My Theory On Why Bush wants to Ruin Social Security
POSTED BY: piratejenny
UPDATED: Wednesday, February 8, 2006 17:07
VIEWED: 13357
PAGE 1 of 2
I was thinking why would anyone want to screw up the most successful social program in the histroy of the united States and the only thing I could come up with was this.
Bush and his administration is turning this country into a facist nation, Corporations are pretty much running things at least thats the road that we are already traveling on, and with the Bush admistration taking this country into economic failer due to war mongering and giving tax breaks to the wealthy and big Corporation while constantly making laws to screw us common folk...just one example of this is getting rid of the bankruptcy laws
( eat your heart out Bush supporters)while still having all kinds of loop holes for the rich to weasle out of the laws. raising taxs on the common folk changing workers Comp laws to benifit the Corporations basically making this Country a heaven for the Corporations while not giving two fiddle sticks for the common person, and thats just scratching the surface of so many laws that they are trying to change or do away with
But getting back to the topic at hand my theory, the only reason why someone would try to ruin social security by trying to privitize it, is this
America is a capitalist society based on consumerism, well by all the changes that are coming about, poverty is going to rise, the poorer people become the less money they are going to have to buy things and consume goods, so of course the natural out come of that is businesses going out of business,
by privitizing social security and having people invest a portion of it in the stock market, will keep the rich rich while not having to worry about the poor saps that can't aford to comsume
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
First of all, Social Security isin't all that great. It's nothing more than a Gov't mandated, over glorified ponzi scheme. Having said that, Bush isn't trying to 'ruin'anything, but in fact SAVE it. He also isn't trying to privitize all of SS, but only give back some control over a small fraction of the $$ back into the hands of those who earned it.
The poor will continue to be poor as they keep doing things that keep them poor. Making poor decisions in life.
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
What are you, somewhere around 18 years old? You need to stop believing whatever the extreme left tells you to believe and actually think things through on your own.
Is Bush a perfect President? No. Is he ineffective? Possibly. Is he leading the country in a bad direction? Again, possibly. Is he the anti-Christ, corrupting everything he touches as he leads America down the path of fascism, while simultaneously eating little babies and whistling dixie? Not anymore than Bill Clinton was to the radical right that hated him.
Depending on your values, Bush may be a pretty poor president. But it's just silly to say that everything he says, does or even thinks is pure evil. Get over the fact that Kerry lost and actually think about the issues for 20 minutes.
Oh, and buy "Eats, Shoots and Leaves" by Lynne Truss.
_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Clinton (although a schmuck) didn't get as many innocent people killed.If evil can be defined as self-rightious and plain stupid, then Bush IS EVIL!!!! If not...well then... he's, well, merely self-rightious and plain stupid.
Here'a few questions I've not heard asked.
In our government, by and large:
Are any of these people SMARTER than normal people?
Are they more INTUITIVE than normal people?
Are they BETTER EDUCATED than normal people?
Are they more capable of LOGICAL THOUGHT than normal people?
If the answer is no then why are people surprised when any administration does stupid things with no foresight or care?
If the answer is yes then we're ALL stupid and we'll DIE.
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The involuntary Social Security that the Demoncrats believe in is SOCIALISM plain and simple!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No system to date has survived being totally capitalist or socialist. The American system of financial security has become increasingly socialist over the years. To cry that "social" security is "socialist" as if that word is one that's suppose to make us all run for cover is to deny the progress America has made as a country in its history, as one that is tolerant of those ideas that may be contradictory to its own. Of course, ignoring America's heritage of freedom of ideas seems to be popular nowadays, so maybe it's just the "in" thing to do.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Barclay wrote:
Wednesday, March 09, 2005 08:12
...To cry that "social" security is "socialist" as if that word is one that's suppose to make us all run for cover is to deny the progress America has made as a country in its history, as one that is tolerant of those ideas that may be contradictory to its own. Of course, ignoring America's heritage of freedom of ideas seems to be popular nowadays, so maybe it's just the "in" thing to do.
Actually, I see freedom as always an 'in thing'. And the freedom of the individual to live their life as they see fit is unquestionably hampered by the Federal Gov't excessive taking from one to give to another. That isn't tolerance in my book, that's socialism. And yes, we should run for cover, when ever we get a chance.
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
BTW... In science, a 'theory' attempts to explain something using known facts. Since you did not offer any 'facts' which support the claim that Bush is indeed trying to ruin social security, I'd suggest you rename this post. Why 'I think' Bush wants...,(or) MY VIEW on why Bush wants....etc. Just my $ 0.02.
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Actually, I see freedom as always an 'in thing'. And the freedom of the individual to live their life as they see fit is unquestionably hampered by the Federal Gov't excessive taking from one to give to another. That isn't tolerance in my book, that's socialism. And yes, we should run for cover, when ever we get a chance.
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
We make a contract when we live under a government that we will surrender some of our individual freedoms in an effort to better the lives of all those under the government. It's why if you murder someone, you go to jail or get murdered yourself. It's also why you pay taxes to support "socialist" programs that likewise ensure the security of people who aren't you. Because if the government didn't do that, it could likely be as deadly.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I usually don't post on political threads, and I rarely post anyway, but I feel compelled to. This is not directed at anyone in particular...
President Bush is the leader of our country. He was voted into office. There are means to have him removed if necessary. No one seems to be trying to do that, but the Democrats sure like to talk about how the election was rigged. Why aren't they doing something about it. Prove it or shut up. President Bush, NOT Mr. Bush, doesn't run the country, there is a group in Washington that does that. Again, elected officals. I guess all those elections were rigged too, well, except the ones the Democrats won(I couldn't resist). Our country has been run this way for quite some time and it will be for, well, forever as far as we are concerned. The group in Washington does all the leg work and then they advise President Bush, that is how a Republic works.
Republic -
Definition: [n] a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them
[n] a form of government whose head of state is not a monarch; "the head of state in a republic is usually a president"
President Bush does not pass laws, change policy, or declare war on his own(by himself) there is a little more to it. President Bush is not killing innocent soldiers. Thank God we have a volunteer military that protects us and our freedoms. Our swarn enemy, that declared war on ALL Americans, is killing our solders and citizens and we should pray for them every chance we get. I hate that Americans and our Allies are dying, but they are giving their life to protect you, me, President Bush, and all those people in Washington that sent them to war, where ever that may be, and our way of life. Our enemy wants to destroy our country because we have freedoms and beliefs they do not want to allow in their countries. Yes there is more to it, but it all boils down to the fact that Freedom isn't free kiddies. Infighting will only weaken our country and that is what our enemies want.
I am done. I prolly won't open this thread again so don't bother flaming me.
ByteTheBullet (-:
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Uh yeah Piratejenny! It's a theory. Completely devoid of common sense and rationality, but a theory none the less. Are you purposely trying to come off as a left wing extemeist consiracy nut, or is it completely unintentional?
How about some facts on this "most successful social program in the (history) of the (U)nited States" The experts ALL agree this successful program needs help! The question really is, how?
BTW: This process is how our Democracy works! If you actually believe our country is turning into a fasist nation, you obviously wouldn't know what true a facist is, if it bit you in the ass!
Here's an article covering the "offical" non-partisan review of Socal Security. Yes, it states clearly that Bush's Privatization plan isn't the answer, but it also points fingers at the Democrats for their plan to cut benefits.
If those were the only choices, I'd take Privatization over cuts to benefits. Fortunately, those aren't the only choices out there, and now that the issue is being discussed (Bush's real plan all along, IMHO), hopefully a better solution will come from all of this.
Read it, educate yourself on the facts, and make an informed decision. Don't be swayed by extremist wackos! Then, instead of more impotent ranting here, write your reps in Washington for a change, and tell them what you think.
GAO Official: No Crisis in Social Security - AP
By GLEN JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Social Security "does not face an immediate crisis," the head of the Government Accountability Office said Wednesday, but it does face a long-term financing problem "and it would be prudent to address it sooner rather than later."
David M. Walker, who heads the nonpartisan Office of Comptroller General, also criticized President Bush for undertaking an aggressive two-month tour to try to sell his plan for allowing younger workers to divert a portion of their Social Security payroll taxes into private investment accounts. Walker suggested that Bush and members of Congress focus on improving financing for the program, which would not be significantly affected by establishment of personal accounts.
The testimony launched formal debate, before the House Ways and Means Committee, on Capitol Hill over Bush's plan to overhaul the federal retirement plan that began as part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's post-Depression era "New Deal."
"I would have done it differently, I would have done it differently," Walker said, under aggressive questioning by Rep. Charles B. Rangel of New York, the top Democrat on the panel. In his opening statement, Rangel declared, "Private accounts will not be on the table if you are looking for bipartisanship."
The panel's chairman, Rep. Bill Thomas, R-Calif., said in his opening remarks, "Clearly, the current program, because the American population has changed, is not sustainable based on the old method of financing."
