Say Goodbye to Social Security as we know it

[HBox]

President Bush launches Social Security effort. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6685963/)

WASHINGTON - President Bush on Thursday flatly ruled out raising payroll taxes to ensure the solvency of Social Security as he began a push for historic changes in the retirement program.

Bush renewed his call for legislation that would let workers create private retirement accounts within the government-run program.

"We will not raise payroll taxes to solve this problem," Bush said as he met in the Oval Office with a panel of advisers on the Social Security issue.

Bush sidestepped questions about whether the nation can afford to borrow in order to confront a shortfall in the trillions of dollars.

"I will not prejudge any solution," Bush said.

Yeah, okay.

If he shows the same kind of competence in doing this as he has shown with everything else he's done, we're fucked.

Makes me feel almost grateful I'll never live to be that old anyway.

But, regardless of Bush, do you think privatization of Social Security is a good thing? If you do, do you think it's smart to do it now? Keep in mind that if we do nothing, current estimates say the current system will stay solvent until 2042. Also keep in mind if we do this there will be huge shortfalls for payouts to current reitrees, and we already have a huge deficit.

[MrPink]

i never agreed with social security because you are putting your financial security in "good governments" hands. i think any form of social security is wrong. if u want money when u retire start saving but dont expect the government to save yer money for you.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v507/Catholiccannon/pink.jpg
Would you fuck me? I'd fuck me

[A.J.]

do you think privatization of Social Security is a good thing?

Yes. Let me be responsible for my own money.

<img src=http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Canofsoup15/Sigs/AJinDC-Sig.jpg>

A Skidmark/canofsoup15 production.

Red Sox Nation

[Tazz]

Privatization of Social Security is one of the prime reasons I voted for Bush. I want my money to go to me.

<img src=http://tazz1376.homestead.com/files/homersig.gif>

[Recyclerz]

Yes. Let me be responsible for my own money.

Privatization of Social Security is one of the prime reasons I voted for Bush. I want my money to go to me.


OK, this is a complicated issue and I only have 5 min. before I really have to start working but it seems to me that AJ & Tazz are biting on the tasty looking but ultimately false premise Bush is selling. The real question (or at least one of them) is:

Do I want the government to borrow $2-4 t-t-trillion now (which I'll be responsible for paying back with interest in future taxes) for the opportunity to put one to two thousand $ a year in a half retarded IRA where I won't have any control of the expense fees (because they'll be set by the gov't.)?

There was a way to reform Soc. Sec. realistically when Bush took office when the gov't. was running surpluses. The tax cuts took that possibility away. There is no way to do it now without it becoming a clusterfuck in 10 years (& maybe a lot less). I will bet my entire 401(k) that we end up with a plan that benefits the Wall St. investment houses in the short termn and fucks us all in the long term. :(

<IMG SRC="http://www.hometown.aol.com/recyclerz/myhomepage/sigpic1.gif?mtbrand=AOL_US">
[b]Rooting for the Rapture to happen soon, so I can have my country back.[b]

[WRESTLINGFAN]

SOCIAL SECURITY:

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the
Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be
completely voluntary,

2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into
the Program,

3.) That the money the participants elected to
put into the Program would be deductible from their
income for tax purposes each year,

4.) That the money the participants put into the
independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the
General operating fund, and therefore, would only be
used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program,
and no other Government program, and,

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees
would never be taxed as income.



Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from
the independent "Trust" fund and put it into the
General fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the
Democratically-controlled House and Senate.

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
"tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving
annuity payments to immigrants?

A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic
Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at
age 65, began to receive SSI Social Security
payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments
to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!

Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and
violation of the original contract (FICA), the
Democrats turn around and tell you that the
Republicans want to take your Social Security away!

[HBox]

Privatization of Social Security is one of the prime reasons I voted for Bush. I want my money to go to me.


They aren't giving you back your money. They are still forcing you to save it. They will deduct the same exact amount of money out of your paycheck as they do now. You just have some very, very limited options as to what to do with it, and all the risk that that entails, and if you screw up, you're fucked, completely taking Security out of Social Security.

