Quote:

---

Originally posted by InevitableBetrayal:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by piratejenny:
I guess its a hard concept for some of you to grasp that people can think for themselves, that based on whats happening that people can draw their own conclusions, its seems to be a foreign concept to some of you..you guys might want to try it sometime who knows you might can come up with a few theorys of your own based on whats happening if you actually gave it some thought !!

---

Ah, Jenny, still fiddling as the ship goes down...

Yet again, you've proved my point. I asked you to show me facts; I asked you to give me data; I asked you to make a cogent argument. And once again, you accused me of 1) not thinking for myself, and 2) not having my own theories about what's going on.

What doesn't seem to be be registering to that brain of yours is that it is entirely possible for someone to examine the same facts, to be fully aware of a situation to apply a good amount of thought to an issue--and then come up with something different than you. What you seem to be doing is saying that everyone who disagrees with you is just stupid or uniformed. Every single time you've responded to me, to Byte, to Hero, you've accused us of not thinking, not coming up with our own ideas, and not being aware of current events.

I think you're just plain wrong. We're not insulting you--we're disagreeing with you. Why can't you seem to wrap your head around that concept?

Honestly, your angry rants and smug assurance that you--and you alone--know the reality of Social Security and the Bush administration are seriously hurting your credibility. At this point, it's hard to take anything you say seriously because you just seem to want to throw a fit if we don't fall right in line with your beliefs. What is this, third grade? Grow up, Jenny.

_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

---

Quote:

---

McBaker: Jenny keeps saying the same things, never offers facts to back up her claims.

---

Quote:

---

Ah, Jenny, still fiddling as the ship goes down...

Yet again, you've proved my point. I asked you to show me facts; I asked you to give me data; I asked you to make a cogent argument. And once again, you accused me of 1) not thinking for myself, and 2) not having my own theories about what's going on.

---

Quote:

---

What I don't get is why Bush is so fixated on a potential problem so far into the future, and not completely twisted over the economic ruin the government is in today.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
First of all, Social Security isin't all that great. It's nothing more than a Gov't mandated, over glorified ponzi scheme. ...

---

Quote:

---

Social security will never be solvent the way it exists. It will always be in a state of running out eventually.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by piratejenny:

Quote:

---

What I don't get is why Bush is so fixated on a potential problem so far into the future, and not completely twisted over the economic ruin the government is in today.

---

I asked myself that question too, which is how I came to my theory..Social security isn't in any real or immediate danger it does need some fine tuning so to speak

so one has to ask why is Bush so hot to privatize SS

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Veteran:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
First of all, Social Security isin't all that great. It's nothing more than a Gov't mandated, over glorified ponzi scheme. ...

---

I don't grok this statement. A Ponzi Scheme is a scam that promises to give you a great return on your money? Social Security never promised a great return, it's not even an investment, it's insurance. The hype I've heard reagrding "personal accounts" seems more like a Ponzi scheme.

Besides personal accounts are already availabe they're called 401Ks and IRAs.

Worst part about the whole Social Security debate is that the biggest detractors don't even have a real plan. At least that's what the speaker of the house said when he critized the AARP for it's stand agains Social Security reform, "... the AARP...is "against a solution that hasn't been written yet."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
"So now the surplus has been spent frivolously and SS is in a terrible spot. They need much more money to support the baby boomers as they retire and will either go bankrupt or there needs to be major changes now."

Your characterization of the problem, while plausible, is inaccurate. The money has NOT been spent... or have you not read the previous posts of the Social Security web page? They DON'T need "much more" money and they DON'T need "major changes".

Social Security, like all responsible retirement systems, makes three projections: High income, low income, and one in the middle. Only the LOWEST INCOME projection shows there is a problem, and it only requires modest adjustments to fix. It's not a "left-wing" take on the situation- even outside annuity companies like TIAA say the same thing. Just to show how biased the Administration is being, this is the ONLY case in which they use the most conservative projection. When it comes to the budget deficit, for example, they use the rosiest scenarios.

The information coming out of the WHite House is clearly biased by all reasonable and responsible accounts. By all responsible calculations, the WHite House "fix" will make the Social Security problems worse, not better- even the White House admits that. So why do we keep hacking around with what Bush says? The guy's a liar, plain and simple. This is another WMD- style phony crisis.

GET OUT YOUR UMBRELLAS- IT'S RAINING BULLSHIT FROM THE WHITE HOUSE.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
So your REAL agenda is to get rid of Social Security? Funny, but I already knew that.


PS- I'm sure you grossly misquoted your economics professor(s). In fact, if you would give me his/her/their name(s) I will be happy to contact them for their real opinion, and I will post it here on the board.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
What college or university?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Veteran:
AuraRaptor:

I would point out that one of the reasons for our government listed in the preamble of the constitution for is to "promote the general welfare."

---

Quote:

---

I know for a fact that the founding fathers didn't intend for the line to mean what you presume it means.

