And yet another phony crisis by SignyM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

My SO's 401K is in TIAA. They've been in existance since 1929... never missed a payment even through the Great Depression. The fund is extremely well-managed, and would give Social Security a run for its money. In fact, if there were to be NO SS, I'd prolly put my retirement $$ there.
.
.
.
.
.
.

So, when Board of TIAA says there is NO BIG PROBLEM with Social Security, I tend to believe them. In fact, one of the members was under consideration for heading Social Security, but he wouldn't toe the Bush line that Social Security was busted and needed immediate and total revamping. In his view, it needs three small tweaks... that's all. Even money fund managers (like Shearson Lehman's) who would make a huge amount in fees under the Bush plan are against it.

I have no idea why some people think that Social Security as we know it should be abolished. Sgtgump- care to elaborate?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 12, 2005 12:06 PM

SGTGUMP

Quote:
I have no idea why some people think that Social Security as we know it should be abolished. Sgtgump- care to elaborate?

The government takes my money, without my permission, and uses it to do what they think is best for me. Maybe you don't mind, but I do, and that makes it wrong. I didn't ask for it, and I don't agree with it. No one should be taking my responsibility away from me, regardless of how much 'good' it's going to do me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 12, 2005 4:56 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I would love to have a line-item veto on my tax forms, too. You know - yes, I support education, alternative energy; no, I refuse to pay for drilling infrastructure in Alaska etc. That would make the prez's budget and congress's pork - moot. Will of the people and all that.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 12, 2005 5:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I would love to have a line-item veto on my tax forms, too.

There was a nice science fiction short story done about this back in the day. It really revolved around the idea that everyone has computers and that makes it practical to file through a government interface that tells them how much they owe, and the citizen says what percent of histotal will go to each item, with 0% being a legitimate amount on any item. Sorta like voting directly on programs with your dollars. If nobody wants to continue paying, say, gas lamp lighters, then that program goes away, or it gets done by all volunteers.
Did anybody else here read Analog in, say, the early 80s? Anyone else recall this story?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 12, 2005 7:49 PM

PIRATEJENNY

Quote:
.about a year ago now. I would personally like to see the whole dumbass program abolished...

I'm curious why do you think Social security is dumb and why do you think it should be abolished!!

nevermind I just read your answer!!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 13, 2005 3:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by sgtgump:
Quote:
I have no idea why some people think that Social Security as we know it should be abolished. Sgtgump- care to elaborate?

The government takes my money, without my permission, and uses it to do what they think is best for me. Maybe you don't mind, but I do, and that makes it wrong. I didn't ask for it, and I don't agree with it. No one should be taking my responsibility away from me, regardless of how much 'good' it's going to do me.

Well..just a reminder hehe. Your Social Security Taxes are taken out to pay for retirees today. Very little if any of that will be available when you retire if they(The Government) let you retire solely on Social Security. I believe it has moved to age 70. The problem with social security in general is that it relies solely on those working (and paying) to provide for the elderly who can't afford to live otherwise. When I was growing up..the term retire was almost a death sentence. Very few people had savings to allow them to live very long without some sort of additional income such as Social Security. Most of the people I knew lived from week to week during their working lives and didn't have alot of spare coin. It's easy to say abolish Social Security. It's easy to say..I don't want to pay for it. Just remember..Stock Markets can crash (Great Depression anyone?)..the only thing that will keep you from eating something less then palatable so you can pay for your meds is Social Security.

I do believe there is a problem with it. Retirees are starting to outpace those of us who are still working and have also paid in far less then we have. Thats not meant as a criticism. The only difference now is that Social Security is the only means in which many retirees live on. In order to maintain any kind of quality of life..Social Security benefits will need to be increased. This will ultimately mean that we the tax payers will need to pay more. Eventually Retirees will outnumber Workers..particularly with the age of technology and non-manned workstations. That is the problem. Social Security WILL run out of money..because the demand WILL overweigh the Supply. That is what Greenspan is talking about.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 13, 2005 3:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Every economist and fund manager I have read said that SS is just fine, probably the only solvent portion of the Fed gvnmnt at this point.

I do wonder about those people who think that dubya says anything worth paying attention to.