Noting that Congress has not changed the program since 1983, the chairman also chided Democrats for opposing any potential cut in retiree benefits.
"In 1983, under the Democrat leadership, the solution included cutting benefits," Thomas said, adding that tax increases were also part of the 1980s remedy.
With polls showing that people are nervous about future financial shortfalls in the program, House Republicans intended to devote their first hearing to that rather than Bush's less popular idea of private accounts. Nonetheless, the partisan views surfaced in the hearing's opening minutes.
The trustees for the Social Security and Medicare trust funds are expected to release their 2005 report on the long-term financial outlook of government programs later this month. Two trustees who appeared at the hearing, Thomas R. Saving of Texas and John L. Palmer of New York, said there have been no major changes in the program's demographics or financial outlook during the past year, but they joined Walker in urging immediate action on long-term program financing.
"We believe that action on it should not be deferred any longer tha
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Piratejenny- Don't let these right-wing goofballs intimidate you with their moronic name-calling.
(Let's see if they can figure this out on their own... heh heh heh.)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:piratejenny, let me help you out with something.
Originally posted by piratejenny:
[BBush and his administration is turning this country into a facist nation, Corporations are pretty much running things at least thats the road that we are already traveling on, and with the Bush admistration taking this country into economic failer due to war mongering and giving tax breaks to the wealthy and big Corporation while constantly making laws to screw us common folk...just one example of this is getting rid of the bankruptcy laws
This is what fascism means:
Fascism.
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control < early instances of army fascism and brutality -- J. W. Aldridge>
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=fascism
Now setting aside the questionable accuracy of some of your accusations, what you are describing here is not a fascist state, but actually a capitalist state. You seem to disagree with privatizing Social Security. You seem to disagree with capitalism in general, and that’s your prerogative. Whatever your problem is with the Bush Administration or capitalism in general, Fascism is not what you’re describing here. I think you should back off on this fascist stuff, and examine what it actually is that you disapprove of, because whatever it is, it’s not Fascism.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
An extreme form of nationalism that played on fears of communism and rejected individual freedom, liberal individualism, democracy, and limitations on the state.
http://www.nelson.com/nelson/polisci/glossary.html
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
First of all, Social Security isin't all that great. It's nothing more than a Gov't mandated, over glorified ponzi scheme.
social security maynot be great in your opinion , but it's the best that we have..and it sure is great to those in need of it. Its a far cry better for it being here then when there was no no social security.
did I say he was trying to privativze it all?..no I did not, but the fact is he is trying to privitize some of it which would be a diseaster
so one has to ask why?....because its obvious to anyone with half a brain that privatization even part of it isn't the answer
Social security isn't your money or my money and it isn't meant to be privitzed its a government run insurnace program, Is it perfect?..NO it isn't!! But again its the best we have and Bush and his corrupt administration is trying to ruin it.
I do believe that this nation is turning Facist..is it facist now? ..NO it isn't, but it is becoming that way and I predict in the future based on whats happening now that it will be that way, that is my belife and I think there are plently of events pointing in that direction that is my opinion
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
...[/What are you, somewhere around 18 years old? You need to stop believing whatever the extreme left tells you to believe and actually think things through on your own. ]...
1st off my age doesn't concern you and I don't have to believe anybody about anything unlike some I can come up with my own thoughts , try it sometime!!
Quote:
...[/Is Bush a perfect President? No. Is he ineffective? Possibly. Is he leading the country in a bad direction? Again, possibly. Is he the anti-Christ, corrupting everything he touches as he leads America down the path of fascism, while simultaneously eating little babies and whistling dixie? Not anymore than Bill Clinton was to the radical right that hated him.]...
I beg to diffrer, Bill Clinton wasn't perfect nobody is including Bush, but the road Bush and his corrupt administration is leading us down could possibly even be worse then facism
Quote:
...[/Depending on your values, Bush may be a pretty poor president. But it's just silly to say that everything he says, does or even thinks is pure evil. Get over the fact that Kerry lost and actually think about the issues for 20 minutes.]...
I have many opinions about Bush, I wouldn't exactly call him evil, sometimes I look at him and actually feel sorry for him, Bush himself could very well just be a puppet with his strings being pulled, People hold Hitler up as the the poster child of nazism..but Hitler could not have done any of the the things he did by himself!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
...[/The involuntary Social Security that the Demoncrats believe in is SOCIALISM plain and simple!]...
why do you want to make this about Demcrates vs Reps or whatever
and Socialism happens to have some good aspects about it
look at a country like Sweeden which blends Social programs and Capitalism very nicely
you talk about Socialism as if its a bad thing both socialism and Capitalism have some good things and bad things
Socialism taken to an extreme is bad
Capitalism taken to an extreme is bad!!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
BTW... In science, a 'theory' attempts to explain something using known facts. Since you did not offer any 'facts' which support the claim that Bush is indeed trying to ruin social security, I'd suggest you rename this post. Why 'I think' Bush wants...,(or) MY VIEW on why Bush wants....etc. Just my $ 0.02.
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
Thank you your Correctness
I know what a theory is and I think mines has enough facts in it to make it a theory!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by ByteTheBullet:
I usually don't post on political threads, and I rarely post anyway, but I feel compelled to. This is not directed at anyone in particular...
President Bush is the leader of our country. He was voted into office. There are means to have him removed if necessary. No one seems to be trying to do that, but the Democrats sure like to talk about how the election was rigged. Why aren't they doing something about it. Prove it or shut up. President Bush, NOT Mr. Bush, doesn't run the country, there is a group in Washington that does that. Again, elected officals. I guess all those elections were rigged too, well, except the ones the Democrats won(I couldn't resist). Our country has been run this way for quite some time and it will be for, well, forever as far as we are concerned. The group in Washington does all the leg work and then they advise President Bush, that is how a Republic works.
Republic -
Definition: [n] a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them
[n] a form of government whose head of state is not a monarch; "the head of state in a republic is usually a president"
President Bush does not pass laws, change policy, or declare war on his own(by himself) there is a little more to it. President Bush is not killing innocent soldiers. Thank God we have a volunteer military that protects us and our freedoms. Our swarn enemy, that declared war on ALL Americans, is killing our solders and citizens and we should pray for them every chance we get. I hate that Americans and our Allies are dying, but they are giving their life to protect you, me, President Bush, and all those people in Washington that sent them to war, where ever that may be, and our way of life. Our enemy wants to destroy our country because we have freedoms and beliefs they do not want to allow in their countries. Yes there is more to it, but it all boils down to the fact that Freedom isn't free kiddies. Infighting will only weaken our country and that is what our enemies want.
I am done. I prolly won't open this thread again so don't bother flaming me.
ByteTheBullet (-:
I don't even know where to begin responding to this post
This poster obviously isn't up on current event
maybe this poster doesn't know that there is one politcal party in the Majority right now and holds much of the power. something the founding fathers warned against
Maybe this poster doesn't know that Iraq was a defenseless Country and that you can't go to war on terrorist they aren't a country
and I guess this poster has no clue about the changes to the constitution since the so called terror threat!!
there is so much stuff going on in this country right now, but I guess judging from this post this person isn't aware!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Piratejenny- Don't let these right-wing goofballs intimidate you with their moronic name-calling.
(Let's see if they can figure this out on their own... heh heh heh.)
LOL Never!!
thats all they can do is name call..obviouly they are afraid , they just don't want anyone to poke a hole in there bubble of denial!!!
they might actually have to muster up some courage and do something if that happened!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Piratejenny- Don't let these right-wing goofballs intimidate you with their moronic name-calling.
(Let's see if they can figure this out on their own... heh heh heh.)
Are you referring to me? Sorry, I'm a moderate. In fact, you two need to take a certain beloved Captain's personal advice! You should give "some though to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle."
HEY! That's my signature!
I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
This is what fascism means:
Fascism.
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control < early instances of army fascism and brutality -- J. W. Aldridge>
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=fascism
Now setting aside the questionable accuracy of some of your accusations, what you are describing here is not a fascist state, but actually a capitalist state. You seem to disagree with privatizing Social Security. You seem to disagree with capitalism in general, and that’s your prerogative. Whatever your problem is with the Bush Administration or capitalism in general, Fascism is not what you’re describing here. I think you should back off on this fascist stuff, and examine what it actually is that you disapprove of, because whatever it is, it’s not Fascism.
After Hilter and Nazism, Facism got mixed up with the very definations decribed above but if you get back to the more accurate defintion , its about Corporations Controlling the government
I don't have a problem with Capitalism, I think just like any system Capitalism can be an is a productive one when balanced correctly
But once you get Corporations controlling things laws being made or changed to benifit the corporation without regard to the worker or humanity..when you get Corporations becoming so powerful that they are literally controlling everything that is facsim.