---

Quote:

---

The irony of social security is that it may offer no security whatsoever. All my life, I’ve been told that Social Security was going down the tubes. And whatever anyone’s particularly spin is, it is a real possibility that it won’t be there when I’m 65-70 years old. Yet, I’m forking out 6.2% of my income to pay for other people’s income on the premise that when I’m old Social Security will be there for me, but in the current system there is no reason to believe that that is true. Furthermore, if we just raise taxes then all we are doing is promising future generations that they will have to deal with the same problems, only at a higher tax rate. The only thing ultimately secure about that course of action is that we guarantee that the government will always have a nice little stash to pay for their pork. Someone please tell me how this is not a scam.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
And is your real agenda to get rid of Social Security, not to "save" it???

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Just look at the Federal deficit - the budget is not 'working' economically in a major way and he's in no hurry to fix it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
What college or university?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Veteran:
AuraRaptor:

I would point out that one of the reasons for our government listed in the preamble of the constitution for is to "promote the general welfare."



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



I know for a fact that the founding fathers didn't intend for the line to mean what you presume it means. Not even remotely.

---

Quote:

---

Social security will never be solvent the way it exists. It will always be in a state of running out eventually.

---

Quote:

---

The irony of social security is that it may offer no security whatsoever. All my life, I’ve been told that Social Security was going down the tubes. And whatever anyone’s particularly spin is, it is a real possibility that it won’t be there when I’m 65-70 years old. Yet, I’m forking out 6.2% of my income to pay for other people’s income on the premise that when I’m old Social Security will be there for me, but in the current system there is no reason to believe that that is true. Furthermore, if we just raise taxes then all we are doing is promising future generations that they will have to deal with the same problems, only at a higher tax rate. The only thing ultimately secure about that course of action is that we guarantee that the government will always have a nice little stash to pay for their pork. Someone please tell me how this is not a scam.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Here is an article from the Financial Times (of London)

Privatization Bombed in Britain
Now they’re looking for a way out
The president’s bold new plan to partly privatize Social Security, which has many on Wall Street salivating, is not new at all. In fact, it looks remarkably similar to Britain’s 25-year experiment with pension reform,

---

Quote:

---

In 1986 the Thatcher government offered to let people divert part of their social security taxes into a personal investment account similar to a 401(k). For help in designing the plan, the government turned to the insurance industry...

The competition to sell pension investment products to the public was intense. Products were numerous and complicated, and few people could understand them. Fees and costs often were not fully disclosed by agents, who could pocket a portion of the first few years’ sales. Rules were poorly designed and rarely enforced.

---

Quote:

---

Later, after the stock market crash in 2001, even the insurance industry began advising customers to return to the government system.

---

Quote:

---

In 2004 alone, 500,000 people abandoned private pensions and moved back into the traditional government plan. Another 250,000 are expected to move back this year.

---

Quote:

---

"There are no other choices."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
ZEEK

Dr Blanchard replied that she does not discuss Social Security in her undergrad classes, only in graduate classes, and then only to calculate optimal retirement age (how much od you gain or lose by early retirement). She said that other professors prolly discuss Social Security policy but not her. (I would cut and paste her email here, but I've been told by a major webmaster that's ILLEGAL.) So, I've done my part bird-dogging down your curriculum for you. Feel free to fully document your claims on your own time.

---

Quote:

---

Apparently concerned about the lack of pension saving by the rest of the private-sector working population, the Government introduced stakeholder pensions in early 2001. Research by ABI suggests that 82% of all schemes are “empty boxes with no members and sales of stakeholders are falling”, reports Bruce Love in the IFAs’ trade paper Money Marketing. Turner revealed that although 65% of companies with five to 12 employees have nominated a stakeholder provider, only 4% of those firms actually have employees who are bothering to make any contributions.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
If you look carefully at the article that you cite, the quote is not from Greenspan, it's from the author of the article. And the use of the word "spent" is something of a misnomer. In fact, the government sold Treasuries to the Social Security fund to support its' debt. The Social Security fund bought the Treasuries as an investment. But don't forget that the government also sold Treasuries to foreign banks, annuities, and individuals who purchased them for the same reason. It's very similar to buying a munibond or corporate bond, except that Treasury paper is backed by the full faith and credit of the US government.

Now, one may argue about the wisdom of that particular investment, but it has more to do with the Federal deficits and the value of the US dollar than with any fundametnal problem of the money having "been spent".

Greenspan himself has, and says he has (read the article again) OTHER motives for promoting privatization which is related to the Federal deficit and to our balance of trade. You have to know something about what is called the CURRENT ACCOUNT BALANCE to realize that he is anticipating that foreign countries are simply going to stop "investing" in our country (through maintaining a negative ... on our side...balance of trade and purchasing our paper) and that the US population must SOMEHOW be induced to take up the slack (increase private savings).

It would be far easier and more rewarding to simply tackle the problem at the level of the Federal deficit, because investors are nervously looking at the solidity of US Federal government financing, and finding it something of a house of cards. By reducing the deficit, a whole host of problems go away.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Isn't it a little late to be questioning the solvency of something that's been in existance and paying out for decades? And sure, the sun will run out eventually, but how do you figure Social Security will run out "eventually"?

