $425's now. That's a great return on the
world's "no confidence" vote of Bush's tenure.

If there is so much optimism about great future returns in the stock market,
why don't the "personal account" advocated all get part time jobs to
supplement their incomes and pump the extra cash into investments ?
Maybe they expect that the investment returns will require an investment
bubble that overvalues stocks due to the influx from Bush's planned SSA
wealth transfer, and without it, stocks won't run to irrational heights.

Anyone below retirement age is entitled to
SSA disability benefits if he becomes legitmately unable to work. That
disability insurance coverage isn't even ackowleged in these debates.

KMA-628 · 02-05-2005, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

I'm fascinated that cheerleaders for this riip-off can't advocate leaving the
system alone and simply investing four percent of their own funds in any
method of their own choosing.

Because I hate Pelosi as much as you hate Bush.

Anyways....

Was there an answer to my question to you in there somewhere? I think I missed it. It was the one about clarifying your statement that didn't seem to be very factual.

KMA-628 · 02-05-2005, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Anyone below retirement age is entitled to
SSA disability benefits if he becomes legitmately unable to work. That
disability insurance coverage isn't even ackowleged in these debates.

My wife is a tax accountant and did a return yesterday for a family where the husband gets SS payments because he can't work.

It is a pittance, trust me.

Anyway, it isn't acknowledged because it isn't going away. That has already been stated and cleared up.

smooth · 02-05-2005, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

*ahem*

Hey Smooth, over here.

I read it but I can't say I am all the better for it.

It is a playbook, pure and simple. And I hope you are not trying to say that this is a one-sided thing.

I would still like to see how the "No Crisis" crowd answers my questions.

lol, KMA, I would suggest that it is one-sided, but for different reasons.

I'm not opposed to propaganda, just lamenting at the fact that liberals haven't bothered to translate their knowledge of Gramsci to the general public like the conservatives have.

In short, it's one sided because the liberals aren't up to snuff on their propaganda agitation tactics so they're getting creamed in this war of position

maybe they're loath to be fascists, but I say phoo! that's no excuse...

flstf · 02-05-2005, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

ok, your responses lead me to suspect that you believe you will get to invest your retirement funds whereever you want.

Do you think that?

You won't get to invest them in anything other than a special, low-risk fund the government designs. There's your choice.

According to the initial proposal contained in the "playbook" there will be a government bond fund, corporate bond fund and broad based stock index fund. Most younger workers will probably go for the stock fund.

smooth · 02-05-2005, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

According to the initial proposal contained in the "playbook" there will be a government bond fund, corporate bond fund and broad based stock index fund. Most younger workers will probably go for the stock fund.

Usually it helps to cite the page when you quote a document. Are you referring to this (which is an 'example speech' for politicians to make to the public, not an initial proposal):

Quote:

You will have a small number of investment choices—diversified index
funds. One fund might be a government bond fund. Another could be a
corporate bond fund. And a third might be a broad-based stock index fund.
You would decide how much of your money goes into each fund. You will
not be picking individual bonds or stocks within a fund. Each fund will
consist of hundreds of different companies. This protects first-time investors.
They will not be able to go very far astray, due to the safe, limited choices.

(page 74)

I wonder what all those mights and coulds portend. Regardless, I think that document supports what I said, despite your attempt to rewrap it.

Good to see the republicans are finally on board with the government protecting us with safe, limited choice

KMA-628 · 02-05-2005, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

Good to see the republicans are finally on board with the government protecting us with safe, limited choice

Smooth, you're a big meany, you know that?

Anyway, at least it's a choice. Right now, we have no choice. Given the options, I would rather have limited choice than no choice.

By the way, aren't you Pro-Choice? Then you should be all for this.

smooth · 02-05-2005, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

Smooth, you're a big meany, you know that?

Anyway, at least it's a choice. Right now, we have no choice. Given the options, I would rather have limited choice than no choice.

By the way, aren't you Pro-Choice? Then you should be all for this.

lol, who said I was pro-choice?

I'm a commie.

I'm just waiting to see what these portfolios are going to look like:
choice A: Haliburton and subsidiaries
choice B: Bushco and subsidiaries
choice c: Ricecorp and subsidiaries

ahh, choices...choices

and even though I jest in how blatant that would be, how would the most powerful not benefit by dumping trillians of public money into the private market?

smooth · 02-05-2005, 02:49 PM

KMA, man, they really got to you.