PS How dubya and Greenspan can wring their hands and moan over a sound program, and remain unfazed over the deficit (500B and counting), exposes the magnitude of their hypocracy.

Just pray that the funds and what not that you invest in don't turn into another Enron or Tyco or Adelphia. There are 1000's of folks who lost their life savings due to "Retirement investments" and are now left to live on SS only.

Social Security has been a problem for over 20 years. There's nothing new there except for procrastination. The problem I've read about is the misuse of SS funds and the poor investing of many of those dollars. I don't think privatizing is the answer. I think better management of SS is the answer and increased taxes in that regard.

As a Socially Liberal, Fiscally Conservative person..even I believe it is up to all of us to make sure our elderly live out their lives in Dignity. So far all I've seen is the continued mismanagement of SS and the increase of the retirement age, essentially disenfranchising a large portion of the working class blue collar and poor. Many minorities and blue collar folks only have Social Security to depend on when the become too infirm to work. I don't know about you..but I doubt I will live to be 70 let alone be able to work until I'm 70, when I am eligible for full benefits.

Personally..the 2 big ticket issues are Prescription drugs/Health Insurance (and the raping of Americans by those companies and the government who supports them) and Social Security. Right now if I were to retire today with FULL benefits, I would receive less then $700 a month. Thats roughly $150 a week. That amount alone wouldn't cover my medication let alone allow me to eat, heat my home (if I even own one at that point), save for my funeral (yes thats a pretty hefty expense). We won't go into benefits if you retire early..it's just too damn depressing.

It's a huge danger in my opinion to spin this as an overexaggeration. Social Security is a real problem screwed up and screwed with by both parties for decades. Alan Greenspan is no liar when it comes to this.

I'd be interested to know where you read that the problem with SS is a fabrication.

Heres an interesting article and site if you're interested. It exposes alot of the issues with privatization , which I'm extremely against for a variety of reasons..foremost I don't trust big business or the hacks who control the stockmarket.

http://www.socsec.org/publications.asp?pubid=324

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 13, 2005 5:58 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

SgtGump- About Jesus' stand on taxes, I seem to recall "Render onto Caesar the things that are Caesar's..." Obviously, you're reading from a different Bible!

But your comment deserves a serious discussion. Unfortuantely, I don't have time right now. TTUL!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 14, 2005 6:20 PM

Please, just amongst us Browncoats, can we please agree, just for our own discussions, to stop pretending that Social Security is a retirement program and not a well-intended safety net for the elderly and infirm.
I would take it as a kindness.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 16, 2005 3:05 PM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by RocketJock:
Truth to tell, at this point if GWB said the sky was blue, I'd ask for a second opinion.
.../i]

It doesn't matter. If he said it was limegreen, fifty-two percent of us would buy it hook, line and sinker. Ain't democracy grand?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 17, 2005 4:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by NeutrinoLad:
Please, just amongst us Browncoats, can we please agree, just for our own discussions, to stop pretending that Social Security is a retirement program and not a well-intended safety net for the elderly and infirm.
I would take it as a kindness.

Originally it may have been a well-intended safety net.. though I'm not exactly sure I understand your definition of "Well-intended safety net".

The cost of living and lifespans now make it a retirement plan for anyone who is forced to live week to week. I'd be curious to find out what we should do with folks who made $300 a week takehome all their lives..paid their bills on time, yet couldn't seem to put any cash away. The days of Pension plans are over..have been for almost 10 years. So that option is gone. Since 401k programs only allow so much to be put away against retirement based on yearly income..I guess those who live week to week are screwed in that option too, because most can't afford to put 15% away each week. Hmm..even if they did put that much away and lived on Macaroni and Cheese and Hotdogs..whats that workout to? oh yeah..$45 a week..so now they have to live and pay their bills on $255 a week while saving up a measly $2300 a year (Big dollars there). So when they hit retirement age if they saved for 20 years, hmm..maybe $100,000(IF They don't get screwed by the fund managers and the stockmarket). I wonder how long most folks could live, with high Insurance and drug costs and increasing costs of living, not to mention property taxes etc..etc..