Nobody wants to talk about the people who will inevitably blow their Social Security money in bad investments. What do we do for them? It's going to happen, it's inevitable. Do we put them on welfare, and then they will start doing exactly what they would have anyway? Or de we create a new program, and they start doing what they would anyway? Or do we just say fuck them?

I'm sure some of you will say that last option. And I hope you realize that's an incredibly unpopular sentiment and will never happen in this country. Whatever happens, I can guarantee one thing: more taxes.

And what exactly are we going to do with the people who receive Social Security for disabilities? Fuck them too?

[HBox]

That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic
Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at
age 65, began to receive SSI Social Security
payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments
to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!

Here are some actual facts about SSI. (http://www.ssa.gov/notices/supplemental-security-income/)

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a Federal income supplement program funded by general tax revenues (not Social Security taxes):

It is designed to help aged, blind, and disabled people, who have little or no income; and

It provides cash to meet basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter.

Social Security runs the program, but doesn't fund it. You don't even have to be 65 to receive it, it's a program for people with disabilites.

As for Social Security Disability, you do have to pay into the system to receive that. And what you receive is relative to what you earned.

So, in the future, please share your own thoughts and opinions and stop cutting and pasting this garbage from slanted political sites.

This message was edited by HBox on 12-10-04 @ 1:17 PM

[42nd-delay]

The craziest part of this whole privitization push is that it doesn't even address the fundamental problem with the system, namely the gap between what people pay in and what current retirees will get. Bush talks about the "problem," but his solution doesn't solve anything.

Private accounts will leave some people better off. It'll will also leave just as many people worse off, and in fact, probably more worse off, since commissions and fees will have to be taken out by brokerages. As with much of investing, especially stocks, the only ones who always win, whether the stock goes up or down, is bought or sold, are the brokers.

The larger point, however, is that having people make money for their retirement won't help those who are retiring now. There's still no money being generated for that situtation, which is the problem everyone is talking about!

And let's remember: Social Security is a safety net, not a retirement plan.

------------------------------

<img src="http://www.thewalkons.com/bluestates_sig.jpg">

"42nd-delay is the only person who's making sense." - Ron, 3-12-02

[A.J.]

Nobody wants to talk about the people who will inevitably blow their Social Security money in bad
investments. What do we do for them?

The same thing we should do for Cecil Fielder: NOTHING.

God forbid there should be personal responsibility/accountability.

<img src=http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Canofsoup15/Sigs/AJinDC-Sig.jpg>

A Skidmark/canofsoup15 production.

Red Sox Nation

[GodsFavoriteMan]

You say do nothing for them as if there were no consequences. Problem is, the majority of Americans have trouble taking care of their personal finances. So this would definitely affect a huge portion of the population. The consequences would be dire.

<img src="http://home.comcast.net/~stan_ferguson/GFMSIGPIC_copy.jpg">
"Story goes these great big rats come scuttling off the slave ships and raped all the little tree monkies."

[HBox]

God forbid there should be personal responsibility/accountability.

I said it before, I guess I'll say it again in a larger font: [size=4]NEVER GONNA HAPPEN![size=2] Besides that, what if it isn't the person's fault? What if they invest in a company like Enron, where the company is deceiving investors and then all of a sudden, their life savings is gone? Should they be accountable for executives breaking the law?

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Its Just the facts. Why should I pay for healthy people not contributing to Social Security

This message was edited by WRESTLINGFAN on 12-10-04 @ 2:30 PM

[A.J.]

God forbid there should be personal responsibility/accountability.

I said it before, I guess I'll say it again in a larger font: [size=4]NEVER GONNA HAPPEN![size=2] Besides that, what if it isn't the person's fault? What if they invest in a company like Enron, where the company is deceiving investors and then all of a sudden, their life savings is gone? Should they be accountable for executives breaking the law?



Substitute "Federal Government" for "Enron" and, yeah, I see your point. I guess I'll have to sue Congress.

<img src=http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Canofsoup15/Sigs/AJinDC-Sig.jpg>

A Skidmark/canofsoup15 production.