The whole document is an exercise in how to use subtle shifts of language in order to reframe the debate. That is, shift the word "choice" for example so that the listeners won't catch how this plan runs counter to traditional Republican values.

Why are you willing to accept this as a "choice?"

When someone suggested that you take your private money and stick it in a 401K, that didn't really qualifty as a choice.

But when the republicans give you three options, comprised of companies they choose, then it becomes a viable "choice?" I don't understand, except for the fact that you are willing to trust that political party and unwilling to trust the democrat party.

So one choice is unviable, while the other one, albeit limited, is still a choice. Powerful people have hijacked the Republican party. I hope you take the time to digest that document. It's not written by some leftist reactionary group. It's a full on propaganda manual for the people who are going to enter the public discourse "armed" with a "effective and consistent message."

Quote:

"Please find the enclosed information to help you communicate an effective and consistent message on the problems facing the Social Security system. By staying informed, we will remain better armed to beat back opponents of meaningful change."

(opening letter)

Quote:

"It is key to teach your constituents that Social Security is hurting, but the way in which
you go about communicating the problem and the need for reform is critical. You will
face the unique challenge of recruiting the support of both current and future retirees—
two groups of Americans with very different views on Social Security’s reliability. Both
must realize what is at stake, why reform is necessary in the very near future, and how
they and their grandchildren will benefit from Personal Retirement Accounts. A number
of messaging techniques have already been tested in the field—feel free to follow these helpful guidelines as you tailor and communicate the solution to a quickly approaching problem.

(page 3)

KMA, this is your fucking government, dude. They went out and tested a bunch of words that could be embedded into a political message to convince you of their position.

Right or wrong, your own government is using head techniques to convince you to support its programs! What the fuck is that? They need to implement what the people want--not convince the people to do what they want!

It's all right there! It's as blatant as it can get. they are so caught up in hubris they don't even give a shit who reads their documents. LOOK, you people don't even give a shit!

They write what they want to do overseas, and you people support them. Even say that what they wrote they will do and what they are doing is some liberal plot to undermine their authority. When it's written and posted all over official websites.

Then they start on the domestic plans. And now it's some liberal plot to undermine our nation's retirement. When right here is an official document to the party leaders, from the party leaders, flat out stating that they've got field tested propaganda that will alter the hearts and minds of the American people.

Fucking get real and get serious about what your government is doing to you. Your freedoms, your safety, your econcomic safety, & etc. I feel for you KMA, because you seem like a cool dude. But I don't what it will take to open hard working, honest people's eyes to the hood our very own government is pulling over us.

02-04-2005, 06:10 PM	#55 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	sheesh, from the posts thus far, I'm wagering that not very many of you had your investments tied up in the stock market during the last 5 years. If you don't remember what happened to retirees, ask your grandparents or parents. I asked mine, and they are none to happy about their future prospects. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

02-04-2005, 09:39 PM	#58 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	lol, typical posts arguing over the trees at the expense of the forest. To clarify, the wonderful panacea of the free market was actually a bunch of greedy corporate heads ransacking the public's money. Maybe you don't think that will happen again, whatever. The truth of the matter is that young investors may rebound, but many people who are retired right now are fucked. Their investment plans unraveled, not through any fault of their own, but through the lack of government oversight and greedy individuals. That's the shell-game people are urging others to play by banking their future retirements on whether unscrupulous people will take their money and run. My post had nothing to do with rates of return, but plain thievery. I didn't, but could easily have, asked how someone making minimum wage or slightly above that, is going to get $1000 dollars per month to invest in their own retirement. Our economy is shifting to a service economy, and low-paying jobs. People are going to have a hell of a time preparing for their own retirement when they can't even afford to pay their own rent and health care at the same time. No one is stopping anyone from privately investing in their future retirement. I do it already, and a number of you lament at how you are prevented from doing so in one post, yet brag about your earnings in another. Which is it? What has been your average rate of return? Just to break even you need to achieve a 3.3 rate of return. You're going to suddently strike it rich because you get to put money into a special fund yourself? hmm, right. Well, here's something for you: how much to employers contribute according to this plan? That's something I haven't been seeing. Do they still match their employees' contributions? __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