That is what is beginning to happen now in this country, that is also what happened back at the beginning of the 20th century, Capitalism was actually saved from facism in this country thanks to such programs as the New Deal
your correct in your defintion of Facism but so am I
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ar
Quote:
...[/e you referring to me? Sorry, I'm a moderate. In fact, you two need to take a certain beloved Captain's personal advice! You should give "some though to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle." ]...
ok I'm guessing by you two meaning me also!!lol
you say your a moderate with such pride...so your in the middle where its so safe right,
well sometimes if you want to get the fruit you have to go out on a limb...its not so safe the branch could very well break..but hey thats where the fruit is...
I'm sure that beloved Captain of yours would have gave Galileo the same advice..but then if he had taken it we might all still be believing that the earth is the center of the universe!!!
I personally could careless what a person labels therself as if that Label somehow sums up everything
either way its ok
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
[BI don't even know where to begin responding to this post
This poster obviously isn't up on current event
maybe this poster doesn't know that there is one politcal party in the Majority right now and holds much of the power. something the founding fathers warned against
Maybe this poster doesn't know that Iraq was a defenseless Country and that you can't go to war on terrorist they aren't a country
and I guess this poster has no clue about the changes to the constitution since the so called terror threat!!
there is so much stuff going on in this country right now, but I guess judging from this post this person isn't aware!!
So what's going on here? It's not OK for a "right-winger" to name call, but it's OK for you to do so. It's not OK for a "right-winger" to flame someone, but it's OK for you. It's not OK to be ignorant saps with no opinion--but if I should form an opinion that's different from yours (based, for instance, on my experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan), then I'm an ingnorant wretch with no clue about what's going on in the world.
People are different all over this country. We don't all agree. The fact that we don't isn't a bad thing--it promotes discussion of ideas. But then there are the people who don't want a discussion of ideas--they simply want to vent their own anger or frustration. There are ways of starting a serious discussion about social security, its future, and the pros and cons of President Bush's plan without being mean-spirited. Naming a thread "My Theory On Why Bush wants to Ruin Social Security" indicates, to me at least, a mind that's already made up and isn't interested in hearing other points of view.
People who only want to name call, only want to insult, only want to tear down--well, that's why I tend not to come around this board that often any more. It doesn't make for civil conversation, and it doesn't help us all understand the issues that face our country. It's just ugly.
Now, I know, you're only trying to tell everyone the truth and show us why the President is so evil and bad, and how we're all mindless sheep, and how we're becoming a fascist nation--I'm sure that you sincerely believe that. But what I'm hoping you'll do is realize that like everyone else, you may be wrong about things. At the very least, realize that other people have opinions that are different from yours and respect their right to hold a different opinion without insulting them (for instance, implying that BytetheBullet isn't aware of the two-party-system dominating American politics).
If the radicals on the left and the radicals on the right realized those things, discussions will move out of the realm of 6th-grade-playground "Yuh-huh!" "Nuh-unh!" "Yuh-huh!" and onto an adult level where we actually deal with things in a less hysterical manner.
Flame on.
_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
I don't even know where to begin responding to this post
This poster obviously isn't up on current event
maybe this poster doesn't know that there is one politcal party in the Majority right now and holds much of the power. something the founding fathers warned against
There is ALWAYS a majority, it is just not the Democrates right now, like it has been in the past. Boohoo.
Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
Maybe this poster doesn't know that Iraq was a defenseless Country and that you can't go to war on terrorist they aren't a country
Again, President Bush was not alone in the decision to go into Iraq.
Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
and I guess this poster has no clue about the changes to the constitution since the so called terror threat!!
The Constitution changed? Really? How? Prove it.
Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
there is so much stuff going on in this country right now, but I guess judging from this post this person isn't aware!!
Nope, I do not have a clue, sorry I bothered. My reply was not directed AT you alone. This is why I usually do not post on these threads. We shouldn't try to confuse you with the facts.
On a side note, I do not pay into Social Security, Railroad Retirement is the way to go!
As for you INEVITABLEBETRAYAL...Thanks!
ByteTheBullet (-:
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I think you are still confusing capitalism with Fascism. The difference being that the corporations that existed in Nazi Germany were controlled by the government, as a socialist state. Corporations that exist in a capitalist state are controlled by private enterprises. The US is not a pure capitalism, the government does have some control over corporations, but ideally limited and nothing like what existed in Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy. But even still, it is generally Postmodern Liberals who usually call for increased government control of corporations, not generally Conservatives. Once again, I don’t think your problem is Fascism, I think it is capitalism.
Originally posted by piratejenny:
That is what is beginning to happen now in this country, that is also what happened back at the beginning of the 20th century, Capitalism was actually saved from facism in this country thanks to such programs as the New Deal
your correct in your defintion of Facism but so am I
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
by privitizing social security and having people invest a portion of it in the stock market, will keep the rich rich while not having to worry about the poor saps that can't aford to comsume
Hmmm... Now we know why Bush wants to ruin Social Security.
Now explain why he wants to save social security from ruin. Or maybe why Democrats want to ruin social security by preventing discussion of reasonable changes to a system on the verge of collapse. Its all in how you frame the premise.
The answer is Democrats think they can keep Social Security running with a system thats 30 years out of date. Bush thinks he can keep it running by modifying a system to reflect more modern economic and social realities. Oddly this makes Bush the liberal and the Democrats conservative on this issue.
They both think they're doing the right thing.
Before we condem either side, we might want to let them hash it around a bit before we take to the streets and demand regime change. An honost debate without any qualifiers (like saying, there can be no discussion so long as this or that is on the table) might just yield some viable new insights to make the existing system work better.
Personally, I like the idea of private accounts. But I don't think everyone will. I think we should be able to have them, but opt out if we so choose. If I manage my account well, then I'll get more then the people who manage poorly or choose to opt out. I want that opportunity, the opportunity to get mine and then some and more then others. And I'll accept the risk of getting less. Can't get more American then that.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Before we condem either side, we might want to let them hash it around a bit before we take to the streets and demand regime change. An honost debate without any qualifiers (like saying, there can be no discussion so long as this or that is on the table) might just yield some viable new insights to make the existing system work better.
Personally, I like the idea of private accounts. But I don't think everyone will. I think we should be able to have them, but opt out if we so choose. If I manage my account well, then I'll get more then the people who manage poorly or choose to opt out. I want that opportunity, the opportunity to get mine and then some and more then others. And I'll accept the risk of getting less. Can't get more American then that.
H
Hero, you're my hero. This is exactly what I was talking about when I suggested an actual rational discussion of the issue. Hooray for the forces of rationalism!
_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I think you are still confusing capitalism with Fascism. The difference being that the corporations that existed in Nazi Germany were controlled by the government, as a socialist state. Corporations that exist in a capitalist state are controlled by private enterprises. The US is not a pure capitalism, the government does have some control over corporations, but ideally limited and nothing like what existed in Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy. But even still, it is generally Postmodern Liberals who usually call for increased government control of corporations, not generally Conservatives. Once again, I don’t think your problem is Fascism, I think it is capitalism.
Hey, now! Let's not over-think this. On Jenny's view, Bush=pure evil. Pure evil=Hitler. Hitler=Nazi. Nazi=fascist. Therefore Bush=fascist. Let's not get bogged down with thinking, here. Jeez!
_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
This poster obviously isn't up on current event
maybe this poster doesn't know that there is one politcal party in the Majority right now and holds much of the power. something the founding fathers warned against
Actually, there were no parties. Washington didn't like them and generally refused to join. Adams and the Federalists adopted him. Jefferson formed the original Republicans and Democrats (as one party). Then the Federalists collapsed. So after Washington and Adams we had single party rule for something like 20 or 30 years. Single party meant something then, as in 1 party. If you recall 1993-1995 we had single party control, the Democrats, like we have now with Republicans. They are the majority, not the only game in town. If you don't like that, maybe its Democracy you have the problem with. Giving people the right to vote is one thing, letting them vote for someone else...thats too much for today's liberal to handle.
Quote:
Maybe this poster doesn't know that Iraq was a defenseless Country and that you can't go to war on terrorist they aren't a country
Hardly defenseless. Just ineffective in their traditional role. After the 1991 Gulf War Saddam's military was rebuilt into an instrument to suppress the people of Iraq. They were very effective at that mission, but against another army in the field...not so much. Likewise the US Army was designed to defeat another army in the field, thats why we aren't as good as Saddam at suppressing insurgencies.
Quote:
and I guess this poster has no clue about the changes to the constitution since the so called terror threat!!
The most recent Constitutional change was the 27th Amendment, w/was ratified on May 7, 1992. Oddly enough it had been sitting around since Sept. 25, 1789. It had to do with pay raises not being effective for those who vote for them until after an intervening election.
You must be making reference to certain laws enacted after 9/11 such as the Patriot Act. The Supreme Court has yet to overturn this law, but has acted on a number of other related isues. Until they do so, such acts must, by definition, be Constitutional.
Perhaps your argument, in addition to being against Democracy, is also against the Rule of Law. Its fine for the Court to decide in your favor (an example being Roe v. Wade), but whats the good in having an independent judiciary if they don't agree with you?