I guess the only option left is to spend my last $20 on a good bottle of wine and a nice steak, lock the doors, run a warm bath and slit my wrists. It's better then the alternative..eating catfood and rationing my meds at 1 a week instead of 1 a day, all while waiting for the government to come foreclose on my home because I can't afford to pay my taxes. I wouldn't want to be a burden on the society I worked so hard for during my life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 17, 2005 8:49 PM

Connorflynn, I think you're correct in every particular. Most people wouldn't take such an unsentimental look at it. And that's the source of my frustration, I think.
It seems to me that the big public debates are couched in terms that can only be considered melodramatic fantasy, rather than grounded in the facts, the debate over Social Security especially so.
If people consider Social Security a retirement plan then that perception needs to be corrected. One cannot begin to solve a problem until it is properly defined. If a definition of a problem is proposed, and that definition is based upon clearly discernible fallacy, then that definition should be rejected.
I agree that Social Security is a bureaucracy that could benefit from radical reform. I think the proposals I have seen in the last 2 decades, from both sides of the aisle, have read like the addled dreams of an actuary with dementia.

And that's your daily dose of onerous pedantry. Thanks for reading!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 17, 2005 9:08 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

I’m not sure what the problem is with calling social security a retirement plan. That is effectively what it is, a socialized retirement plan. And like all socialism it suffers horribly from bureaucratic inefficiency. I also don’t understand this issue Liberals and Democrats seem to have with the ‘crisis’ of Social Security. This seems like something that Liberals and Democrats would want to get behind; after all when social security starts on the downward spiral to insolvency it will be those poor elderly (whom Democrats claim to be the political savior of) that will suffer. When Social Security checks start coming in 20% to 40% lighter, is that when Democrats will start screaming crisis? When it’s too late for any economic solution? My guess is, at that point this “phony” crisis will magically transform into a real crisis that demands people my age to fork over even more of our hard earned money to pay for a crisis the government should have fixed 40 years earlier. This is why I’m not a Democrat.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 17, 2005 11:56 PM

SOUPCATCHER

Social Security is an entitlement program - probably the most successful entitlement program in the history of our country. If you need it, it's there. As Connorflynn pointed out, the sad fact is that a higher and higher percentage of the eligible population needs it nowadays. It is also one of the triumphs of liberalism - at least as it was practiced in this country circa the New Deal. I do not begrudge one penny that I pay in social security taxes. I always look at it as my way of saying thank you to the generation that grew up in the Depression and fought WWII (and the succeeding generations). They took care of business before I was born. Now, if they need it, I got their back.

*stops waving the pom-poms*

Are there problems with Social Security? Nothing that minor changes won't fix. Is there a crisis? Nope. Nothing even remotely close to what happened in the seventies and eighties when, for more than ten years, Social Security paid out more than it took in. In 1983 Greenspan and Reagan made a major overhaul that resulted in a surplus that was put in a trust fund to be saved up for the retirement of the baby boomers. Where did the extra money come from? It came from the baby boomers themselves, and more precisely the middle class, shouldering more of a tax burden. It was a good fix. So from 1983 until the present Social Security has taken in more than it paid out. In the next decade, with the retirement of the baby boomers, Social Security will once again pay out more than it takes in. Crisis? Nope. We just have to start dipping into the trust fund - that's why it was created in the first place. Whaddya mean there's no money in the trust fund? What are all these crappy IOUs doing in here? Oh, you mean the government borrowed all the surplus? Multiple trillions of it? Well they better pay it back. And there's your crisis. Get rid of Social Security and you just chop trillions off the national debt - not the deficit - the debt.

What's the other crisis being talked about? Well, according to the projections of the actuaries, benefits will have to be reduced in a little under 40 years. And the privitization will supposedly fix that. But from what I've read, to get the less than 40 year pessimistic numbers you have to assume economic growth well under the average, and to make privitized accounts pay out more than the current form of Social Security you have to assume economic growth either at the average or above. In other words, Social Security benefits will have to be reduced because we expect lower than average economic growth but privitization is a better option because we expect at least average economic growth. Huh? Smoke and mirrors, baby, smoke and mirrors.

A couple of closing thoughts...

