Bush's plan to forfeit your SS account profits
 

Someone tell me again why this scam is a good idea.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2005Feb2.html

It is not a good idea. IMO Only because like the SS system we have now thesse accounts will gain a butt load of money and those in goverment can't keep theiir paws off of it and then they will start taking money from the private acounts. I think that we should take all the stuff out of SS except those who are retired. That is what it was meant for, we need to go back to the original plan if we want to fix it. There are too many different programs that draw off of it now. If we want to keep that money in SS we need to stop giving it all out for those who aren't retired.

Like if we put it into a lock box.

The Wash Post piece was a hatchet job. The Bush Admin never claimed that there would be forfeitures of money. It's a shame that the press has already taken a side in this fight before all the ideas are proposed.

bush is doing the best thing that can be done right now, and i'm supporting it

Just so happened that I saw a retort to the WP story a few minutes ago:

http://drudgereport.com/flash3.htm

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.

From the drudge report link posted by fro....thought maybe some of you wouldn't link to it since it came from mr. drudge.

Why not make the whole thing optional? I would rather not pay into it and I am certainly not depending on it. That's what savings and financial planning is for. Personal responsiblilty and accountablility go a long way.

I can manage my money better than the government for sure.

Edit: i was off my meds.....

Guess you missed the plainly obvious fact that this thread is about one the DETAILS which the White House itself says will be part of the Bush's SS plan.

you missed my point (and also, the last six words)

There is no official plan. We are in the beginning stages of what will be a long, drawn-out process full of changes.

By simplying starting out with this being a scam, based on potentially inaccurate information, you do absolutely nothing to help the situation. The thing is, you want this to be a scam, you couldn't handle it any other way.

This is why people on the right get frustrated with people on the left. Nothing but negative with no proposed alternatives. Knee-jerk reactions and boiler-plate comments won't help us in coming up with a plan that could potentially benefit millions of Americans for many, many years to come.

Don't like some of the ideas? State why they are bad and offer up an alternative. All you do is go around and bash all things Republican. Can you do anything more than bash? How about offering something up in exchange for your pithy comments?

We aren't going to get anywhere if this is the type of oppostion that is being offered.

Edit: Removed, as it was not useful or conducive to discussion. Thanks to KMA-628 for thoughtful outside discussion on this subject.

I would ..........unfortunately, have to agree with the above statement.

How many people here actually think that there will be ANYTHING left in SS by the time they retire? I'm prolly older than most here, and the idea of getting half of what I put into SS back out again sounds GREAT to me, since I honestly don't think that I'd actually ever see a dime under the current system.

Half of something is far better than all of nothing.

OK KMA, here you go. DO NOTHING. THERE IS NO CRISIS.

We do not need to be leveraging ourselves into $1-2 trillion of new debt at the exact moment that we need to be spending enormous sums of money on Iraq.

Bush's SS plan is a scam because SS will not have any financing problems for many decades. This reform movement is driven only by conservative ideology and not fiscal pragmatism. It is incredibly ironic that the GOP postures itself as wanting to do this for the sake of the fiscal health of Social Security and yet they sit there with a straight face and tell us that they want to wreck our federal budgetary health now IN WARTIME just so we can fix some fiscal problems that forecasters say won't even crop up for at least 40 years. That's reckless and ridiculus.

Hardliners on the right have made no secret of their decades-old ideological dream of stripping down SS. Any truly level-headed fiscal conservative would instantly recognize that wartime, occupation, and reconstruction of an entire nation makes for the worst possible budgetary environment to reform gigantic social programs. It's really too bad that responsible fiscal conservatives have been pushed into irrelevancy by people who want to go with a max-out-the-credit-cards mentality.

Unfortunately, the conservatives who are driving this reform movement have no sense of pragmatism where it comes to the budget. They're doing it now because this is the first time they've ever had the power in both Congress and the White House and they're scared as hell that if they don't do it right away that they could lose power in one of those places and never get the chance to do it again. They don't seem to care about unsustainably high levels of debt. They only want to ram through their ideology this first chance they get.

Well sorry, I'm not willing to accept taking on trillions in debt for Social Security at the very moment we need tons of money for Iraq. That's just plain budgetary stupidity. Do first things first. Take care of Iraq and then take care of Social Security LATER because it is not in crisis now. IRAQ IS! I am not going to quietly sit by and watch the GOP wreck America's fiscal health just for their own personal ideological agenda. We literally have decades to address Social Security. We do NOT need to be doing it while we're in the middle of a wartime foreign occupation and reconstruction project on a scale not seen in more than half a century.

SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT IN CRISIS!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Social Security come into being during the Great Depression? Wasn't it changed during the years when we were reconstructing Europe and Asia?

The time to deal with the problem is when it hasn't grown to crisis proportions yet. Social Security has always been about theft, plain and simple. It's never been long-term sustainable. And it needs to be massively pruned.

If not us, who? If not now, when?

No, there were no changes to Social Security at all during the 1940's.

How about at a time when we're not already taking on huge debt for the war effort? The amount of debt Bush is wanting for Social Security reform will increase the federal debt by anywhere from 15-30%. Never in history has anyone asked for such a huge debt increase for one single program, and Bush wants to do it in WARTIME??

Why is it so hard to understand that you don't take on huge debt for domestic programs when we're in a war that's already got us strapped for cash? Don't give us this "if not now, when" crap. When we are no longer spending trillions of dollars on Iraq, THAT'S when.

I think it was my now near-retirement parents who said exactly that about themselves back when I was but a child.

SS is not in a crisis. It will eventually, maybe in the next 30 years, need to be adjusted slightly for a brief period of time and then it can be adjusted back. There is going to be a slight boom in retirees in about 40 years, after which there will be a decline.

What a waste of power by a President to so obviously and devisively push such an unecessary change.

But hey, atleast it's better than starting an unecessary war. Maybe he'll get distracted with SS and forget to invade Iran. Now that would be a good thing.

Really? Are you sure you want to stand by that? I invite your attention to the following: http://www.ssa.gov/history/1940.html

And we weren't taking on huge amounts of debt in the 1930's? Wasn't that the entire IDEA behind the New Deal?

"Trillions" is plural, which implies "more than one". Cite, please?

In case you didn't realize it, we're ALWAYS spending "trillions" on SOMETHING or other. And we've always been spending trillions of dollars annually (well, within recent history) on domestic programs and entitlements. This will continue for the forseeable future. So when is a good time to deal with it?

The more Liberals bellow about it, the better an idea I think it is.

Why not just raise the retirement age by 5 years starting in year x?

Did you ever read the book Catch-22?

There is no Social Security fund. The SS money we pay goes into the general fund like any other tax and the benefits are paid out of the general fund like any other government outlay. So there is no fund to go broke, just current workers paying FICA taxes and current retirees taking money out of the general fund based on how much they earned over their lifetime. At present there is more FICA money going in to the general fund than there is SS money being paid out but in the future this will not be the case unless something is done. The longer we wait to do something, the more drastic the change will have to be, so doing something now makes sense.

The proposal to establish personal accounts is the first step to creating a real retirement fund. I am too old to benefit from this but younger workers should welcome this change. If the money I invested in SS over the years had been put to work in almost any average mutual fund I would have far more money than I will get from SS. The personal account would be a real fund that can be invested instead of just having the FICA tax going into the general fund.

It is interesting that neither the Republican or Democrat polititians have proposed one change that would benefit SS and that is to make government employees (including themselves) pay FICA taxes like the rest of us. Instead they are excempt and have their own retirement plans which are put into real funds that can be invested. I'm sure they would want no part of having to join SS. If only we had the same choice.

/Arch13 looks over the constitution...

Nope, notin' in there about money when you retire.
That leads me to my question, why on earth does this plan still exist?
That the baby boom generation saved no money and bought on credit to dig their own hole is no ones fault but theirs.
A problem for me this does not make.
At it's current trajectory, this will be a problem for the younger generation to shoulder, and nothing about Mr. Bush's plan eliminates this. Even the presidents plan tactily acknowledges that the adminstration is afraid to reduce benifits or eliminate the system for the baby boomers.

You speak about entitlments Daswig. Put your money where your mouth is and acknowledge that the entire principal of SS is one giant entitlment.
And since it is, you shouldn't have any issue with killing the program here and now.

Huh? Where did I say it wasn't, or that I wouldn't rather it be killed off? Killing off Social Security isn't a viable political option. If reforming it is the best we can do, I'm all for it.

I dont see why teh ARRP has its panties in a bunch- this wont effect anyone over 55- so why are they even getting involved in this?!

Good question. Because the government forces us to. If it was voluntary it would die.

Many of us have saved plenty including paying FICA taxes for 35+ years which we were promised would give us the right to collect SS when we retire based on the amount of money we paid in FICA taxes..