Perhaps the real reason you find yourself in such vehement opposition to President Bush is because you find you have more in common with the likes of Saddam Hussein. Bush's fundamental principal is liberty, aka power of, by, and for the people. It seems that you oppose democracy and all its trappings. I doubt you and Hussein share other views, such as human rights, the enviroment, etc, after all liberals are hardly monsters. But your fundamental principal, that people need to be ruled by you and those you agree with, that people don't know what's best for them, thats something you seem to share.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
cream.
Cash
Rules
Everything
Around
Me
This is where we start, left or right.
It's CASHISM!!!
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Bush is not Evil, nor is he a great leader. He's your average dope making good or bad decisions based on the knowledge he has at the moment.
Imperfection is inherent in the person, hence the system.
All WE can do is be the best us WE can be.
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
BTW... In science, a 'theory' attempts to explain something using known facts. Since you did not offer any 'facts' which support the claim that Bush is indeed trying to ruin social security, I'd suggest you rename this post. Why 'I think' Bush wants...,(or) MY VIEW on why Bush wants....etc. Just my $ 0.02.
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
Thank you your Correctness
I know what a theory is and I think mines has enough facts in it to make it a theory!!
No need to get defensive, I was merely offering some constructive criticism. Had you offered some of those 'facts', I'd not have had post my comment in the 1st place. Care to offer some facts now ?
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm just going to freeflow off on a tangent for a while 
.
Quote:
Originally posted by MacBaker:
If those were the only choices, I'd take Privatization over cuts to benefits. Fortunately, those aren't the only choices out there, and now that the issue is being discussed (Bush's real plan all along, IMHO), hopefully a better solution will come from all of this.
You may be right that Bush's real plan was to have a discussion about various ways to save Social Security so that a better plan could be developed, but that would surprise me. He's on record (going back to the late seventies) as stating that privitizing Social Security should be done - so this has been on his mind for quite a while. I personally think that he sees himself as accomplishing something the Republican party was never able to do previously, and that is getting rid of Social Security. He's thinking about his legacy. He has stated publicly that he governs more by his gut and his beliefs rather than by facts. He doesn't admit to making any mistakes - it could be interpreted that he sees this as a sign of weakness (or, at the very least, he cynically thinks Americans do not want leaders who admit to being human). He refused to participate in a German townhall meeting because they wouldn't guarantee the absence of critical questions. Those who are allowed to attend his public appearances are carefully screened to remove dissent (these events are not an attempt to convince anyone who is actually there - it's more just preaching to the choir with the main goal of providing appropriate visual sound bites for the nightly news [as a side note, I am absolutely fascinated with how this administration creates visual images and uses language - they are masterful. I really think they are the best crafters of message to the medium of television that we have ever seen. I always love to watch a craftsman work and so there's a part of me that just stands back in awe]). These are not the hallmarks of a person who is used to sitting down and negotiating. So you may be right that he just wanted to open a dialogue and brainstorm various ways to save Social Security. But his past actions do not support this behavior (at least IMHO).
There's so many different sides. Some people think Social Security is an abomination that must be gotten rid of immediately (that's one extreme - and is a view that has been held since the inception of the program.) These are the people you see using words like Socialist program (as if that automatically makes it evil) and Ponzi scheme. Some people think Social Security is one of the best social programs in the history of our country, should be preserved at all costs, and more programs like it should be enacted (I'm not sure if this is the other extreme - but getting in that general direction). I would place myself in the latter camp. The majority of Americans fall somewhere in the middle with the main theme being they like Social Security and think saving the program is a good thing.
This is why it's important to pay attention to the language that is used. For years, the goal was privitization. That didn't poll well or test positively in focus groups. So the switch was made to private accounts. That still didn't poll well, it was too close to privitization. So the new switch was made to personal accounts. The same plan has been called by three different names - it's all marketing. And administration proponents of the accounts formerly known as private (to borrow the phrase from Josh Marshall) have criticized the media for using the discarded terminology and accused them of bias. Beautiful.
The new word of the month is "add-on". President Bush's plan involves carving out private/personal accounts from Social Security. This is not supported by the public who really don't like the idea of carving anything out of Social Security. So he's started calling his accounts "add-on" because this terminology is supported by the public - and, in addition, many of the Democrats have opposed privitizing Soci
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The logic in the original post is baffling.
Could you tell me the logical reason that Bush would want to create this facist state for? He's going to be out of power in 4 years. He knows it. What good will changing the government do him at that point?
I'm also lost on how privatising social security makes the rich richer and keeps the poor poor. If the poor invest their social security money well they have the opportunity to become richer. If they invest poorly then they may become poorer. However, I know I've always been told from day one not to rely on social security for anything. If you're not saving for retirement then you're in trouble. That's what I've always heard. That's one of the reasons why social security needs to be fixed.
Basically I'm happy with the new plan. If it means I get something over nothing, sounds good to me. It's not the best plan in the world but we make do with the best we can get.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Except that even non-partisan goups estimate that with a 10% return (which would be very good overall) somewhere between 25%-30% of the fund would be sucked up by fees. The only people I see getting rich on this are stockbrokers and mutual fund managers and the brokerages and banks that would be handling the money. Dollar for dollar, Social Security as it is currently run is more efficient at returning money.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
So what's going on here? It's not OK for a "right-winger" to name call, but it's OK for you to do so. It's not OK for a "right-winger" to flame someone, but it's OK for you. It's not OK to be ignorant saps with no opinion--but if I should form an opinion that's different from yours (based, for instance, on my experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan), then I'm an ingnorant wretch with no clue about what's going on in the world.
Now this is just getting down right petty, I didn't name call , I don't think their is a need to name call, I simply pointed out after reading that posters post based on what they said that they must not be aware of current events, thats my story and I'm sticking to it, everyone has an opinion and I wouldn't dare try to stop someone from voicing it!!
actually if you want to look at who is doing the name calling throughout this thread I can assure you it isn't me so you should save your preachy rant for them!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by ByteTheBullet:Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
I don't even know where to begin responding to this post
This poster obviously isn't up on current event
maybe this poster doesn't know that there is one politcal party in the Majority right now and holds much of the power. something the founding fathers warned against
There is ALWAYS a majority, it is just not the Democrates right now, like it has been in the past. Boohoo.Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
Maybe this poster doesn't know that Iraq was a defenseless Country and that you can't go to war on terrorist they aren't a country
Again, President Bush was not alone in the decision to go into Iraq.Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
and I guess this poster has no clue about the changes to the constitution since the so called terror threat!!
The Constitution changed? Really? How? Prove it.Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
there is so much stuff going on in this country right now, but I guess judging from this post this person isn't aware!!
Nope, I do not have a clue, sorry I bothered. My reply was not directed AT you alone. This is why I usually do not post on these threads. We shouldn't try to confuse you with the facts.
On a side note, I do not pay into Social Security, Railroad Retirement is the way to go!
As for you INEVITABLEBETRAYAL...Thanks!
ByteTheBullet (-:
you know I wish it was as simple as your making it out to be but its not!!!
once again you people keep trying to make this about Democrates and Reps or conservative and Liberals its not, its got nothing to do with that, all you have to do is see whats going on, but you don't or you can't
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Perhaps the real reason you find yourself in such vehement opposition to President Bush is because you find you have more in common with the likes of Saddam Hussein.
how dare you, Hero...I could think up another name for you and it wouldn't be Hero.., sometimes I read your post because even if I know that I probably won't agree with what you say because its nonesense most of the time but I figure hey keep an open mind the person still might have something insightful to say but you rarely ever do!!...I know what kind of person you are, as you've stated yourself with glee your the kind of person who would try to stop a little old lady from exercising her right to vote..yeah your some Hero!!
I think you are the person who finds that you have more in common with Saddam Hussein!! stop projecting yourself onto me!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
The logic in the original post is baffling.
Could you tell me the logical reason that Bush would want to create this facist state for? He's going to be out of power in 4 years. He knows it. What good will changing the government do him at that point?
I hope that Signym did a better job of articulating what I was getting at in my orginal post. I often post late after work and my thoughts are often all over the place, but I also know that there are those on this board like Signym who are aware of whats going on and have more information then most so they know what I'm getting at. I'll try to post more concisely from now on!!
Bush may or maynot be leaving in 4 years if he does leave then I have no doubt that Jeb Bush is standing in line to take his place, so really we aren't getting rid of Bush nor would we be getting rid of the corrupt administration, This Bush Administration is basically the same one that was in place under Bush Senior and I have no doubt it would basically be the same one under Jeb!!
actually Social Security isn't really broken so it doesn't need to be fixed, what it needs like any program is some fine tuning a new coat of paint so to speak...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
you know I wish it was as simple as your making it out to be but its not!!!
once again you people keep trying to make this about Democrates and Reps or conservative and Liberals its not, its got nothing to do with that, all you have to do is see whats going on, but you don't or you can't
All I have asked is for you to back up what you are saying but you have failed miserably. Some rebuttal.