Red Sox Nation

[HBox]

Why should I pay for healthy people not contributing to Social Security

<font size="20">YOU DON'T HAVE TO!<font size="1">

Substitute "Federal Government" for "Enron" and, yeah, I see your point. I guess I'll have to sue Congress.

When has the government missed sending out 1 Social Security check because they don't have enough money?

[42nd-delay]

The idea behind social security is that sometimes things happen, beyond someone's control, that wipe them out. Bad luck. Corporate scandals. The Great Depression. Shit happens. Having a safety net to fall back on is a reasonable measure to smooth things out.

------------------------------

<img src="http://www.thewalkons.com/bluestates_sig.jpg">

"42nd-delay is the only person who's making sense." - Ron, 3-12-02

[A.J.]

When has the government missed sending out 1 Social Security check because they don't have enough
money?

Ask me in 2035 when I'll be eligible to collect. Let's see if they can stil send out the checks.

The idea behind social security is that sometimes things happen, beyond someone's control, that
wipe them out. Bad luck. Corporate scandals. The Great Depression. Shit happens. Having a safety net to fall back on is a reasonable measure to smooth things out.


You're absolutely right. But I believe it should be optional. If I don't want to pay into the system, I should have to. I'll accept whatever happens.

And if you have a certain income level, you should be exempt. Bill Gates, for example, doesn't need to draw a Social Security check.

<img src=http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Canofsoup15/Sigs/AJinDC-Sig.jpg>

A Skidmark/canofsoup15 production.

Red Sox Nation

[SatCam]

People can take responsibility for their own money if the government let them.


The idea behind social security is that sometimes things happen, beyond someone's control, that wipe them out. Bad luck. Corporate scandals. The Great Depression. Shit happens. Having a safety net to fall back on is a reasonable measure to smooth things out.

I'd agree that the first step to getting rid of social security is making it optional.
But: Why does the government have to save your money? Why can't there be a private firm that saves your money, maybe not invest, but save. The problem with the government in control of your money is just that: they have supreme control. With a private firm they are libel for your money. If they violate a contract you can sue them/take legal action.

The government lacks accountibility. If they fuck up, you can't "sue" them (as AJinDC said) You can complain but the only person on your side will be Ralph Nader *shudders*

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/SatCam/sig91_thanksgiving_pilgrims.jpg" align="right" alt="Happy fuckin' turkey day!" /><a href="http://www.satelitecam.tk">Ron and Fez Drops and Bits</a>
50%[color=white]

[42nd-delay]

With a private firm they are libel for your money. If they violate a contract you can sue them/take legal action. The government lacks accountibility.


The point is, they won't screw it up, unless the whole country goes down the shitter. In which case your money will be worthless no matter what you have it invested in, short of gold. T-bills are among the safest investments, cause they're guarunteed by the government.

And I'd say the government is more accountable than a corporation. You have representatives in the gov't, unlike a corporation. Being able to sue a company isn't better because A. you have to pay a lawyer; B. even if you win, there's no guaruntee you'll get your money back, especially if the company goes into bankruptcy.

------------------------------

<img src="http://www.thewalkons.com/bluestates_sig.jpg">

"42nd-delay is the only person who's making sense." - Ron, 3-12-02

[Bulldogcakes]

It amazes me people are opposed to this. It just goes to show how little some people understand about money. (A program can be worked out for you folks, too)
1) All privatization plans are voluntary. If you like the current system, stay in it. Just don't force the rest of us to.

2) You get SCREWED with the current system. You dont collect ANYTHING unless you're fortunate enough to live to retirement age (60-65). If you do live long enough, you get (on avg) about a 1% return on your money AND the CAPITAL stays with Uncle Sam. You couldn't sell this ball of crap on Wall Street. Nobody would buy it, and Elliot Spitzer would call it a scam.

3) People think of it as a pension plan. Nothing could be further from the truth. Do you build an asset you can pass on to your children? No. Do you earn a decent return? No.

4) The shortfall can be paid for by selling bonds which the private S.S. account holders will buy. If you've ever bought a bond, a $1000 20yr bond costs about $500. A thirty year $1500/$500 cost. Net cost to treasury? Zero. And you have an asset accruing which will allow the Government to reduce your S.S. benefits down the road, since you'll have your own money. Note-Any plan where private accts would be invested in stocks would NOT work for this reason.