It's a problem for you in that you will have to pay for current retirees just like we have been doing all these years. I would have loved to have taken my FICA taxes and put them in a real retirement plan but they wouldn't let me. With personal accounts the younger folks may eventually be able to break away from this transfer cycle and have some real money to retire on instead of the piddling amount SS gives you.

Yep, you will have to shoulder it just like we have all these years.
They are reluctant to reduce benefits because they know that we are already getting so little back compared to what we have paid in. You will notice that the polititians and their fellow government employees have exempted themselves from SS, they know the return is far better in private plans.

My point is that the plan is still screwing the pooch so to speak,
It does nothing to mitigate the current problem of the babyboom genration that acts like Social Security is a right they have earned.
Any real reform that is actually "reform" would feed the tough medicine to that generation that their failure to save doesn't mean they are going to get a dime.
All this plan does is tell a younger generation that always assumed SS would be broke that they have a responsability to save and use the market to generate retirment income. It does nothing to releive the taxpayers, especially the younger ones, of supporting a generation that had no fiscal intelligence and now demands that a younger generation support them.

Edit: it should be pointed out that the average baby boomer has saved less than 1% of anyhting they have ever earned. That some looked ahead is good. That others did not does not mean we should support them.

If this is about making sure a future generation does not get stuck in this cycle, that requires the older generation to accept that they will not be getting what they put in. If the claim is that those in their 40's-60's are trying to do something good for the younger generation, then that requires not just talk, but action, including sacrafice.

How much of a sacrifice should we make? We are already getting so little out of SS compared to what we have put in. At least younger workers will be able to build a retirement account with real money in it if they allow for personal accounts. I wish we had that choice when I was younger.

When will we stop allowing moronic Bush to distract us from dealing with
pressing and important problems. Unlike Bush, even a broken clock is right
twice a day:

Tell me again why you support Bush? Oh......factcheck.org has it all wrong?
The "war prezdent" has a much better grasp on this issue. He'll save our
retire-munt!!!!!!!!!!
<h3>The collapse of the value of our paper fiat currency will occur
long before anything is done to effectively deal with our $650 billion
annual trade deficit, average household debt, importation of 12.3 million
barrels per day of oil, along with also using the additional 7.7 million
barrels peoduced domestically, or 25 percent of total world oil production. Add the continued strain of financing the soon to exceed $8 trillion in federal debt, and the resulting impending U.S. currency crisis will make social security look like an insignifigant irritant. Since Bush has no plans to deal with this country's actual fiscal timebombs, he cooked this Bush Shit up as distracting "theater" for the masses to focus on.</h3>

I have little faith in Bush's Social Security plan. Not because I adhere to the "OMGWTFBBQ privatization is teh evil!!!!111" mindset, but because 1) I'm not so sure the government has every TRULY privatized something and 2) the government will still be forcing people to give money to SS *on the basis the government knows better how to plan for their retirement than they do.*

In the past when the government has "privatized" something, it's only been a frankenstein child of private at public control. Take the CA energy crisis which was "caused by privatization." Nevermind the fact that the "privatized" version had more convoluted public regulations trying to falsly manipulate the market than existed when it was "public." Of course there were critics saying this, but no one listened to them.

My whole question to those in favor of SS is why do you want to let the gov't save your money for your retirement? I sure as hell don't. It's my money, I'll save it how I want.

Please, I'd like to hear some of your reasons why the gov't is better at providing for your retirement than you are.

That would require self-responsibility and self-thought. I'll take credit for my own screw-ups thank you very much, I don't need the government doing it for me.

First off:

Kadath: how is my post a troll while the title (which wasn't even true) and the tiny single sentence used to start off this thread weren't? Someone please tell me what kind of discussion can be started in this manner?

Now you are offering up something that I can respond to.

Frankly, I question this whole "no crisis" crowd that has cropped up overnight. If there isn't a problem with SS, why did we have the cnahges in the 80's? Why did Gore wanna put it in a "lock box"?

Those questions aside, I have two serious questions regarding SS that I would like answered (I have asked them several times before here, but nobody ever tries to answer them).

#1 - If there is not a problem with SS, please explain the payee/payor ratio. Why is it where it is? Where was it in the past? What is the history of changes to the ratio?

#2 - The graph for the ROI on SS looks like a guy jumping off of a cliff to the right. It is scary how sharp and massive the decline is. How can you say there isn't a problem when looking at info like this? If the ROI graph for SS was a sales graph for a large company, you would see everybody with a "C" in their title jumping off the roof.