The actuaries keep pushing back the date at which benefits will have to be reduced. I think it went from right around 30 years to closer to 40 over the past decade (going off the top of my head here on the actual numbers, that's why I'm rounding off). So the crisis point is getting further away from us.

None of this is helped by the fact that recent and current Presidents and Presidential candidates have all talked about Social Security being in a crisis (Clinton, Gore, and Bush). It's a guaranteed vote getter, "Vote for me, I'll save Social Security. Vote for the other guy and the checks stop coming." But the problems that need to be tweaked are nowhere near the crisis stage, and haven't been for a quarter century.

Another thing I keep hearing is that Social Security is inefficient, a huge monstrous bureaucracy. But I've never seen numbers to prove this. We have a seventy year old program that takes in and pays out a huge amount of money every year to millions of people. How efficient is it compared to other government programs? I don't know. I'm just curious is all.

* I'm currently slogging my way through the recent New York Times Magazine article relating to this debate. So my opinions may change in the next day

.

---------------------
"What sort of raw meat do you people feed your cruiser captains, Hamish?" - Queen Elizabeth III of Manticore

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 18, 2005 3:21 AM

Well..I would agree with you Soupcatcher, if the "Trust Fund" still existed. As I understand it..the Trust fund has been depleted to fund other governmental projects from the Bush 1 /Clinton Years and then we have the now infamous tax cuts which makes those kinds of little nest eggs all the more tantalizing to the Government and all the more likely to vanish.

I'll have to see if I can find a link or 2 to some articles that got into how the government was "Borrowing" from SS to pay for some extraneous programs. That is why both Dems and Republicans have shouted crisis through the years. They keep "Borrowing" and not enough is coming in to repay it. They just aren't coming out and being honest as to WHY Social Security is in the position it is. So far all I've seen is a bunch of smoke screens put up by both Dems and Repubs..because ultimately the current folks in Senate and Congress will be held responsible (after all..most have been there for over a decade or more and know where the money for their extraneous projects has been coming from).

They need to fix the management issues first..then worry about how and if they need to change the entire program.

Like I said before..I'm not so worried about myself. At the rate they keep raising the retirement age..by the time I reach 70( if I do hehe ), the age to receive full benefits will be 92 hehe. I guess thats one way to fix it..never pay it out at all. I'm just concerned about the folks who are retired and retiring over the next decade or so.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 18, 2005 5:55 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

The government as a whole is inefficient. It often pays its employees too much and pays them for doing what it doesn’t need done. As for whether Social Security is more or less inefficient then the government in general; I don’t know.

Social Security is fundamentally inefficient. It depends on the number of people paying in for one thing. This is extremely inefficient and despite efforts to pay into a surplus, Social Security continues to be in danger of insolvency. It cannot sustain itself under its own weight.

In 1950, 1% of income went to Social Security. By 1990 that number had reached 7.65%. An increase of almost 800% over the course of 40 years. If that money were invested it could expect to quadruple in 40 years. So not only is it inefficient in that we see a constantly increasing level of subsidization, which is at best a temporary fix, but we also see that Social Security is not benefiting from economic growth.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 18, 2005 10:24 AM

SOUNDHACK

I think we are getting to the crux of the debate. The move towards privatization is not about "saving Social Security," in the sense that "save" means people in the future will get the same guaranteed benefits as today. People who are for privatization are really after more efficiency--they view it more efficient to have everyone invest their own money the way they see fit.

What they don't realize (or don't want to admit) is that efficiency is only one part of the equation. What happens if another stock market crash happens and people who foolishly (but efficiently!) invested all their money in stocks lose everything? What about people who are either too busy or too dumb to put aside some of their money or to invest wisely? People who are for privatization apparently think "why should I care if there are people who can't manage their own money, they deserve what they get"

Government is not meant to be efficient, thats what corporations are for. It is meant to provide services in as equitable a manner as possible. It is up to government to worry/care for the less advantaged/less smart/less motivated citizens among us, for in general individuals are too selfish to care.