5) An average person, earning a median wage, if allowed to invest a third of their SS payments, would end up with about $150,000 at retirement. If allowed to invest all SS payments? $450,000. Thats what I a call a poverty program.

But if you want to pay Uncle Sam your whole life so he'll put you on an allowance if you retire, be my guest. Just dont force me to.

I had 2 uncles and a sister who payed into the system their whole lives and never got back a dime, because they died before retirement age.

Ow! Hey! Get that net offa me! Ouch! Help!! Somebody HELP!!!!

[SatCam]

And I'd say the government is more accountable than a corporation. You have representatives in the gov't, unlike a corporation. Being able to sue a company isn't better because A. you have to pay a lawyer; B. even if you win, there's no guaruntee you'll get your money back, especially if the company goes into bankruptcy.

My only problem with people who want to keep their money with the government is because it gives the government more power. I personally believe that the government should be used to keep peace and nothing else.

Person A gives their money to the government. Person B decides that they'll opt out of a "social security" program. However, Person B still has a say in Person A's money, even though they don't contribute.

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/SatCam/sig91_thanksgiving_pilgrims.jpg" align="right" alt="Happy fuckin' turkey day!" /><a href="http://www.satelitecam.tk">Ron and Fez Drops and Bits</a>
50%[color=white]

[FollowThisLogic]

My grandparents are already retired and collecting.

My parents are pretty well-off.

So, fuck it, privatize it. It doesn't affect anyone around me, but it will be good for me.

We've got computers now. It's nice and easy to record all money that comes in on a certain SSN, and set it aside for that SSN. I could build that database in about 5 minutes.... this isn't rocket science.

So there's no fucking reason that I shouldn't get out the exact same money that I put in, plus interest. And if I kick the bucket before I'm out of money, the rest should dump into my estate, help pay for my funeral.

<center><img src="http://www.followthislogic.com/stuff/rf-screw.jpg" alt="Just say 'Screw all ya'll.' It'll work. Trust me.">
I <font face="webdings" color=red size="+1">Y</font> my Special Spiteful Title!
Sure, reply to a post with just a picture. You fuckers killed teh funney long ago.</center>

[Bulldogcakes]

And I'd say the government is more accountable than a corporation. You have representatives in the gov't, unlike a corporation. Being able to sue a company isn't better because A. you have to pay a lawyer; B. even if you win, there's no guaruntee you'll get your money back, especially if the company goes into bankruptcy.



Oh please. Go to the DMV and see what lovely customer service you get. Businesses bend over backwards to serve their customers. Look at what computers and cell phones used to cost 10-15 years ago. The product is constantly improved and prices continue to drop, especially when you factor in the improvements. Government is not known for quality or constant improvements to its services. And it never gets cheaper, only more and more expensive. Businesses have to be sensitive to customer's needs. If they dont, the competition will be and they'll become ex-businesses. That's what bugs me about Government. Its the biggest fucking monopoly of all. If I dont like my local store, I go to another. If I dont like my government, I have to move to another state or country.

Ow! Hey! Get that net offa me! Ouch! Help!! Somebody HELP!!!!

[42nd-delay]

We've got computers now. It's nice and easy to record all money that comes in on a certain SSN, and set it aside for that SSN.


If you're having the money set aside for each person, how do you pay for the people who are collecting now?

------------------------------

<img src="http://www.thewalkons.com/bluestates_sig.jpg">

"42nd-delay is the only person who's making sense." - Ron, 3-12-02

[Doogie]

All I have to say is that I voted for Kerry. So fuck the rest of y'all that voted for this lil 'Hitler'. Ohhh Im sorry did I say that??

<IMG SRC=http://members.aol.com/doogcool/myhomepage/obi1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US>

[NewYorkDragons80]

Say Goodbye to Social Security as we know it
Goodbye Social Security as we know it.

I don't need Big Brother deciding how best to protect my money.