I have much more to actually add to this discussion, but I would like to see how the 'no crisis" crowd answers these questions.

That's a stretch Secret.

The private sector would have been just fine if gov't hadn't tried to artificially control the market.

I disagree here, the problems in CA had to do with the gov't and its wacky regulations and nothing to do with the actual owners of the energy companies.

um....that's what I said :confused: That's why I put the phrase "caused by privatization" in quotes.

sorry, when I read it first, it looked like you were trying to say that privatization caused the problem. I read it again and see differently.

First: my thanks to Kadath, that was refreshingly surprising.

Anyway, I found this and thought it very interesting: LINKY

It seems that the SS program we have today is not the one originally intended by FDR.

It is especially relevant in that there is a media event involving the Democrats and the FDR memorial recently regarding their opposition to privatization.

Invoke the memory of the founder of the system by disregarding his stated wishes?

In all fairness, this is not proof that privatization needs to occur, but it does bring into the discussion that it was an ultimate goal for the plan.

I am getting the impression that FDR actually thought about the ever-increasing number of retired people and ways of protecting his baby.

In regards to some of Pelosi's comments on the matter: note the word supplement, not add on.

In addition, the only reason SS was passed to begin with wasn't because democrats and republicans suddenly agreed on the issue, only that the republicans felt that if SS was not introduced more power would be given to the unions since they would then feel the need to control the entirety of workers' retirement funds. By passing SS legislation congress, in effect, was limiting the unions' power.

At no time did all of congress believe that SS was a good thing, only a necessary evil.

It's a matter of taking small steps, or "boiling the frog" if you will. It's not politically survivable to say "sorry, folks, but to save your grandkids, you're going to have to suck it up." What IS possible is to slowly divert part of the current income stream from going to the general fund which is quickly spent to a form of individual retirement account that's set aside for the use of the people who put the money in. It's like putting Godzilla on a diet...if you say "we're not going to feed you at all any more", he is gonna be mega-pissed and eat Tokyo. If you say "we're going to keep feeding you, but we're going to feed you healthy food instead of junk food", you might get away with it. And later on, down the road, you can then say "OK, we've gotten you used to eating twigs and berries, you can now forage for yourself." Baby steps and all that...

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

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.

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?

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

I didn't realize until recently that FDR proposed supplanting SS with self supported accounts:
Sorry KMA-628, I see you covered this already in a previous post.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

http://workingforchange.speedera.net...MW01-05-05.jpg

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.

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.
http://www.aiminvestments.com/images...volatility.gif

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)

Any way you look at it, it is a far better return than SS.
There are mutual funds designed to match the SP500. I use Schwab's.
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.
I don't know.
By using mutual funds that follow the entire market, no one or two bad stocks will effect overall performance much.

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?

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.

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.

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 !

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.

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.

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.

*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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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... ;)

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):

(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 :thumbsup:

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

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. :cool:

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?

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."

(opening letter)

(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.

I'm gonna take this one in itty-bitty pieces.

First, as to the wording: That kind of behavior is common in almost all circles of life. You can't get your message across if the people listening don't understand what you are saying. I read the playbook and it is not some underground conspiracy, it is merely recommending how to deliver the message without alienting your audience. Ask anybody in advertising or sales; this is commonplace. Hell, I even took an NLP course in order to help me make more sales.

Here is an example: I consider myself a pretty smart guy, but my head hurts when I have to read roach's posts. While the concept he is talking about is not beyond me, his manner of writing puts me off. I just prefer more straightforward, simple language. End result: roach loses me as an audience because his message has no chance of connecting to me because of the wording and the style,

Like I said, I read some (not all, but some) of the playbook and it didn't bother me. It actually made sense.

As to the second paragraph I quoted from you....

You and I are from complete opposite spectrums in regards to idealogical thought. That doesn't make you right nor does it make me wrong. As foreign as my beliefs are to you, I assure you yours are to me as well.

But it appears as if you fail to understand that people like me are not all sheep. It just boils down to a difference in how we all view the world and events around us.

As to the topic at hand, you should remember that I have talked about it long before it became the conversation du Jour. It just so happens that many of the key talking points that are listed in that memo are very similar to concerns that I personally held based on my own research.

No one told me how to think and nobody suggested that I take this issue up as a cause. I was actually studying something completely different and kept coming across information that helped formulate the opinion that I have today.