02-05-2005, 10:18 AM	#61 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	according to the article, you need to achieve a rate of return over 3% above inflation to break even. You don't just get to look at whether one obtains a 10% return, but that return minus the average rate of inflation from 1925 to 2004 (measured by the CPI), which has been 3.1%. So that places your real rate of return closer to 6-7%. a) are you going to get to invest in the S&P 500? so I guess I'm just wondering what relevance it is to post the rate of return for the S&P 500 if you don't get to invest in it. b) hopefully you don't turn 70 on any of those down decades, or your retirement will be sitting on the floor and you'll be waiting for 15 years for it the market to regain traction c) I am more interested in the median rate return, which is resistant to outliers. Both the mean and the median are "averages," so which one is being used here? I suspect the mean is since that portrays the average in a better light than the other two measurements: the median and the mode (which one might also be interested in knowing, since that gives the most often occurence). All this ignores my larger concern regarding the one point in time someone decides to run off with your money or any large dip in the market. it only takes once and you are screwed if it happens at the wrong time (e.g., right when you retire) __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman Last edited by smooth; 02-05-2005 at 10:39 AM..

02-05-2005, 11:20 AM	#63 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	ok, your responses lead me to suspect that you believe you will get to invest your retirement funds whereever you want. Do you think that? You won't get to invest them in anything other than a special, low-risk fund the government designs. There's your choice. BTW, your last statement isn't accurate anymore. That's what the pundits were telling people all through the last decade. The panacea of mutual funds has now been skunked. Anyway, you really need to tally in the big picture, such as, fees and commissions, market volatility, and inflation, along with unforseeable crap like thievery and currency blips, before you make a solid assumption about getting a lot more than SS will give. I'm not saying that you won't get more. I'm saying you need to weigh the risks before deciding if that more is worth it. If you are only going to obtain 25K to 35K more over the course of your lifetime, is that worth risking your entire retirement fund? __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman Last edited by smooth; 02-05-2005 at 11:24 AM..

02-05-2005, 11:34 AM	#66 (permalink)
host Banned	Interesting that there was no reaction by the anti "democrat party" posters to my referenced (Washington Post is one of three national "newspapers of record") posts that detail Bush's true intention. Bush destroyed the tax revenue flows that were in place when he took office four years ago. Bush demonized inheritance taxes, for example, by spinning that very necessary tax, judging by the fact that with it in place, the top two percent of wealth holders still increased their portion of total national wealth from less than fifteent percent in 1970, to thirty three percent by 2003, renaming it the "death tax", and then repeating that phrase over and over. Bush's latest "Goebbels like" schtick, is to correct anyone who, in his presence, refers to Bush's "plan" as privatization of SS, or to private accounts; he has been programmed to reflexively tell one and all to call them "personal accounts". It is pathetic that the only thing Bush can contribute is to parrot the result of Karl Rove's favorability polling, playing word games to get this done. Bush does not want his legacy to result in what will happen if he doesn't get this done. He took office with Roosevelt's original SS (retirement security) plan requiring only the repayment of the money that the federal government had borrowed from the SSA surplus since the 1940's. The tax structure was in place in early 2001 to make it possible to collect this money owed to SSA without large federal borrowing. SSA would have had enough money in it's trust fund to pay most benefits for 60 to 70 years! The money owed to SSA was entirely from contributions of 6.2 percent of all wages earned, matched by equal 6.2 percent contributions from each wage earner's employer. Self employed people payed in the entire 12.4 percent themselves. Bush and his "advisors" knew that the federal government had an obligation to pay SSA nearly $2 trillion in funds and interest the federal gov. had borrowed, and it chose to drasticallly, but "temporarily" cut taxes, instead. Bush wants tp make those tax cuts permanent now. The only way to do that is to default on paying back the money that the federal government had borrowed from SSA surplus contributions. Thos contributions were made by you and by your employer. SSA only has expenses of one percent to administer benefits, including retirement benefits and disability and survivors benefits. In the mid 1990's SSA was made an independent entity, much like any private enterprise. It is owed this money. Bush's plan includes defaulting on paying back the SSA, to preserve his tax cuts that primarily benefit the rich, and have glaringly not resulted in the huge creation of jobs that he had predicted. The national media has not bought into Bush's new wealth redistrubution scheme, so he has taken his propaganda apparatus to small town America. Buy his Bush Shit at your own peril. One result is that Brokers will charge 5 percent of principle to "invest" your money for you ! Last edited by host; 02-05-2005 at 11:37 AM..

02-04-2005, 11:45 AM	#41 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	Wow, such a long post that continues to discuss something that was proven immediately to be false.