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/images/nydragonssig.bmp?mtbrand=AOL_US>

[Fuzz_Whatley]

Interesting article:
The Role of Social Security Privatization in Argentina's Economic Crisis (http://www.cepr.net/argentina_and_ss_privatization.htm)

[HBox]

if u want money when u retire start saving but dont expect the government to save yer money for you.

Yes. Let me be responsible for my own money.

People can take responsibility for their own money if the government let them.

All of these are not arguments for privatized Social Security. They are arguments for no Social Security program of any kind whatsoever. The government will still tell you what to do with your money, you simply have limited options of what to with a a portion of the money they're taking.

And here's another problem with privatization, if history is any indicator. People are living longer and longer. What happens if someone does well in their private account, builds up a big nest egg, and then proceeds to outlive it. Then what? If they've outlived that amount of money, I highly doubt they're in any condition to work. We've come back to what privatization tried to avoid: current taxpayers paying for retirees.

And, of course, Bush is pushing this using the same tactic he always uses to get things done. Whatever you think about Social Security, there is one undeniable fact: There is no crisis. The trust fund is huge, current receipts still far outnumber outgoing funds, trouble starts in 2042 by current estimates. And, BTW, 10 years ago estimates were that the trust fund would evaporate in 2030. Social Security is actually getting stronger.

The real crisis is Medicare. it has far more immediate funding problems than Social Security. Of course, Bush recently made that problem much worse.



Who lives in a body bag under the sea?

[Bulldogcakes]

They are arguments for no Social Security program of any kind whatsoever. The government will still tell you what to do with your money, you simply have limited options of what to with a a portion of the money they're taking.

Changing the current system does not mean getting rid of the entire system. There's LOTS of room for improvement. Yes there will be rules and there should be. This is your safety net money.

And here's another problem with privatization, if history is any indicator. People are living longer and longer. What happens if someone does well in their private account, builds up a big nest egg, and then proceeds to outlive it. Then what?

Thats why you need rules on the money. You should only be able to subtract the interest, which will still be MORE than you get from Soc Sec (1% return)
BTW Its PARTIAL 2/3rds is still in the old system, and you'll be recieving money from that, too.

There is no crisis. The trust fund is huge, current receipts still far outnumber outgoing funds, trouble starts in 2042 by current estimates. And, BTW, 10 years ago estimates were that the trust fund would evaporate in 2030. Social Security is actually getting stronger.

And where is all this "Trust Fund" money? Were running HUGE deficits NOW! If you believe in the trust fund, you must have a Religious faith in Gov't.

http://pic5.picturetrail.com/VOL77/857148/1548180/76422236.jpg


Ow! Hey! Get that net offa me! Ouch! Help!! Somebody HELP!!!!

[HBox]

And where is all this "Trust Fund" money? Were running HUGE deficits NOW! If you believe in the trust fund, you must have a Religious faith in Gov't.

All that money is in the Social Security Trust Fund, seperate from normal treasury funds. Some of the trust fund money is in the form of Treasury bonds, but even those don't need to be touched until 2018, at current estimates. And I don't think you want to go down the road of saying those bonds are essentially worthless; that would be unwelcome news to all the foreign banks financing our deficit. When those bonds are sold, they will need to be paid for from general treasury funds. That means income taxes will probably need to be raised (which explains why Bush and Republicans are so eager to reform the system). However, that was the plan when Social Security was reworked in 1983.

Medicare, on the other hand, starts hitting some major funding problems, according to estimates, in 2010.

Changing the current system does not mean getting rid of the entire system. There's LOTS of room for improvement. Yes there will be rules and there should be. This is your safety net money.

I never said it was. But when somebody says "Let me be responsible for my money" that's an argument for abolishing, not reforming it.



Who lives in a body bag under the sea?

[42nd-delay]

Doesn't having the guarunteee of social security mean that you can invest with the knowledge that you'll always have something to fall back on? To me, it frees you up to be more aggressive.

------------------------------

<img src="http://www.thewalkons.com/bluestates_sig.jpg">

"42nd-delay is the only person who's making sense." - Ron, 3-12-02

[Bulldogcakes]

"Go baby Go! . . . . . . .Come on! Come on!! . . . . . .. . Mama needs a new pair of orthopedic shoes! Go baby go! . . . . . . . . . . . oh shit.
Do I have any left? Maybe I'll play the exacta on the 4th race.

http://pic5.picturetrail.com/VOL77/857148/1548180/76422236.jpg


Ow! Hey! Get that net offa me! Ouch! Help!! Somebody HELP!!!!