Lastly....

I know our goverment sucks. I know that there are many things that happen that shouldn't. I am not so blind as to not see that.

I just look at it differently. Compared to most other gov'ts and cultures, I find this particular one suits me the best. It isn't perfect, but I feel it is the best one going.

I also know that some things are not attainable. World peace will never happen, regardless of what any of us want. Hunger will never end. Poverty will always be a blemish on every acre of land on this big ol' ball we call home. All of these things will always battle an opposing force that is much more powerful: human nature.

So, rather than try and change something I can't, I focus on things that I can have an effect on. While I do not condemn someone for choosing the more altruistic route, it is not for me.

My concern is that we are spiralling down an even worse path because we cannot get past our own differences. Both of our sides seem to have this worst-case scenario vision of each other. It is not hard to find some deep underworld conspiracy if you look for one. It's like some of these studies that get released. You give me what you want a study to prove, and I can prove it, regardless of how assinine the outcome you desire. When you came to the table already ladened with pre-conceived notions, you are going to leave with the same ideals because that is all you will see.

As with this case. I have many friends, co-workers, etc. that believe a lot of the same things I do, and.....

I can assure you that we are not evil. We are not pathological liars. We don't want more poverty. We don't want more hungry. We are not blind, short-sighted robots of the far-right regime. We are just people, just like you, and we want many of the same things you want. We just see a different way of getting there.

The three funds they listed make sense to me so I assume something like them will be in the final plan. The government bond fund (low risk/low return), the corporate bond fund (medium risk/medium return) and the stock fund (high risk/high return). That way younger workers can put their SS money into the stock fund and re-balance into the other funds as they grow older. This is how many of us handle our personal accounts now.

If we don't like the makeup of the funds that will be offered as I understand it, we can choose to not participate and put all our FICA taxes into the SS plan.

I'm gonna put myself back on topic:

First, regarding the comments made about personal accounts (that was for you smooth) and the risk of having the money in the stock market.

As I was reading the analysis of the Clinton's 2000 budget (yeah, Saturday night and I am spending it reading presidential budget reports), a paragraph jumped out at me:

LINK

This was one of Clinton's proposals regarding SS. If a major problem that some people have with privatization is the riskiness of the stock market, where was the uproar about this? I never heard a peep about it.

The only difference with Clinton's proposal and privatization (in regards to the stock market) is who owns the program; me or the government. The obvious next question: Who do you trust more; yourself or the government?

Why do I get the feeling that a lot of the fervor here relates more to the person making the proposal and has little to do with the proposal itself?

Now, there is another little tidbit of information in Clinton's 2000 budget (as referenced above):

In short, there isn't any money there. Right now SS is paying for itself in that it brings in more than it puts out. Where does the extra money go? It gets spent. Not just by Bush, but by everybody in Washington going back many, many years.

The guesstimates are that outlays will exceed revenues for Social Security somewhere around 2015/2016.

Then what happens? There isn't any money in the trust fund.

That leaves us with three options:

1) Pay back the IOU's in the trust fund (where is the money going to come from)
2) Increase the tax rate for SS (which would also include raising the cap)
3) Decrease benefits

and a possible fourth: all of the above (depending on who you talk to).

What about all of the "experts" saying there isn't a crisis and that SS is solvent until 2042 or 2055?

They are counting in the ghost balances of the trust fund. The trust fund has a balance, just like any other ledger, but there isn't anything there. The zero balance is offset by the IOU's. Plus, as I understand it, the design of the trust fund isn't such that it would ever hold a balance.

So, unless I am analyzing this information wrong, I am left with the following question:

Why shouldn't we be looking at reforming SS now? Realistically, this should have been done a long time ago. If we wait until the "No Crisis" people tell us it is o.k. to work on the problem, it will probably be too late.

More Info

/please note that I chose my references wisely, no links to Cato, Heritage or whatever.

I haven't seen that either, but I'll make you a little wager that the employers' contribution is never reduced or eliminated.

Not quite sure what you mean by that. Admittedly, I don't believe the mutual fund abuses are going to improve, but that can be addressed by selecting an index fund, as flstf suggests.

Depends on whether or not you anticipate the government being broke, and telling you, "You don't get ANY Social Security. You saved for your retirement all along, so we're going to give all of your Social Security payments to someone who didn't save a nickel."

Yes, there does seem to be a little adrenaline in some of the posts here.