Now if you think it "wrong" for government to take your money "without (your) permission" and give it to people less well off than you, then consider the consequences. Poor/sick people won't go away if just cut off services. They might turn to crime, or pan handling, or whatever, reducing YOUR quality of life too. Would you rather pay say 1 dollar today to support social entitlement programs or 5 dollars tomorrow in health insurance to make up for uninsured people using resources, or 10 dollars next year barricading your home from rioters ?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 18, 2005 10:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by soundhack:
People who are for privatization are really after more efficiency--they view it more efficient to have everyone invest their own money the way they see fit.

I think that is a very true statement. The only thing people forget and it's easy too. It's easier to make money if you start with money. Which means that the folks who will benefit from the privatization of Social Security..will be those who are middleclass or wealthy. Anyone who lives week to week..because thats all they can afford to do are screwed.

It's a case of "The Rich get richer and the poor get poorer".

Also food for thought : Do you REALLY think teh government is going to allow you much choice in where your Social Security $'s are invested? That is such a heavy risk..because there are gamblers and dumbasses out there who wouldn't know a good stock versus a sham. NO..the government will place your money in the stockmarket for you. Declaring that they have your best interests at heart, all the while Big corporations who kiss enough politician's asses (AKA Payoffs- Marc Rich anyone?!) will become high on the list of "Good" Stock picks..whether they perform or not. US worker's dollars up for grabs to the highest bidders. I can see it now.. "US Social Security Stocks PLUMMET, Wall Street Shocked, Retirees in Ruin".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 18, 2005 1:12 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by soundhack:
Now if you think it "wrong" for government to take your money "without (your) permission" and give it to people less well off than you, then consider the consequences. Poor/sick people won't go away if just cut off services. They might turn to crime, or pan handling, or whatever, reducing YOUR quality of life too. Would you rather pay say 1 dollar today to support social entitlement programs or 5 dollars tomorrow in health insurance to make up for uninsured people using resources, or 10 dollars next year barricading your home from rioters ?

Oh come on now! If you don’t fork over your hard earned money to the government, some lowlife might come to your door and break your fingers. (hint, hint) I have a 16-gage that works just as well to curb that problem and it’s a lot cheaper then any entitlement program I’ve seen. One can employ threats both ways. The end result is that no one is talking about taking money away from the less advantaged, but I work hard for my money and I believe that I have a right to know that the money which the government takes is being used to its best effect, not just thrown into entitlement programs supported by flimsy threats of social disarray.

I don’t think that anyone is suggesting that Social Security be turned into a 401K plan. I think the argument is that a part of Social Security be invested in order to offset the inherent inefficiency in the system. The so called "safety net" will remain, in as much as it exists at all. Otherwise the only solution will be to continue to raise taxes to fill the proverbial bucket full of holes. One can of course validly criticize this solution, but ultimately many of those who are criticizing it seem to have no other solution other then to insist that nothing is wrong. That is certainly as much smoke and mirrors.

I take issue with the idea that the only role that government must play is to cater to “less advantaged/less smart/less motivated citizens among us.” This is typical socialist rhetoric. The government has as much responsibility to provide for the well being of the more advantaged/more smart/more motivated citizens. Particularly the more motivated citizens as they are likely to be the strongest economic asset, from which those taxes come to help all those less advantaged types.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 18, 2005 3:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
* I'm currently slogging my way through the recent New York Times Magazine article relating to this debate. So my opinions may change in the next day .

I've read the article, and I think it will reinforce what you've already said here.

And the reason I don't like calling SS a retirement fund is not only because I believe it isn't one, but because doing so changes the terms of the debate.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 18, 2005 11:31 PM

SOUPCATCHER

Quote:
Originally posted by NeutrinoLad:
I've read the article, and I think it will reinforce what you've already said here.

You're right. It was a long read but well worth it, IMO. Here's a link if anyone else is interested: http://tinyurl.com/685fn . I especially enjoyed the historical background on Social Security that the author included. Most of the stuff that happened with the program pre-seventies was new for me. I've been tracking this topic for the past few months through only a few filters (the predominant one being Kevin Drum at Political Animal) so it was nice to see an outside confirmation.

---------------------
"What sort of raw meat do you people feed your cruiser captains, Hamish?" - Queen Elizabeth III of Manticore

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 19, 2005 5:14 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

There is another part to the debate: when pressed with the information that SS is not (and will not be) *** unable *** to pay a benefit, the Bush administration shifted gears and started hypothesizing a 'doomsday' crisis. They claimed there would be an actuarial revolution. In this, medical technology would so extend life spans that SS WOULD be in crisis. This is just nonsense.