This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 12-19-04 @ 9:13 AM

[HBox]

OK, I've read a bunch of articles, and even though the current proposal is CRAZY complicated, this is what i can figure out about the current proposal. If I'm wrong, please point it out. But remember, this is just the initial proposal, and has probably a zero chance of passing; in other words, IF anything passes, it will likely be different from this. But whatever it is, I'd be it ends up being closer to the current system, not more privatized. So here it is:

You can take 1/3 or 2/3 of what you currently pay into Social Security, and invest it in a very limited number of options; I think I remember it being mentioned as 5 or 6 highly diversified mutual funds. However much you invest will affect what your SS check will be; if you decide not to invest it will still likely be cut a bit from current levels, and whatever percentage you decide to invest from your SS deductions, that percentage will be deducted from what you get in your check. I assume that if people die early their survivors will get the invested money, but I do not know how that will affect the survivors benefits that SS currently pays out. And I don't know how any of this will affect disability benefits.

Now, when you retire, you don't get your invested money back. You are required to buy an annuity. If you don't know, an annuity is a type of insurance that you buy that will guarantee monthly payments for however long you live. You are basically betting against an insurance company that you will live longer than they think you will. It's complicated, but it's basically works out like this:

If your investment account is equal to the amount you would have payed to Social Security plus the 3 percent the money would have earned in the trust fund, the money in your account is used to buy an annuity and you will get the same benefit as if you didn't invest at all. You don't get anything from your investment account.

If your investment account is higher than the amount you would have payed to Social Security plus the 3 percent the money would have earned in the trust fund, they use the money in your account to buy an annuity that wil guarantee some minimum monthly payment and anything over the amount that costs you get.

If your investment account is lower than the amount you would have payed to Social Security plus the 3 percent the money would have earned in the trust fund, they use the money in your to buy an annuity, you get nothing and your monthly payment will be lower than if you invested nothing.

It seems to me to be a very complicated way of doing nothing, and at an immense short term cost. I think there are much simpler ways of fixing SS, like raising the retirement age, adjusting the cost of living adjustments, limiting SS benefits to high income individuals, and maybe a combination of a small tax increase with a small benefit decrease. I think that's much more attractive, especially if the private accounts are going to be this limited.

I also think the way Bush has been selling it has been misleading. (Surprise) He says you will ahve an account that you can leave to your family, but that's only the case if you die young or with the relatively small amount you might get after the annuity, and that's only if you don't spend it before you die.

So I don't like it. Big Surprise.

Let Us Trim Our Hair In Accordance with Socialist Lifestyle!

[Snoogans]

HBox, i read your first 2 paragraphs and then went blind

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=Snoogans194">
GO SAWX!!!!! Hassan Eats Dick!!! Snoogans 1, Monitor 0

[Death Metal Moe]

I'm with the Democrats on this one.

Leave Social Security alone and let it go down the drain!

LET SOCIAL SECURITY DIE!!!

Join me my Liberal brothers and sisters!

<IMG SRC="http://unhallowed.com/sigs/D.M.Moon.jpg">
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
<A HREF="http://thebigsexxxy.blogspot.com/">One Big SeXXXy Blog</A>

[HBox]

I'm proud of the fact I put that much effort into that long a post when I knew full well no one would read it.

And Moe, just because Democrats oppose privatization doesn't mean they want to do nothing. They are just focused on problems that won't take 30 years, probably longer, to affect us.

Let Us Trim Our Hair In Accordance with Socialist Lifestyle!

[Snoogans]

no, i really tried to read it, i just am not that interested in it, so when it gets that deep my eyes get sore.

now if that was smack talk from jeremiah trotter or rodney harrison, i could read it all day


<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=Snoogans194">
GO SAWX!!!!! Hassan Eats Dick!!! Snoogans 1, Monitor 0

[Death Metal Moe]

No, I've heard audio quotes from some Democrats saying there is no problem with Social Security. That Bush is inventing a problem and everything is secretly fine.