I still haven't seen an answer to your repeated question of what happens when the payor/payee ration hits 1:1, as is predicted to happen soon.

Here's another perspective:


Link

sob asked what will happen when the revenue-payment ratio for Social Security reaches 1:1, and provides a Luskin artical proclaiming disaster. Let us deconstruct Mr. Luskin's piece, shall we?

This is true. The surplus for SS is the amount of extra money - say, equivelant to an individual person's savings account - used to pay whatever amount of the benefits can't be paid in a given year by the money SS recieved that year. Say SS has to pay $100 a year in benefits, but only receives $90 a year in 2009. This means that $10 has to be removed from the Trust Fund. About that time, in real life, the Trust Fund will have over a billion dollars. But then Luskin says:

This is spin - and it is just silly. What Luskin is trying to make you think is that, as SS takes money out of the Trust Fund, beginning in 2009, and it shrinks as a result, SS will be forced to get money from somewhere else. What he doesn't say is that such a scenario is only true if SS were to have a goal of maintaining the Trust Fund at its peak, or the level it is at the day before SS begins dipping into it. To further my example from above, if the Trust Fund had $50 on December 31, 2008, it would have only $40 dollars by December 31, 2009. Luskin is saying that SS will have to begin finding other sources of funding in order to maintain a total amount of available SS money - including Trust Fund money - equal to what existed on December 31, 2008. He calls this situation a crisis.

Back on planet Earth, the Social Security Administration will do no such thing. It is silly to think that the Trust Fund should always remain filled with as much money as humanly possible. The Trust Fund is actually there in order to ensure benefits for many years after SS begins paying out more in benefits than it takes in. It is not meant to be a minimally acceptable level of available money. When the Trust Fund was established in its current form - in 1983, by Reagan - it was designed to simply cover SS benefits for a while and, in doing so, eventually dwindle. To use my example again, the Trust Fund will dwindle over the years - from $50 on the last day of 2008 to $0 at some future point - as it is spent by SS to ensure 100% payment of benefits. This "crisis" Luskin is referring to is the Trust Fund doing EXACTLY what it was designed to do.

OK, so in 2018 the Trust Fund will have run out of money and Social Security will be taking in less in taxes than it pays in benefits. Well, there wasn't really a crisis in 2009, no matter how much latitute you grant Luskin on the semantics of the word. But, I mean, this time, Luskin can't be wrong, can he? Well, yes. See, as Luskin points out, SS has a large amount of bonds that it can dip into in order to pay out 100% of benefits:

So SS has been paying the federal government money for years in the form of bonds in order to have - excuse me, hoard - Treasury bills. Think of these as IOUs with a bullet: SS has been giving money for a long time to the federal government so that one day, when they need money, they can receive what they originally gave back with interest. In 2018, as Luskin has correctly shown, SS will need to dip into their hoard of Treasury bills and receive their investment back with interest. So if they gave the feds $50 dollars originally, with interest they may be expected to get back, say $55 (this doesn't correspond to reality, I'm just creating an example). What is wrong with this? I mean, if you put your money in the bank and withdraw it a few years later, you expect to get it back with interest, right? Shouldn't SS too?

Well, he says that this puts the government $11.9 trillion dollars (the amount they will owe SS) further in debt. Is the real SS crisis that the government will have to pay back to SS the money it owes them? Perhaps - I mean, $11.9 trillion is a lot of money. So what are the possible solutions to this problem?

Luskin has no answers. Instead, he points out the obvious - that the government has to get the money to repay that $11.9 from somewhere:

I can propose a solution or, more accurately, describe what other, smarter people have written. As Matthew Yglesias wrote, "The White House has repeatedly defined Social Security's move into cash flow imbalance starting in 2019 as the problem. One can dispute whether or not this is, in fact, problematic. It is clear, however, that it only is problematic if you think there's something problematic about paying the money back." Why does the White House think it is problematic to pay back the money it owes? I propose that it is because the White House wishes to make Bush's tax cuts permanent. As this report from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office shows, "If the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are made permanent as the Administration has proposed, their cost over the next 75 years will be more than five times the Social Security shortfall over this period." Don't believe the CBO? How about John Kerry: "And all you need to do to move Social Security into safety, well into the 22nd century, into the next century, is to roll back part of George Bush's tax cut today. His tax cut takes three times the deficit of what is contained in Social Security." In fact, "rolling back Bush's tax cuts just for those Americans who earn more than $350,000 a year would come close to covering the shortfall! If the tax cuts were NOT made permanent, in other words, the government could easily cover all of its Social Security expenses. When Luskin asks where this money will come from, everyone should answer, "from revenue generated if Bush's taxcuts are allowed to sunset (expire)."