A simple examination of other rich, high-technology countries shows the fallacy. They all have socialized medicine, and all have longer life spans than the US (by about a year, give or take). While they are having issues that have to do with birth-rates as well as life span, they are not facing a geriatric problem of monstrous proportions.

Medical technology will probably advance, though massive extension of individual lifespan is in doubt (for reasons that have to do with the number of possible cell divisions and other purely biological factors). In addition, to make the most out of your own individual potential lifespan, there has to be too much good medical history over a lifetime. Most people in the US have cr*p medical care or none at all, bad diets, little free time, and exposure to too many toxins. To claim that a high-technology intervention can reverse a lifetime of medical insult over all organ systems and result in a vastly longer life is truly mind-boggling. (You have to improve all organ systems at the same time - it doesn't help to have a great CVS, skin, brain, and liver, but no bone marrow. One thing which is irretrievably sick will kill you.) So the conclusion that it will result in a major shift in individual lifespan is simply silly.

But even assuming such a miracle treatment would do all that, high technology treatment is 1) not distributed widely in the US - it only goes to the most fortunate who can afford to pay and 2) potentially even large gains in lifespan made by a small number of people (as in the US with heroic treatments at life's end) have miniscule effect on average lifespan compared to small gains made by large numbers of people (as in the rest of the other developed countries). Unless medical DELIVERY in the US changes drastically, even major (high technology) lifespan improvements will not be distributed widely enough to shift the average.

So, by using the other countries as a maximum limit, you can see that *** hypothesized *** improvements in US life spans (courtesy of high technology) will have minimal effect (a maximum of a year or so) on average lifespan. Therefore, it will have minimal effect on SS, which is contrary to what they claim.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 28, 2005 7:34 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Just going to add that this is typical of the Bush administration. The thinking appears to be fully delusional. They would rather trust our nest egg to financial markets and corporations apparently not having clued in to Enron-style corporate corruption (But oh yeah- Ken Lay was Bush's best buddy, wasn't he?). To quote the NYTimes business magazine:

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan told Congress earlier this year that everyone knows there’s a Social Security crisis. That’s like saying "everyone knows the earth is flat."... The truth is there is no Social Security crisis, but there is a potential crisis in retirement income security and there may be a crisis in the future in U.S. financial markets. It’s this latter crisis that Greenspan actually is worried about.

The funny thing is, it's not like we don't have REAL problems to worry about! The government deficit and negative balance of trade are sending the US dollar to new lows. Saudi Arabia carried our debt for decades, the torch was passed to Japan and then China... but even China is beginning to question their investment. Central Banks in the past week decided to increase their holdings of Euros and decrease dollars.

This is all a DIRECT consequence of the Bush administration's refusal to face facts and insistance on engaging in phantasmic, religious (if-you-believe-it-will-happen) thinking. And unfortunately, half the US population seems content to follow the leader, lemming-style. Denial is comfortable, but dangerous. Hitting bottom will be a very rude awakening.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 28, 2005 7:39 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Huh! How did THAT happen???

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 28, 2005 7:48 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Chile has been extolled as an example of how privatized retiremetn systems should work. Yet, DESPITE an impressive 10% return on investments

"Among the complaints most often heard here is that contributors are forced to pay exorbitant commissions to the pension funds. Exactly how much goes to such fees is a subject of debate, but a recent World Bank study calculated that a quarter to a third of all contributions paid by a person retiring in 2000 would have gone to pay such charges. "If people really had freedom of choice, 90 percent of them would opt to go back to the old system." "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 28, 2005 12:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Chile has been extolled as an example of how privatized retiremetn systems should work.

Wha?!?
Who is citing Chile as an example?
Who would be so mad? Was it W or one of his henchmen? Can we just put this in the category of "misstatements" such as, "Pakistan is an example of a thriving democracy?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 28, 2005 1:58 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Funny you should ask! Yes, it's Dubya & Co that think Chile is a fine example that we should all aspire to!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 28, 2005 3:35 PM