<IMG SRC="http://unhallowed.com/sigs/D.M.Moon.jpg">
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
<A HREF="http://thebigsexxxy.blogspot.com/">One Big SeXXXy Blog</A>

[HBox]

I've read quotes from Republicans saying that 9/11 happened because of the fags and the pagans.

It's not a crisis, not yet, and there's still a very slim chance there may never be. But untill at least 2042, and probably a little longer, it's fine.

Medicare on the other hand, yikes. It's lucky if it lasts another 10 years.

Let Us Trim Our Hair In Accordance with Socialist Lifestyle!

[42nd-delay]

Assuming the economy doesn't tank, social security will be fine. And if the economy tanks, private accounts won't be any help.

------------------------------

<img src="http://www.thewalkons.com/bluestates_sig.jpg">

"42nd-delay is the only person who's making sense." - Ron, 3-12-02

[TheMojoPin]

From FactCheck.org:

Bush's State of the Union: Social Security "Bankruptcy?"

Summary

In his State of the Union Address, President Bush said again
that the Social Security system is headed for "bankruptcy," a
term that could give the wrong idea. Actually, even if it goes
"bankrupt" a few decades from now, the system would still be
able to pay about three-quarters of the benefits now promised.

Bush also made his proposed private Social Security accounts
sound like a sure thing, which they are not. He said they "will"
grow fast enough to provide a better return than the present
system. History suggests that will be so, but nobody can predict
what stock and bond markets will do in the future.

Bush left out any mention of what workers would have to give up
to get those private acounts -- a proportional reduction or
offset in guaranteed Social Security retirement benefits. He
also glossed over the fact that money in private accounts would
be "owned" by workers only in a very limited sense -- under
strict conditions which the President referred to as
"guidelines." Many retirees, and possibly the vast majority,
wouldn't be able to touch their Social Security nest egg
directly, even after retirement, because the government would
take some or all of it back and convert it to a stream of
payments guaranteed for life.

Read the full article HERE. (http://www.factcheck.org/article305m.html)

And remember! FactCheck.org is endorsed by Dick "Shits a brick" Cheney himself!

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Bulldogcakes]

It seems to me to be a very complicated way of doing nothing

1)Able to pass on an asset if you die young

2)Greater return on money invested

3)Voluntary, those who like the old system can keep it

I'd suggest you check out the Galveston, Texas plan. Which opted out of Social Security when it was created.
$250,000 death benefit (Social Security $300)
8% return (Social Security 1%)

It is complicated, and maybe they can simplify it. Its still early in the process. But there will be rules attached to the money. There has to be. I do like the idea that people see THIER money grow and accumulate. Changes the whole relationship between recipients and Government.

Perhaps they'll go with more of a REAL pension plan, as opposed to what we have now, which to quote Dick Gebhardt is "Retirement Insurance"

I'm just glad were talking about this, and HOW we change it. Because the current system is a rip off.

PS I read it all! It wasn't a complete waste of your time!

http://pic5.picturetrail.com/VOL77/857148/1548180/76422236.jpg


Ow! Hey! Get that net offa me! Ouch! Help!! Somebody HELP!!!!

This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 2-5-05 @ 9:39 AM

[keithy_19]

My dad is happy. He doesn't want to privatize it, but he's over 55 so he gets to keep it the same.

http://64.177.177.182/katylina/keithy.gif

[HBox]

1)Able to pass on an asset if you die young

There are currrently survivors benefits, so people today don't get nothing.

2)Greater return on money invested

Maybe. Taking into account administrative fees, the White House estimated a 4.6 percent return, as opposed to the current 3 percent. And, taking into account this administration's history in such things, I have negative confidence in that number.

3)Voluntary, those who like the old system can keep it

If a huge majority of people move in any one direction, either private accounts or classic SS, there will be no choice because one part will be unsustainable.

Perhaps they'll go with more of a REAL pension plan, as opposed to what we have now, which to quote Dick Gebhardt is "Retirement Insurance"

And what is the problem with that? Social Security is not, and was never supposed to be a pension plan. It was supposed to guarantee an amount to Seniors to keep them out of poverty. People have pension plans, and people should be saving. (If they aren't, they deserve the consequences) Why add another uncertainty?