OK, replies Luskin, what if the federal government does repay its debt to SS? Even then, SS will only be able to ensure everyone receives 100% of benefits until 2042, and surely THAT is the crisis [although I question the imminent adjective he likes to use]:

Well, what would happen if, as Luskin claimed, eligable Americans were only recieving about 80% of their SS benefits beginning in 2042? I mean, surely chaos would reign, milk will curdle, and retirees will all live in poverty? Well, there is a lot Luskin is leaving out.

Remember when I told you that allowing Bush's tax cuts to expire would more than pay for whatever amount of money the government needs to raise in order to pay its debt to SS? Well, that would easily cover the last 20% or so of benefits that SS needs to make up beginning in 2042 - and keep SS providing full benefits until somewhere around 2080. Even if it didn't, those 80% of benefits are, according to this article, actually worth more in real money than retirees get in full benefits currently (thanks to wage-indexing). Think of it this way: retiree A gets, say, $20 a month from Social Security in 2005. In 2042, retirees may only be receiving 70-80% of what they should be getting, but even so, the amount that retiree B - who lives in 2042 - gets is equivelant to $25 for retiree A. So nobody will be in that much trouble, really, even if the system pays out less than it should in 2042.

Which leaves Luskin in trouble. Social Security doesn't face a crisis in 2009, because it has its Trust Fund specifically set up to ensure that retirees get their checks. There is no crisis in 2018, because the government can easily get the cash it needs to pay back Social Security everything it owes in Treasury bills. Even if Social Security doesn't provide 100% of benefits in 2042 - it easily could, but just for the sake of argument - if it gives out only 70-80%, everyone receiving that money would actually betting getting more in real money than people getting all of their benefits in 2005. The earliest time that Social Security faces a real crisis, therefore, is around 2080. That sure as hell isn't imminent and, despite all of Luskin's pretty rhetoric, misdirection, and half-truths, is no crisis.

FYI -

I spoke with Donald Luskin this evening (prior to reading the above).

I will forward your rebuttal to him tomorrow to get his take on your deconstruction of his article.

I cannot guarantee that he will respond, but if he does, I will post his response here (with his permission, of course).

Also, Donald Luskin gave me a research paper from the U. of Pennsylvania on the trust fund topic.

It is too large to post here (41 pages), but a good read if you want the "scholarly" take on the situation. PM if you would like a copy and I will forward it on.

Here is the abstract

I received a response from Don this morning regarding guy44's post.

While I agree with Don's assesment, I do not think it would further the discussion here, so I have decided not to post it. Plus, I do not have permission to post it.

Since it occured in private conversation, I will keep it that way....private.

I just wanted to let you know that he did respond and not too favorably.

<--- Stunned.

You mean, a guy who makes his living on his opinions didn't respond favorably to someone disagreeing with him? Total fucking shock! :)

I have a question for you.

Are "social security taxes" general revenue, or not?

A> If social security taxes are general revenue, then social security costs are also general revenue. In which case, 2015/2016 is not a special year at all. One random general revenue tax fell below the cost of one general revenue program.

B> If social security taxes are not general revenue, then the US government owes social security billions of dollars. In which case, in 2015/2016, social security can start calling in those IOUs.

So which is it? From what I can tell, the above arguement wants the revenue to be general revenue when it is in surplus, and the sole source of funding SS when it isn't.

It's a cake. You can eat it, or you can have it. You really can't do both. Please select one, or show why I'm on crack, and the cake has a dual nature.

I believe that it is general revenue, but in the next few years as less people are paying taxes for more Social Security recipients (the Baby Boomers) the size of the Trust Fund decreases as more and more is used to cover whatever taxes themselves don't. However, the Trust Fund also has about $11 trillion dollars in IOUs from the federal government that, when the general revenue dwindles down around 2018, will need to be called in.

You are right that it is misleading to call actual funds the sole source of funding when there are still IOUs laying around. The only way that is the case is if we were to know, definitively, that the federal government had no intention of honoring those IOUs (i.e. Treasury bills).

You know, all this detail and nuance regarding Social Security can be very confusing. It is sometimes hard to accurately describe what it is we are talking about. We may get muddled in our meaning, misunderstand difficult economic concepts, or just in general not know what the hell we're talking about.