You have a closed mind and you are unwilling to broaden your horizons by listening to anyone that has different views than you.Oh, you were the one that made it about Republicans and Democrats when you started bashing President Bush and his administration. You should go over to the Democratic Underground forum, they would love you over there.
At least we can agree that Firefly is a great show.
ByteTheBullet (-:
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:Quote:
Perhaps the real reason you find yourself in such vehement opposition to President Bush is because you find you have more in common with the likes of Saddam Hussein.
how dare you, Hero...I could think up another name for you and it wouldn't be Hero.., sometimes I read your post because even if I know that I probably won't agree with what you say because its nonesense most of the time but I figure hey keep an open mind the person still might have something insightful to say but you rarely ever do!!...I know what kind of person you are, as you've stated yourself with glee your the kind of person who would try to stop a little old lady from exercising her right to vote..yeah your some Hero!!
I think you are the person who finds that you have more in common with Saddam Hussein!! stop projecting yourself onto me!!
To borrow a phrase from Senator Byrd (D, WVa)): "I was speaking as a historian" when I invoked Saddam's name in this hallowed hall.
You selectively quoted me. Thats fine. I stand by the original post and the idea that you seem to support democracy and the rule of law only so far as they agree with you. That's a problem you share with extremists of both sides...and Saddam Hussein.
Maybe you would prefer I invoke a more dated reference...Emperor Caracalla of Rome perhaps?
As for the little old ladies. Its partly true. I tried to keep little old people of all kinds from voting...for John Kerry. Its called campaigning. Happens during an election. People vote, they count them, we win, you sue. Happens every couple years. I'd also like to take their driver's licenses away...but that's another issue.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
how dare you, Hero...I could think up another name for you and it wouldn't be Hero.., sometimes I read your post because even if I know that I probably won't agree with what you say because its nonesense most of the time but I figure hey keep an open mind the person still might have something insightful to say but you rarely ever do!!
And how is that not insulting? How is that not petty? How is that not a preachy rant?
Honestly, Jenny, you have got to step back and let yourself calm down. You're speaking from pure unmediated passion. Passion isn't bad, but you have to channel it, direct it so that it will be effective. You're just sounding close-minded and ignorant.
Note that I say that sounding because I can't be sure that you really are as close-minded and ignorant as you seem to be. If you spoke less from passion and more from reason, I'd be able to effectively evaluate your arguments. But you aren't making any.
What you are making are accusations and pronouncements. You say that "Bush wants to ruin Social Security"--that's not an argument, that's an accusation. If you want to make an argument, you need to present some information that will support your case. You say, "Social Security doesn't need fixing"--that's a pronouncement. Once again, to make an argument, you're going to have to lay out your case: give us the reasons why we should believe that.
All you have been doing is stomping your feet and yelling harder. That may work on the playground among 12 year olds, but intelligent discussion requires reason. To be effectively persuasive, you have to convince someone of the merits of your case. All you have been doing is saying, "If you don't agree with me, it's because you are not aware of what's really going on". OK--well bring it. Tell us what's going on. Lay out your evidence. Show us why you're right. All you've done so far is grow more and more hysterical. And that's hardly a persuasive method of argumentation.
_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
To borrow a phrase from Senator Byrd (D, WVa)): "I was speaking as a historian" when I invoked Saddam's name in this hallowed hall.
LOL. Why am I not surprised that you're tapped into the outrage of the day, Hero?
I totally missed the reference when I read it a few minutes ago but after getting my semi-regular dose of Molly Ivins it all makes sense.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by ByteTheBullet:Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
you know I wish it was as simple as your making it out to be but its not!!!
once again you people keep trying to make this about Democrates and Reps or conservative and Liberals its not, its got nothing to do with that, all you have to do is see whats going on, but you don't or you can't
All I have asked is for you to back up what you are saying but you have failed miserably. Some rebuttal.
You have a closed mind and you are unwilling to broaden your horizons by listening to anyone that has different views than you.Oh, you were the one that made it about Republicans and Democrats when you started bashing President Bush and his administration. You should go over to the Democratic Underground forum, they would love you over there.
At least we can agree that Firefly is a great show.
ByteTheBullet (-:
I think I've more then backed up what I was saying, I read your 1rst post and I found it to be patronzing and long winded just the same thing, and no I did not make this about Reps and Dems you did that
I honestly could careless about either party, Bush and his administration are the ones that are changing laws and the constitution so therefore I'm going to mention them..your stuck on reps and dems...which frankly I'm beyond...I'm looking at actions and the outcome of those actions and who is behind those actions!!! wether it be reps or dems to me is not even the issue..its the fact that its being done!!
if anyone is closed minded its you..you who can't seem to look beyond political parties and not what is actually going on!!
but yeah if nothing else we can agree that Firefly is great!!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
You selectively quoted me. Thats fine. I stand by the original post and the idea that you seem to support democracy and the rule of law only so far as they agree with you. That's a problem you share with extremists of both sides...and Saddam Hussein.
LMAO stand by what you want because your assumptions are wrong on both counts, I personally think your projecting but whatever works for you!!!
Quote:
Maybe you would prefer I invoke a more dated reference...Emperor Caracalla of Rome perhaps?
do what you like I'm sure you will anyway, I could careless espeically since I know nothing about this Emperor
Quote:
As for the little old ladies. Its partly true. I tried to keep little old people of all kinds from voting...for John Kerry. Its called campaigning. Happens during an election. People vote, they count them, we win, you sue. Happens every couple years. I'd also like to take their driver's licenses away...but that's another issue.
I always try to find something postive about someone if I can..at least you are honest as assine as you are or at least present yourself to be, some people seem to take great pleasure and pride in bing a 1rst class A-hole!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by InevitableBetrayal:
Quote:
Quote:
how dare you, Hero...I could think up another name for you and it wouldn't be Hero.., sometimes I read your post because even if I know that I probably won't agree with what you say because its nonesense most of the time but I figure hey keep an open mind the person still might have something insightful to say but you rarely ever do!!]
And how is that not insulting? How is that not petty? How is that not a preachy rant?
1rst of all that post was directed at me and not at the issue at hand it was more personal and I felt it was insulting being compared to Saddam is insulting espeically when there was no reason to go there...it wasan A and B convo no need for you to C your way in not on this one!!!
Quote:
Honestly, Jenny, you have got to step back and let yourself calm down. You're speaking from pure unmediated passion. Passion isn't bad, but you have to channel it, direct it so that it will be effective. You're just sounding close-minded and ignorant.
I might be passionate but I'm not speaking from pure passion, Bush and his administration has done everything that I've said you maynot agree or see it the same as I do but its not like I'm making any of this stuff up..
Quote:
Note that I say that sounding because I can't be sure that you really are as close-minded and ignorant as you seem to be. If you spoke less from passion and more from reason, I'd be able to effectively evaluate your arguments. But you aren't making any.
I didn't start this thread to argue with anyone I was simply stating my theory/opinion of why Bush and his administration is trying to ruin Social Security take that how you want I gave my reasons for it and explained it . I didn't ever say you had to believe it or agree with it, perhaps I should have went into more detail as signym did in explaining the fees and such, sometimes I post thinking that people know about whats going on and not everyone is as up to date or aware. but my objective really wasn't to explain anything anyway it was simply to voice my opinion. maybe if you had not started in on the reps Dems stuff and had just asked me to clarify what I was talking about instead of going off on a tangent I would have done just that!!
Quote:
What you are making are accusations and pronouncements. You say that "Bush wants to ruin Social Security"--that's not an argument, that's an accusation. If you want to make an argument, you need to present some information that will support your case. You say, "Social Security doesn't need fixing"--that's a pronouncement. Once again, to make an argument, you're going to have to lay out your case: give us the reasons why we should believe that.
yep it is an accusation and just becaused I accused him and his corrupt administration of trying to ruin Social Security doesn't mean it isn't true...I'll say it again I was never trying to argue a point in the 1rst place. for one I didn't think I had to because it is a fact that Bush is trying to Privatize Social Security, that alone speaks for itself second it doesn't take a brainac to know that gambling with a goverment insurance program would be a failer its common sense Social Security is not an IRA or a 401K... thats why its called Social Security Security being highlighed for effect!!
being a thinker I had to ask why? would he try to do this..and I came up with a theory on it.
so there you have it!!
privitizing Social Security wouldn't work it would be a diseaster, the fees that you would have to pay to the banks and brokers is reason enough , not to mention that the Stockmarket is not reliable, that would amount to gambling
so why would Bush want to do it..it would make the rich already richer while the economy gets worse because of lack of jobs and a soft dollar it would insure a steady flow of money into Corporations and big business, it would cushion the rich from the failing economy while the poor just gets poorer...that was my theory
[
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
I could not have said it better, thank you InevitableBetrayal.
That being said, I will leave this thread never to return as it is stuck in an endless loop.
I wish the best for all of you.
ByteTheBullet (-:
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by ByteTheBullet:
I could not have said it better, thank you InevitableBetrayal.