02-04-2005, 12:16 PM	#43 (permalink)
KMA-628 ....is off his meds...you were warned. Location: The Wild Wild West	o.k. Manx, If there isn't a problem, please explain away the plummeting ROI and the ratios that are quickly heading to 1:1? At what ratio should I stop be concerned? If there isn't a problem, why was the SS tax increased? If there isn't a problem, why did Gore need a "lock box"? If there isn't a problem, what do we da about the SS IOU's?

02-04-2005, 12:26 PM	#44 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	But I thought when the dems were in power clinton talked about the need for SS reform and how it was going to be a huge problem, but now that they aren't in power anymore it is suddenly not a problem. Sounds fishy.

02-04-2005, 03:35 PM	#51 (permalink)
Manx Loser	What you are suggesting places risk on the individual. SS does not have risk. Regardless, the governments purpose in privatization is to remove their responsibility, not to make you more money.

02-04-2005, 03:35 PM	#52 (permalink)
KMA-628 ....is off his meds...you were warned. Location: The Wild Wild West	All right, so I read through the SS info on EPI. First, the "issue guide" suffers from the same aversion to the truth as the article that started this whole debate. Many of the claims made in the article (from the thread starter) are identical to claims made in the "issue guide" compiled by EPI. That, in and of itself, makes me wonder who really is behind this propoganda. anyways... As to ROI's in a death spiral and ratios nearing 1:1, the "issue guide" completely avoids the issue. I didn't see one reference to these problems that are very core to the problem/crisis/whatever that is Social Security. The very ommission of these problems makes the whole "guide" suspect to me--i.e. why avoid 'em, its not like nobody is discussing them and they are hidden problems. It does, however, have really good info on the program itself, so, if you want to bone up on what SS is, it is a good read.

02-04-2005, 06:27 PM	#56 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	5 years is not very long term. When you are talking about investing for retirement you are thinking long term. For those in their 20-30's, 25-30 years. Do some homework, get a few mutual funds, and diversify. There's really not much more to it. If your so averse to risk, get a 30-yr t-bond. But don't keep me from investing my money how I see fit.

02-05-2005, 09:11 AM	#59 (permalink)
trickyy ►	i'd definitely opt out of SS if i could. that sounds like a great idea. there is some REAL choice. AARP is soiling their depends on this. but do they expect payouts to be high forever? i really don't think my gramps needs 1-2 grand per month. he buys a new van every 3 years. he drives around aimlessly with no passengers. the point is that SS $ should probably be reduced, which is no doubt going to happen. also, notice democrats say "privativization" while republicans say "personalization." as for the plan itself, there is no bill to analyze as mentioned. so we are speculating, but with a general idea of the issues. i'm just wondering why this is such a high priority. i thought this was funny. i do think some of the risk has been exaggerated. mutual funds are a stable investment. bad things happen, of course, but it's not like a game of chance. bush's plan could work, but i don't like the $1-3 trillion estimated price. he sould have saved some money to do this. the democrats have no strong ideas. their response to the SOTU was very weak. what have they been doing in all those conferences for the last 3 months? bush is probably going to push this through just like everything else he wants to do.

02-05-2005, 11:22 AM	#64 (permalink)
KMA-628 ....is off his meds...you were warned. Location: The Wild Wild West	don't forget, under the privatization plan, the plan becomes my property. Under the current plan, if I die, the money I invested goes away because of the design of the system. Under the privatization plan, the money is now part of my estate, to do with as my will states. Rate of return and long run averages mean nothing if you're going to lose 100% of the money. Something to pass on to my kids is lot better than a broken system that they will have to pay into and have the same problems with.

02-05-2005, 12:00 PM	#72 (permalink)
host Banned	I'm fascinated that cheerleaders for this riip-off can't advocate leaving the system alone and simply investing four percent of their own funds in any method of their own choosing. How about in gold, for instance, to offset risks to the solvency of the US dollar. Gold has risen from $250's per ounce in the early days of the Bushco to $425's now. That's a great return on the world's "no confidence" vote of Bush's tenure. If there is so much optimism about great future returns in the stock market, why don't the "personal account" advocated all get part time jobs to supplement their incomes and pump the extra cash into investments ? Maybe they expect that the investment returns will require an investment bubble that overvalues stocks due to the influx from Bush's planned SSA wealth transfer, and without it, stocks won't run to irrational heights. Anyone below retirement age is entitled to SSA disability benefits if he becomes legitmately unable to work. That disability insurance coverage isn't even ackowleged in these debates.