I know who could sort these things out for us! Why, President George W. Bush can surely break this complicated matter down for the benefit of the American people:

Wow. Just - goddam. Don't be too grandiloquent there, Bush. I'm not sure I can handle words with up to three - count 'em, three - syllables. Now, I actually think I know what he's talking about, which is adjusting benefits according to inflation rather than wage-indexing, but I somehow doubt he does.

Here's the whole thing.

Bush's view on the debt incurred to pay for social security:

We know the system will take a dump without change, but so many people are against any change. Why?? look at the Chilean system, they went to privatization years ago and it has done nothing but promoted national growth. It is very possible.

Bush should be impeached now on the grounds of utter incompetence
and duplicity.

Here is a link to the SSA Trust Fund Portfolio. It contains "special issue" and
treasury bonds, totalling $1,703,395,104 .
Bush must spew his talking points propaganda, require loyalty oaths and background checks from citizens who appear before him in public, plant
shills with fake names (as in Jeff Gannon) in his press conferences, payoff
mouthpieces posing as commentators (Armstrong Williams) and enlist the
Fox News/Limbaugh/Hannity/Coulter apparatus to fool the sheeple into
consenting to his policies. Policies that are not in the sheeple's best interest,
judging by the lack of truth in the way they must be presented and shilled.

Bush doesn't want the sheeple to know that the SSA trust fund does exist,
with publicly available details. Bush knows that it will take an act of Congress to dismantle and default on payment of SSA's bomd portfolio.
He doesn't want you to know that this is what he plans to do. It is a much
easier way out than taxing and budgeting responsibly and competently to
meet government's obligations.

host -

The facts are not on your side here.

The trust funs has zero economic assets. It has a ton of money owed to it, but it has zero real dollars in it.

As I have said before, if you were given a check for $10 from the trust fund, without transferring any money into the trust fund, the check would bounce.

No one is arguing that the trust fund has zero dollars in it (at least no one that has looked at the facts), the argument is how to we pay back the money.

The money was borrowed from the trust fund and spent without any plan of paying it back.

Now, in 15-20 years, when SS needs to pull from the trust fund, how do we pay the trust fund back to keep SS benefits up.

KMA-628, isn't the real dilemna that the Bushco didn't "purge" the SSA web
page containing the trust fund asset information before Bush declared that
it doesn't exist?

If the SSA trust fund's bond portfolio has no value, what does that tell the
Japanese or the Chinese, who probably don't regard their combined $1 trillion
Treasury Bill holdings as "valueless".

The POTUS is obligated to advocate responsible tax and budgetary policies.
Past presidents, and even Bush, until it no longer suited his new message,
reassured workers and retires as to the viability of SSA. Bush is taking the
wronf approach, and attempting to take the easy way out. Why the sudden
shift to a tax policy that favors the wealthiest? Why should what remains of
the middle class endorse the president's continuing agenda of shifting wealth
and tax burden from the lower 80 percent of American's to the wealthiest
20 percent? There are other alternatives. Let the sunset provisions of
Bush's tax cuts expire, leave inheritance taxes in place.....the wealthy simply
purchase affordable instruments, for example, "second to die" life insurance
policies on wealthy parents mitigate much of the impact of the "death tax".

Remove the $90,000 and above earned income cap on SSA payments. The
wealthy paid for Bush and his agenda, and they are in the process of getting
what they paid for, while some of us watch in frustration, and others willingly
co-operate in Bush's wealth shifts away from themselves and their children.

You are saying the same thing that Bush said. SSA's site contradicts both of you.
SSA claims that they constantly buy and sell "securities" in order to pay
benefits. Bush and apparently, you, want to separate the government's
obligation to redeem outstanding securities "on demand". Why is this bond
portfolio your target? Are American workers more gullible or less worthy
than Asian treasury bond holders? Why doesn't Bush tell them that their
U.S. treasury holdings are "worthless IOU's" ? Can't you recognize that
Bush is acting in a dangerous, desperate, and duplicitous manner? He is
hoping to talk down the value and risk of just one class of government
bond. By doing this, he doesn't pass the test of representing the best interests of all Americans. He should be impeached.

Well, I read this far and stopped.

Even for you, this is a little wacko.

I do not wish to participate in discussions that require me to don ye old tin foil cap.

Read the posts in this thread. The trust fund has been discussed thoroughly, with plenty of factual evidence to back up the assertions.