That being said, I will leave this thread never to return as it is stuck in an endless loop.
I wish the best for all of you.
ByteTheBullet (-:
Take it easy Byte. Hope I run into you in a more civil thread.
_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
I have to agree with Bytethebullet. Couldn't have said it better! Well done! I also am going to avoid this thread form here on. Jenny keeps saying the same things, never offers facts to back up her claims, and gets annoyed when she can't convert anyone to her narrow view. She'll be responding with more of the same, and who needs more of that?
I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Inevitable, Byte and McBaker ...
Quote:... a criticism that was offered by others such as Inevitable and Byte. Strangely, I could not find ONE SINGLE fact or link about SS from Inevitable and Byte. Not one. And McBaker, who did post articles, only supported that there is no CRISIS is SS.
McBaker: Jenny keeps saying the same things, never offers facts to back up her claims.
SS is not strictly a 'pay as you go' system. What I have learned (over too many scattered links to post) is that actuaries foresaw the baby boom demographic, and created a surplus to carry the cost. (Amazing - PLANNING for the distant future!) It is THAT fund which will be drawn down when baby boomers enter retirement, as planned. When that fund is gone (which may happen around 2040 according managers), SS will revert to a pay as you go system.
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.
At best, isn't that rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
This will probably be my last post in this thread!!
I know what you want..you want me to do a cut and paste!!! and I'm not going to it, really I've repeated myself at least 3 times in this thread already , the fact that I came up with this threory on my own based on whats happening isn't good enough for you, my own ideas aren't good enough for you and if its not ..then its not, I'll repeat myself again I was never trying to argue a point
you want facts I'll give you facts..
fact #1 our Econmy is failing our dollar is loosing its value in the world and with the Euro soon to become the dominate Currency
fact#2 Bush's foreign Policy is having a negative impact on our country and our economy
fact #3 Bush Admistration is trying to privitize social security
fact#4 Bush admistration catering to speacial intrest and Corporations are passing laws that benifit them while hurting the average person
fact# Since the terror threat and homeland security the arm of the federal government has reached even farther into our freedoms and rights
Fact#6 we are in serious Debt and its getting larger everyday due to Bush admistrations War Mongering
and the list goes on and on and on
these are not facts because I say they are..this is whats happening and NO I will not do a cut and paste of each of these issues, I'm sure a cut an paste of these issue has been presented on this board at one time or another and I'm not going to do it...there is no need for it because this is whats actually happening
when you add all of this stuff up and more a picture starts to form
I asked myself a question based on all I know about the Bush Admistration, I asked why would he want to privatize social security ...and the theory that I presented and repeated 3 times or more is the one I came up with
I think the problem is you guys never gave my theory any real consideration, you didn't even entertain the possiblity. instead some of you just came out on the attack with insults, thats why I must be on crack right gawd forbid a person has their own ideas about something..it was my theory and because it was such and it didn't come from a cut and paste or some talking head then it couldn't have any validty right!!!
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
I'm sure as we all are the Bush Administration is well aware of the state of the economy and how with his policys its only going to get worst, and I'll have to look into this but I heard today that if Privatization is a go for Bush that people won't really have a choice of what they can invest in they'll only be allowed to invest in certain stocks and bonds..I thought with the blow thats coming to our economy that Bush might be trying to soften that blow to certain companies and Corporations
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Carlos Ponzi took money from investors who actually did get returns on their money, even though the money itself wasn’t increasing. The way he was able to do this was that he paid earlier investors with the funds from later investors. But this only works if the number of investors is always increasing. If the number of investors is not increasing, then the later investors get screwed, because eventually the pot runs dry. One can draw a corollary to social security. It seems to work in a similar way, with the same problems.
Social security will never be solvent the way it exists. It will always be in a state of running out eventually. I don’t know for sure what the solution ultimately is. Private accounts would seem to help solve the long term problem, but offer short term problems of their own. On the other hand, we are going to have to come up with over a trillion dollars from taxes or borrowing, and at best that may be just a short term solution. It just pushes the problem further down the road.
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.
I have a 401K and an IRA, and hopefully I’ll have a mortgage paid off by then. That is what I’m counting on. Yeah, there’s risk, if we have another Great Depression. But the risk of counting on Social security would seem at least as great.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn,
Thanks for your response. It's nice to debate all civilized like.
You are correct about how a Ponzi scheme actually pays off investors. I was referring to the aspect of Ponzi that attracts investors, which is the offer of an extremely high rate of returns. (What was Ponzi's original promise, something like 50% return in 45 days?). While Social Security uses contributions from current contributors to pay beneficiaries, there is no promise of a high rate of return. Beneficiaries (retirees, children who have lost a parent, and some of the disabled) only receive a stipend based on contributions with a small amount of interest.
I think a big part of the current problem with the Social Security system is that the fund money was used to cover short falls in the general fund (all though technically the Social Security Administration is loaning the Government money by purchasing T-Bills). If the government can't raise enough revenue and pay back Social Security the whole discussion about fixing Social Security will be moot.
Personally the National Debate regarding Social Security has opened my eyes. I've got a lot of work to do revamping my 401K and learning how to invest so I won't need help from a fund that might not be there for me.
(edited for spelling)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Social security will never be solvent the way it exists. It will always be in a state of running out eventually.
There is an alternative, and more realistic, analysis that economists make. It goes: it's not the ratio of elderly to working that determines if the society can afford its elderly, it's the ratio of ALL non-productive to working. In the past, there were fewer elderly, but there were many more children to support. Children were accommodated socially by putting resources into schools, infrastructure, the medical care system etc, as well as, of course, the family cost at home.
Now there are more elderly to support, but fewer children 'draining' society.
'Society' is able to afford Social Security for the 'elderly', IF it elects to.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
One could just as easily say that your theory of Bush turning the USA into a facist state is not an immediate threat. That's years down the road. Why bother with it now? Of course the same logic for you wanting to stop things before they become a major problem applies to SS as well.
So the problem I've always heard about SS was that there was a surplus when the baby boomers were paying into SS. The people in power at the time decided to spend that money on the elderly giving them all sorts of extra benefits to win their vote. 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. That's where Bush is stepping in. I don't know the solution but I'm awake enough to see the problem.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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."
By ponzi scheme, I'm talking about SS from its inception. Those who first drew checks were the lucky ones. Basically getting free $ despite not having put into the system it for decades. Today the SS 'insurance' is a scam. Where as in the past, many employees would 'contribute' for each retiree. As the years pass, the number of those who contribute has steadily declined. There is no 'trust fund'.
As for personal accounts, how about letting us opt out of SS,if we are so inclined ? That was done in Galvison, Texas. The city employees who opted out of SS draw much more for their retirement than SS doles out. SS was never meant to be a nest egg for retirement, but only as a safety net.
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
My comments had nothing to do with the Bush administration. Those were things that I learned in my Economics courses in college. It's possible that my professors had some hidden political agenda, but I doubt it.
If it were my personal view, I would say get rid of social security altogether. I don't even mind losing everything I've invested in the system so far. From this point forward I would rather invest that money myself for my own retirement. I'm all for people dealing with the consequences of their actions. If you invest wisely, money for you. If you don't invest, enjoy the street corner you'll be living on when you retire.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
Knock yourself out. The only one I can remember off the top of my head though is Kelly Blanchard and don't hold me on the spelling. The others were much funkier names that I can't remember at all. Enjoy.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What college or university?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
The reason support Social Security is because I believe that the safety net it provides serves the greater good. One might argue that insurance is not the Government’s responsibility but 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."
A big complaint about Social Security is that contributors get a lousy return on their investment. Galveston, Texas is presented as an example of a better investment strategy. Maybe there's room for compromise here. What if the Social Security remained a single fund but invested in annuities similar to Galveston. Of course the government might not go for it because it would lose a ready lender.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
What college or university?
Purdue
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And is your real agenda to get rid of Social Security, not to "save" it???
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My take on this -
Bush has always wanted to get rid of SS as an idée-fixe. It has nothing to do with whether or not it's 'working' economically. 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. And the speed and coordination of his efforts make it obvious this was the plan all along. (Which he conveniently forgot to detail during his campaign.)
But I think it wouldn't have gotten anywhere if Rove and Cheney weren't also on board.
And I think what they see is an opportunity to 'starve the beast'. SS investments are in effect loaning the Federal government money. Without that income, the beast dies faster.
It's not economic at all, it's ideological.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
AURaptor,
Quote:I presume you discussed this very point with them at length.
I know for a fact that the founding fathers didn't intend for the line to mean what you presume it means.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
Actually your employer pays an additional 6.2% to match your contribution. So SS is actually getting 12.4% of your gross pay.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And is your real agenda to get rid of Social Security, not to "save" it???
I don't have an agenda. I'm not going to go out of my way to do anything with SS. However, if it were up to me, I would do away with SS entirely.
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.