---

Quote:

---

What is going on is a temporary (NOTE: TEMPORARY) bump in the equilibrium because of the baby boomers. In order to stay solvent in the LONG RUN "money in" has to equal "money out" right? "Money in" is the lifetime contributions of contributors plus accummulated investments plus current contributions. Under what circumstances do you forsee this "running out"? Do you anticipate zero employment in the forseeable future? Or no babies being born, perhaps? A massive government default on the debt? You're right- in the future, the system will still be dealing with the "same problems": money in has to equal money out. But 10-20 years from now, when first wave of retiring baby-boomers starts dying off the current problem will ease and Social Security will be at a new equilibrium that will once again start to build up reserves and be sustainable for the forseeable future.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Veteran:
AuraRaptor:

Your right, the first beneficiaries of Social Security didn't contribute. But, really, how lucky were they? Most of them had been financially crippled by the Great Depression.
...

---

Quote:

---

Third, if the intermediate projections of the actuaries are correct and a fix is not implemented in the next 37 years.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
I recently read actuaries are predicting life expectancy will go down in the US due to what some are calling the obesity epidemic.

---

Quote:

---

section from transcript relating to productivity gains
Lynne: One of President Bush's arguments seems to be pretty convincing. In 1950 there were 16 workers paying in for every retiree, in 2000 there were 3 and by 2030 there will only be 2. Won't this create a breakdown in the system?

Doug Orr: On the surface this argument seems to be convincing, but it ignores one of the greatest strengths of a market economy. Productivity tends to rise over time. A worker in 2000 produces more than twice as much real physical output each hour as a worker did in 1960. That is why our standard of living is so much higher today than back then.

...

---

Quote:

---

section of transcript relating to the legal problems with guarantees
Doug Orr: ... In his stump speech, Bush keeps repeating that those who put their money in private accounts are "guaranteed" a better return than they will receive from the current Social Security system. If any broker who works for any investment firm made this claim to their clients, they would be arrested and charged with stock fraud. Michael Milken went to jail for several years as a result of making this type of claim about financial investments. Every prospectus on every stock sale includes the same disclaimer: "the return on this investment is not guaranteed and may be negative."

This disclaimer is there for a very good reason. During the 20th century there were several periods lasting more than 10 years in which the return on stocks was negative. From September 1929 to May 1933, the Dow Jones index of stocks went down by over 70 percent. The Dow did not return to its 1929 level until 1953!

In claiming that the rate of return on a stock investment is guaranteed to be greater than the return on any other asset, Bush is lying. On most of the discussion on the Social Security issue, things are open to interpretation.

...

---

Quote:

---

Senate Splits in Test Vote on Social Security
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
The Senate voted 50 to 50 on a nonbinding measure declaring that Congress should reject any plan that would require "deep benefit cuts or a massive increase in debt." Five Republicans joined the Senate's 44 Democrats and one independent in voting for the resolution.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/16/politics/16budget.html?th

---

Quote:

---

They need much more money to support the baby boomers as they retire and will either go bankrupt or there needs to be major changes now. That's where Bush is stepping in. I don't know the solution but I'm awake enough to see the problem.

---

Quote:

---

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050325144425.htm Explosion Of Child Obesity Predicted To Shorten U.S. Life Expectancy
It's been assumed that U.S. life expectancy would rise indefinitely, but a new data analysis, published as a special report in the March 17 New England Journal of Medicine, suggests that this trend is about to reverse itself -- due to the rapid rise in obesity, especially among children.
A review by obesity researcher David Ludwig of Children's Hospital Boston, epidemiologist S. Jay Olshansky of the University of Illinois at Chicago, and colleagues concludes that obesity now reduces average life expectancy by about 4 to 9 months, a conservative estimate. More ominously, the researchers further conclude that if the current epidemic of child and adolescent obesity continues unabated, life expectancy could be shortened by two to five years in the coming decades.

---

Quote:

---

excerpted from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050325144425.htm
n the past 40 years, fast food, junk food, and soft drinks have become a prominent part of the landscape. Food advertising directed at children has exploded, and portion sizes have ballooned (see attached fact sheet). Schools have become purveyors of fast food and soft drinks through contracts with the food and beverage industry that help fund school programs -- even as they cut physical education classes from their curricula to save money. At the same time, children are becoming more sedentary, spending more time watching TV and using computers.

---

Quote:

---

Organic Diet Makes Rats Healthier
A team of European scientists has found in an experiment that rats that ate organic food were much healthier than those that ate conventional diets.
The scientists found that the organically-fed rats enjoyed several health benefits, in that they slept better, had stronger immune systems and were slimmer than rats fed conventional diets.
... speaking to The Journal newspaper, Dr Brandt said: “What this research shows is that clearly there are links between food and health which is more to do than with just nutrients."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
If you don't want to compete by changing your practices I guess you just lobby to modify the rules. It's the Tom DeLay way of doing business.

---------------------
Next up: Early "Nutcrusher" Jubal and the Firebuggers

---