Imagine if a private system was in effect a few years ago. Someone who retired in 1999 would have been much better off than someone in 2000, no matter how diversified their account was. And this effect would have only been multiplied with their work-based 401(k)s and other investments. We aren't penalizing on anything that is anyone's fault. Only on when they were born.

If we keep Social Security non-privatized, people at least have one secure source of income immune to market volatility. The market does trend upwards, but is volatile in the short-term.

And, a private system has never been successful anywhere it has been tried in the world; it arguably wrecked the Argentinian economy.

Let Us Trim Our Hair In Accordance with Socialist Lifestyle!

[Bulldogcakes]

1)Able to pass on an asset if you die youngThere are currrently survivors benefits, so people today don't get nothing.

True, but they dont get their asset. If its privitized youd get a bigger monthly amount (Higher return) AND have HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of $ to pass along to relatives/charity. No brainer.

2)Greater return on money invested
Maybe. Taking into account administrative fees, the White House estimated a 4.6 percent return, as opposed to the current 3 percent. And, taking into account this administration's history in such things, I have negative confidence in that number

The return currently depends on how long you live, so it varies greatly. Many people pay in their whole life and never see a dime, because they die before retirement age. For those of us that aren't married, thats an enormous risk.
Dont use the Bush #s. I wouldn't. There's lots of other estimates out there.


3)Voluntary, those who like the old system can keep itIf a huge majority of people move in any one direction, either private accounts or classic SS, there will be no choice because one part will be unsustainable.

This is why I think the $ should go into to Federal bonds. Completely safe, and since there's a large transition cost it can be financed with these same bonds.

People have pension plans, and people should be saving. (If they aren't, they deserve the consequences) Why add another uncertainty?

I dont have a pension, I'm self employed. I'd love to save, if State, local and Federal would leave me a few pennies after my tax bill. An accumulating asset would add CERTAINTY for ME.

Imagine if a private system was in effect a few years ago. Someone who retired in 1999 would have been much better off than someone in 2000, no matter how diversified their account was. And this effect would have only been multiplied with their work-based 401(k)s and other investments. We aren't penalizing on anything that is anyone's fault. Only on when they were born.
If we keep Social Security non-privatized, people at least have one secure source of income immune to market volatility. The market does trend upwards, but is volatile in the short-term.

I support the money going into Bonds. Although you could safely get higher returns on Wall Street, this is supposed to be completely safe, retirement $. Put your own IRA $ in the Market, Soc Sec $ in Bonds. Perhaps it could be a Bond fund, Combo of Munis, AAA Corporate, and Federal to get returns up for those of us that are younger. A tiered system that gets safer as you get closer to retirement. Returns wouldn't be as high, but it'll be more than now, and you're building an asset.

And, a private system has never been successful anywhere it has been tried in the world; it arguably wrecked the Argentinian economy!

Peru. Wall Street. Planet Earth. Private retirement investing never works? Wow. Please buy a map, you're lost.
The IMF wrecked Argentina, after they took huge loans from them for economic infrastructure and pissed it away on corruption, and couldn't pay the bill. Unfortunatley, the people suffered because of the crooks they elected.

http://pic5.picturetrail.com/VOL77/857148/1548180/76422236.jpg


Ow! Hey! Get that net offa me! Ouch! Help!! Somebody HELP!!!!

[Ndugu]

fags and the pagans


holy shit michael savage was right!

"my comments dont speak well of my ability to debate, or my overall intellectual curiosity"

[DJEvelEd]

http://www.republiquelibre.org/cousture/images/FDR.GIF

Frank: "It was MY idea but I don't think much of it."

<img src="http://64.177.177.182/katylina/shockposters.jpg">
PUTTING THE FUNNY IN PRESENTLY SEEN DEPTHS
SPONSORED BY:"THE F’CESTOF C’SAR" BY ’SOP c464 B.C.
"Give me F’CESTor give me SHIT!!"(Patrick Hemorrhoid 1796)