Deficit is not a four letter word in economics. There's actually plenty of theories that a deficit is good for the economy. The only time the deficit really starts becoming a problem is when investors start to fear that the government is going to default on it's loans. I doubt any investors are worried about the US government falling anytime soon.
However, Mr. Greenspan seems to be worried about the state of Social Security if things don't change by 2008. IMO Alan Greenspan is a bit of an expert when it comes to Economics. That's just my opinion though.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
What college or university?
I imagine you've already found this. But just in case you haven't, here is contact information for Kelly Blanchard on the faculty at Purdue:
https://directory.purdue.edu/directory-bin/PhDetail.pl?UniqueId=khb
Everybody has ante'd up. I'm interested in the results of the hand.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I've contacted Dr Blanchard and I'm waiting for a reply. She may not be interested in becoming embroiled in an anonymous internet debate, tho, so I'm not holding my breath for a reply and I advise you not to either.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
Maybe some didn't but others, I think, not so much. Here's an excerpt from James Madison in the the Federalist Papers #45.
"It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object. Were the plan of the convention adverse to the public happiness, my voice would be, Reject the plan."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Social security will never be solvent the way it exists. It will always be in a state of running out eventually.
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:
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.
"All your life you've been told" ... and they haven't got it right YET, have they? Their decades of predictions haven't come true so far, but apparently you still believe them.
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.
I know you like the idea of investing so it will be "there for you", but if you want to talk about scams, look at Enron and all those people who LOST THEIR RETIREMENTS.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Here is an article from the Financial Times (of London)
Privatization Bombed in Britain
Now they’re looking for a way out
By Norma Cohen
February 2005
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, which included substituting private investment accounts for a portion of government pension benefits. It is an experiment now regarded as a dismal failure.
In short, the British public—and government—lost money. They learned the hard way that the costs of administering private accounts can affect returns and reduce the size of a retirement pot by up to 30 percent. (This experience has been repated in other countries- SM)
Unusual for Britain, there is now an emerging consensus among labor and business, liberals and conservatives, that the government pension system—the United Kingdom’s counterpart to Social Security—needs serious reform. Recommendations for an overhaul are expected after the elections in May.
One reason for the intense attention is that the U.K.’s traditionally generous system of employer-sponsored pensions is collapsing, exposing the weakness of the government pension system just as more retirees are being forced to rely on it.
So while the United States is looking at privatization, British experts are eyeing the more generous and simpler U.S. Social Security system.
David Willetts, a Conservative member of Parliament whose intellectual acumen has earned him the nickname "Two Brains," is one admirer of the American system. "I like the way they distinguish between Social Security and means-tested welfare," he says. "They have higher Social Security benefits to keep elderly people off welfare."
The Confederation of British Industry (CBI), the functional equivalent of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, last year made a surprising call for a higher state retirement benefit to be paid for by raising taxes and the retirement age, from 65 to 70. The maximum payout for a single person at age 65 is around 4,200 pounds per year, or about $8,000, although British retirees do not pay for health care or prescription drugs. (In the United States the average annual Social Security benefit is $11,000.)
CBI’s U-turn on pension policy stems partly from self-interest. Government spending on state pensions has been low, and workplace pensions have traditionally been generous. Now employers are straining under the burden and want the government to play a greater role.
The National Association of Pension Funds, an employers’ group, agrees. It’s "actually cheaper for the state to carry the risk," says Chief Executive Christine Farnish, adding that in looking for a system that offers the best combination of modest guaranteed retirement benefits and low cost, the U.S. Social Security program seems the best model. "It doesn’t have to make a profit, and it delivers efficiencies of scale that most companies would die for," she says.
The story of how Britain’s retirement system reached its current crisis began 25 years ago, when Margaret Thatcher’s Conservatives swept to power on a tide of national disgust at high unemployment, high taxes and poor services. Though her pension reforms were ideological, they were also pragmatic: tax cuts could not be delivered without some cuts in benefits. So the first reform, passed in 1979, was to link increases in state pension benefits to prices instead of wages, something the Bush administration is considering.
Ros Altmann, a Harvard-trained specialist in pension economics who is on the board of the London School of Economics, says that at the time neither the voting public nor most politicians understood the true implications of altering that link. But advocates for the change knew what they were doing: they were slowing the rate of growth in pension increases, because wages have historically risen by 1.5 to 2 percentage points ah
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Zeek, Finn, Auraptor, Mac, Hero, Inevitable, Byte, Conscience... no comments??
Just wanted to make sure you got a dose of reality for the day.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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,
Actually the comparsion is less then 20 years. Yes, they've been reforming since the '70s, but the privatization idea has only been around since 1986.
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.
Well the lesson learned is not that privatization does not work, its that the rules need to be well designed and strictly enforeced.
I'm sure "products" in 1986 were "numerous and complicated". Any investment in the '80s and early '90s required a middleman with extensive knowledge and experiance.
Today people have much greater access to information for investment, including several cable networks and internet resources specifically devoted to explanation and advise on all forms of investment. The mechanism is streamlined as well. Anyone can trade, anyone can manage their assets. As a result competition by fund managers is fierce and prices are low. Hang on...just sold 1000 shares of RAD, the stock is up big in last week or so...took me 30 seconds, cost me $8, and I made $5,000. God, I love America!
Quote:
Later, after the stock market crash in 2001, even the insurance industry began advising customers to return to the government system.
Ah, another casualty of the 9/11 attacks. I think we all need a moment...
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.
Lot of people in Britain. Guess these are the only ones "smart" enough to leave their fortunes in the hands of government intellectuals. The rest, like so many of us red staters here in the US, can't be trusted to think for ourselves.
Quote:
"There are no other choices."
There is however a lack of immagination.
SignyM, the floor is yours.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
Well it is possible it was another professor who went over it. I got a minor in Econ so I had like 5 different professors. I just remember her cause she was my first and last Econ professor. Also figured since I had her twice there was a good shot that she went over it.
I only remember the first name of another one of my professors and she's not showing up in any directory so she may have moved on. Pia something or other.
Anyway, it's still what I remember from whoever discussed it.
Besides Mr. Greenspan tends to support the claims that the surplus that was created by the baby boom and such was spent already.
"As the system is now, the surplus that has been paid into Social Security over the past 20 years has been treated as part of the general budget and has already been spent by the U.S. Treasury."
http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/15/retirement/greenspan_aginghearing/inde
x.htm
He also supports privatization to remove that flaw in the system.
As for the British plan that didn't work...I don't know anything about there system. So, I really can't comment either way. Maybe they made mistakes that we can learn from. Maybe their privitization system was totally different from the proposed plans Bush is pushing for, and AARP just uses it as propaganda. I don't know. I'd have to study it more.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The number of people actively leaving private pension plan is fairly large considering the number of employed people eligible to participate (somewhat less than 20 million). The number of people simply refusing to enter is huge, according to this Nov 2004 article:
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.
There is no bar whatsoever on you - or anyone- investing for retirement. Many people who contribute to Social Security do both. But you apparently have not fully considered the meanings of the words SOCIAL and SECURITY. Social is what we all do together as a society. Security is assurance that you will not fall below a minimum. Now, you can argue that it's not RIGHT to get together as a society and provide for those who are less wealthy or less knowledgeable or less provident than we are (I also invest for retirement). You need to make the case that we really should be in total social darwinian mode- every man for himself. (Of course, that begs the question as to whether it is a society at that point, but I digress.) but if you agree with the goal implied in the title of the program (Social Security) then privatization is not the way to go.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
You're right the quote I cited was from the author , not Greenspan. My mistake. Read it too quickly.
It's possible that you're right about Greenspan's reasoning for supporting private accounts. I just don't see that as a good solution to lack of foreign investment. Foreign investment is such a huge part of the economy that it's just never going to be replaced by domestic investment. There would be all sorts of other problems with imports and exports. The whole thing would just break down.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
BTW altho I have a degree in Chemistry, I have a few econ course under my belt- micro, macro, environmental, and economic geography. It's been a fascination of mine, ever since I read "The Wordly Philosophers". It's been fun conversing with you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Last time I checked we don't have to keep reforming the sun every 22 years with higher and higher taxes to keep it shining.
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"?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You "forgot" to quote or respond to THIS part, which addresses that question:
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.
Since you're just recycling arguments I'll just recycle mine.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
...
As usual, Veteran, you make a great point (I also agreed with the rest of your post but didn't want to make an overlong entry by quoting the entirety - I'll just make it overlong by being verbose
). Just a quick digression. I was visiting one of the numerous tiny museums they have in California Gold Country a couple weeks ago and spent some time talking with the docent. She was a charming older woman who grew up in the area during the Depression and was telling me stories about hobo camps around Stockton, waiting in Yosemite valley for the monthly food wagon or truck to come in, poaching out of season to supplement meager rations, and she concluded by shaking her head and saying, "Young folks these days just don't remember the Depression." (She also recommended a book, "Bacon and Beans from a Gold Pan," about a couple that left San Francisco during the Depression and squatted in the hills panning for gold to keep from starving. It's on my list of books to buy.) I think she makes an important point.
I grew up hearing stories about how bad things were during that period of time (half of my grandparents - and many of their brothers and sisters - left farms in Arkansas and Missouri and came to California to find work). These were always related as cautionary tales - reminding us that things could get that bad again. Social Security is one of the guardians against that happening. The promise of the program is that, no matter how bad things get, you will always have a guaranteed income.
Do I expect to rely on Social Security? No. I certainly hope not. But I can't guarantee that I'll never need it. I fully expect to live off the proceeds of my own retirement plan.
Will all of those benefits be there for me if I need them? Yes. Unless one of three things happens. First, if the government defaults on the trust fund (which would lead to the biggest sell-off of T-bills that you can imagine). Second, if the trust fund is depleted through carve-out private/personal accounts and the associated implementation costs. Third, if the intermediate projections of the actuaries are correct and a fix is not implemented in the next 37 years.
Maybe I'm naive but I tend to see the money I pay into the Social Security program as a thank you to the generations that came before me. They survived the Great Depression. They fought and helped win the largest war in the history of humanity. They kept this country together during the tremendous social upheaval involved in changing this country to align more with the spirit behind the Founders deeds. The least I can do is support their Social Security accounts with the money I earn.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SoupCatcher,
Thanks again for a great post.
Just a bit of new information regarding:
Quote:I recently read actuaries are predicting life expectancy will go down in the US due to what some are calling the obesity epidemic.
Third, if the intermediate projections of the actuaries are correct and a fix is not implemented in the next 37 years.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thanks, Rue.
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.
That would be a helluva way for the problem to go away.
It reminds me of a running joke I have with one of the post-docs at my research center (more along the lines of black humor). Every time I've fallen off the wagon and restarted smoking he thanks me - because that's one less person he has to worry about competing with for Social Security benefits - and we get a good laugh out of it. I've never pushed too hard but I hope he's attempting to use reverse psychology rather than being serious.
Back to the topic at hand. I found a link to a really informative transcript of an online chat. It's hosted by The Spokesman-Review and was a session between readers of the newspaper and a local professor of economics at Eastern Washington University, Doug Orr. Pretty long, but he does a good job of answering a lot of questions about the debate (the chat took place on February 11):
http://www.spokesmanreview.com/chat/transcript.asp?id=61
There were a couple of things that jumped out at me that I hadn't thought about or wasn't aware of: the argument based on the ratio of workers paying in versus those receiving benefits doesn't account for increases in productivity and any claims that private accounts have a guaranteed rate of return better than Social Security are illegal.
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.
...
There's lots of really good stuff in the chat session. I'd recommend it if you have fifteen to twenty minutes to spare during the day.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hi SoupCatcher
I make time for more information. BTW I apologize for not providing a link to that bit about the actuarials re: life-span. It wasn't from a site addressing SS at all, it was from either a scientific or medical website. Unfortunately I just breezed through it several weeks back, and now I can't remember where I saw the darn thing.
This is not in response to your post, and I was wondering where to put it as several threads get into the SS topic, but:
Quote:I think this makes it plain where the parties stand overall.
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
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
First off, I'm responding without reading the full thread because there're a lot of responses and I'm sure many will just annoy me. The idea that allowing people to invest a portion of their social security taxes (4% to 50% depending on who you listen to) will save the government money while earning tons of cash for everyone is silly. Yes, stocks or mutal funds have a better AVERAGE return over time, there's also fees to brokers that have to be paid. Social security doesn't have these fees. And the key word in the higher returns is average. Some stocks and mutual funds do really well. Some crash and burn and take people's money. Sometimes this is just normal business and other's it's corporate crime (i.e., Enron). Now, many people will invest money and do well. Many will lose all their money. Our government is not going to allow these people to starve so they'll pay them anyway. Also, I believe people are going to be able to invest a portion IF THEY CHOOSE, which implies they don't have to. I suspect many to most people will take the simplest route and not choose to try to manage their own market portfolios between work and taking care of families. I believe the majority of people will continue the same method of social security paying in and paying out as now, thus saving the government very little. Of those that do invest, a fair portion will lose everything but the government will still pay them anyway, thus INCREASING the cost to the government. I believe this is a flawed plan which will really only benefit people who make money off the stock market. People paying in extra money will artifically inflate the stock market and some few people will earn millions while the average pensioner will receive a few extra dollars. The best solution is to raise the retirement age since people live longer, increase the tax a little because we really pay a very low tax percent when compared to the rest of the world, and possibly to place a net worth limit on people who receive benefits because if you already have a few million dollars you don't need any money from the governmnent. I know these are crazy, liberal ideas, but frankly I'm basically a Socialist, so I like crazy, liberal ideas.
People that whine about the educated elite need to remember that Bush is a rich boy who went to Yale. He's one of them.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
but one thing we do know is that privatization of ss isn't the cure or the fix, there are other fixes that would work and privatization isn't one of them
so why is Bush so hot to privatize??????
could it possibly be that he wants to funnel money into the stock market to stablize it or cushion it from the coming economic downfall that this country is heading in
There has to be a reason why he wants to privatize social security..when its obvious that privatization isn't the answer to the problem and this is the only answer that makes sense to me!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I heard something today that made a lot of sense. This year is a political freebie since it's an off-election year. That makes this year an opportune time.
Bush & Co (being the corporatocracy's blue hands) were given a busy agenda last year for passing business friendly laws this year. They jumped on four items within days. Today, the first two are already in the bag, which were class-action lawsuits and bankruptcy. They're still working on SS, and making strides on oil-drilling in national preserves. When you think about how briskly this was proposed and done, it's clear it was already planned.
It's not about SS. It's an entire business-compliant package that has to be completed this year. The earlier, and thus the furthest from next year's elections, the better.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hi SoupCatcher,
I don't know if you'll cruise by and see this, but not being able to get the link to the reduced lifespan info was just bugging me.
Anyway, it was from the New England Journal of Medicine (requires paid subscription). I did find this from ScienceDaily:
Quote:Anyway, there is a bit more at the link if you want to read up on it.
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.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hi Rue!
Thanks for the link. It was a sobering article. I have friends who buy their children fast food every day of the week and I can physically see the difference so the following paragraph hit pretty close to home:
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.
On a related note, my sister-in-law and I were just talking recently that it seems like girls are going through body changes usually associated with puberty at a younger age than they did when we were growing up. We were just speculating but one of the things we talked about was the use of bovine growth hormone and potential affects on children who consume a lot of dairy and beef (specifically from fast food providers who do not label if their beef contains rbST or rBGH). I have no idea if that's even possible (and I'm sure Monsanto would say it isn't) but we were just brainstorming.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
HI SoupCatcher,
I'm glad you found it interesting.
To further go down this path, here is an article about earlier menarche (from 2000): http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/children/03/31/early.puberty.wmd/
In the past I had passed it off to better nutrition, higher weight, and less activity.
Recently, though, I found this (excerpted):
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050328182123.htm
Quote:It's not menarche, but it's the first study I've come across that links agrochemicals, preservatives, dyes etc to reduced mammalian health.
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."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello, I'm a newbie. I must admit as a conservative libertarian, i too, once was intice by some socialistic policies. Although, I support tarriffs and controled trade and labor unions vs. corporations, I believe social secruity like all pyramid schemes is doomed. In the beginning the small amount of retirees were generiously rewarded by dozens of workers, however because the baby-boomeer population increased a generation, the retirees now randically flip the pyramid to minority of workers working social security to pay dozens more ratio of retirees. I like, the elderly, because of their kindness, respect,and wisdom, like my grandparents, however, social security should be kept for them and gradually phased out for the younger generation, of whom would be encouraged in invest in bonds, banks, secure market investment,Iras,4o1ks and other private retirement plans. Besides if I get social security, which i pay now, I'm getting robbed, because when I retire there will be none left. I'd much rather get a larger return by invest my ex-social security funds, into the market, rather than our corrupt and inefficent bureacratic government. Less government, MORE PEOPLE POWER!!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hi Rue,
Thanks for the article on early menarche. It's always nice when scientific research validates personal observation. Although there was nothing nice about the conclusions from the research, definitely sobering. I'll make sure to pass it along to my sister-in-law as well.
The second article was also interesting. My girlfriend and I have been enjoying organic produce for a while now (so it's nice to see some research backing that up). About four years ago we decided to try this organic produce service that makes weekly deliveries - they leave a box on the back porch. Even though the fruit and vegetables are more expensive than non-organic we found that our food expenses actually went down (due to not going to the store as much - basically it helped us cut down on impulse buying). And we have definitely noticed a difference in quality. The size of organic fruits and vegetables is smaller but the taste is much richer (and since I have a less developed palate that's definitely saying something).
I've also been following with disgust the efforts of the large agribusinesses to redefine what it means to be organic. 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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
LOL. You left out Bill Frisch (pardon any misspelling), no more fillibusters.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME