Bush to push Social Security privatization

[warrior1]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5810451/

This ought to lose him the election.

TROY, Ohio - President Bush plans to offer specific policy proposals on Social Security and other issues during his speech at the Republican National Convention, a top adviser said Saturday.


snip

Previous Bush administration proposals on Social Security privatization have found little traction in Congress. Critics say privatizing the federal pension program could bring drastic cuts in benefits for future retirees.

snip

I can't read anymore of this garbage.

[Lefty48197]

1. Great. Now we can watch our SS crash with our 401K's

Bush is an idiot.

[greenohio]

29. Moynihan, Kerrey, Leiberman, Clinton supported individual accounts

http://finance.senate.gov/hearings/testimony/100302omtest.pdf
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=207&contentid=2354

Bad plan to make this a repuke or Dem issue. Whether SS is in trouble or not, SSA is telling every body it is (read your statement.)

[papau]

32. No - not true - Dem individual accounts always a new program- not a SS cut

Indeed Clinton was talking about a national 401k - a new payroll deduction of 2% where the gov matches 50 cents on a dollar - meaning invest 2%, get credit for 3% via cash transfer from Gov to the institution where the account was being held.

I was in email contact with the Moynihan commission - and they knew that a con using a blue sky lie about equity returns replacing anything lost via benefit cuts was not going to fly because I, and other actuaries, were not going to keep our mouth shut about this screwing of the middle class.

The Moynihan commission had even put on paper the con-job illustrations - and then folded their hand when confronted with exposure (and my thanks to Hillary's office for her help on this).

"individual accounts" is a basic touchstone of who is a Dem - and who is not - and Joe Lieberman - who I like a great deal - has gone the way of Zell as he tries to appear moderate.

[greenohio]

37. Yes it is true, read the links

Moynihan's commission did recommend individual account in SS.

"My name is Olivia S. Mitchell and I am a Professor of Risk Management and Insurance at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. I recently served as one of 8 Democratic members of the 16-member bipartisan Commission to strengthen Social Security, a group that reported out last December under the leadership of Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Richard Parsons...

The Commission achieved something that no prior commission has done, namely to produce a consensus report with recommendations to make Social Security not only solvent but permanently sustainable. Further, each of the reform models we proposed would establish personal accounts within the context of the Social Security system."

Clinton's task force did recommend accounts as an option to restructure SS.

What is your actuarial analysis that contradicts, Moynihan, the Prof of Risk Mgmt&Insurance at Univ of Pennsylvania and the SSA (which states the system is in serious trouble)?

This is not a Repuke or Dem issue. Lets not base all of our platform on Gore's 2000 campaign.

[papau]

51. Sorry-but the 3 illustrations that I am aware of that "showed" individual

accounts could work were not in the final report. What was put in the report was a $1 trillion transition cost by the year 2017 so as to avoid tax increases over the 2017 to 2032 period that would pay for the cash needed to pay off the Trust Fund assets held in US Gov Bonds.

The commission did indeed end with recommendations to make Social Security "not only solvent but permanently sustainable" via - in all 3 proposals - an establishment of personal accounts within the context of the Social Security system." - as pushed by the AOL-Time Warner CEO fellow to whom the commission did respond(the response is at the web site).

What was killed was the free lunch illustrations - and the silly equity return assumptions. What is left is an assumption that equity returns are an easy 3.5% increase over Gov fixed dollar returns (The Society of Actuaries post 2002 has discussed how pretend risk free higher returns - a long used method to keep corporation pension contributions low - is not a good thing - that indeed the plan should not anticipate that it will always be on the winning side of the risk option that it is selling in order to achieve the extra rate of return).

But the Actuary here was Steve Gross - a half actuary (full professional standing is called a Fellow of the Society - Steve has half the exams - and only carries an "Associate of the Society") who long ago sold his soul to the rich and corporate and GOP (and got appointed Chief Actuary of Soc Sec during the sale - I pray we have him out of that position only a few more months.

In 1991 when Moynihan first talked about separate accounts he was thinking in terms of building estates for poor folks - and the advisers used the power of compound interest lies to make it seem that the transition was only a small pain that resulted in a large gain. They were wrong - and the final report takes Steve Gross's numbers at face value - and never questions the free lunch of 3.5% increase in return via equity - and does not ask why - if equity is a good idea - we don't sell the Trust Fund bonds and avail ourself of the improved return we can get through equity.

www.csss.gov/reports/Final_report.pdf

Strengthening Social Security and Creating Personal Wealth for All Americans, the Final Report of the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security - Released December 21, 2001. There is also Revisions of Estimated Unified Budget Effects and Summary General Revenue Requirements for Commission Models - Released by the Office of the Chief Actuary, July 22, 2002.

You ask what Olivia S. Mitchell, Professor of Risk Management and Insurance at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania at the time missed - and the answer is what I wrote above.

You asked what Moynihan missed - and I note the actual only recommendation of the commission is that Congress "take a period of one year for discussion of Individual Accounts" changing the commission proposals as the Congress saw fit.

You asked what the Actuary for SS missed - and I explained the real Actuaries working at SS did not "comment" on the report - they ran the assumptions to get the results that Gross wanted.

I do not recall that Clinton's task force recommended accounts as an option to restructure SS - I do know he settled on no change to SS and instead pursuing the idea of 401k type savings accounts with a small match by the Federal Gov - something that did not destroy SS and therefore did not go over well with the GOP.

My analysis is based on the data that the real actuaries at the SS administration produce each year and which the Trustees of the Social Security System publish each year.

The ability of some - and I agree it is not a "Repuke or Dem issue" - there are idiots- and misinformed - Dems - that are willing to push separate accounts - to be wrong is only matched by the Dems that think they got a tax cut that exceeded the increase in their out of pocket expense for items formerly paid by the Federal Gov.

The name of the game is ones standard of living - not the after tax take home pay.

[greenohio]

62. Help me here.

"as pushed by the AOL-Time Warner CEO fellow to whom the commission did respond(the response is at the web site)."

Could you provide the link to the response, I am having trouble finding it.

"Actuary here was Steve Gross"
Can't find that either. Where on the site is that noted?

"returns are an easy 3.5% increase over Gov fixed dollar returns"
Apparently the dispute is over whether or not individual accounts get a better return or as good as return as they predict. Here is my question. If you earn and keep money in a drawer. Then you withdraw that money but leave a note saying you will pay yourself back at %2.5 interest. Then, at a later date, you earn enough more to pay yourself back with interest. What is your effective return on investment?

That is our current ROI and all other scenarios must be compared to that one.

Let me ask another question.

Currently, the present working population pays to support the present retired population. With birth rates lower, and average life span longer, can you imagine a time when there are so many retired and so few working where the system cannot function? Or do you believe this an impossibility and you just have to increase the percentage taken from the working class?

I really do want to understand where you're coming from as it appears you are more informed than most.

[flaminbats]

70. let me give you another correct answer...

Currently, the present working population pays to support the present retired population. With birth rates lower, and average life span longer, can you imagine a time when there are so many retired and so few working where the system cannot function? Or do you believe this an impossibility and you just have to increase the percentage taken from the working class?

First you ask if I can imagine a time where the system cannot function? Yes..after four more years of higher deficits, more wars, more military spending, lower taxes, and raising payroll taxes on the growing numbers of uninsured just to keep Social Security and Medicare recipients partly covered. I must admit that beats leaving every disabled or elderly person to fend for themselves, especially as those going into retirement slowly begin to withdraw their substantial investments from the stock-market. This may lead to massive stock market crashes, more layoffs of younger generations paying into the system, and more retirement withdrawals from those suffering from economic problems. Isn't there a better solution?

The answer is simple, single-payer healthcare. As those on Medicare and Social Security get older, demand for healthcare will explode. At the same time younger individuals will be seeking employment, while needing new skills to get hired. A single-payer healthcare system can solve all these problems. It can provide training and job skills to younger unemployed workers. It will provide steady income and healthcare for those now burdened with higher payroll taxes. And it will reduce the cost of healthcare on the taxpayers by increasing the supply to meet the growing demand. IE applying supplyside economics make our government more responsive to the changing needs of all taxpayers.

Ultimately it comes down to a basic question. Do you believe in Social Security and the New Deal? If you do then you would be willing to pay more in payroll taxes in return for a secure job market, affordable healthcare, and a higher wages. If not, then you might be satisfied with Republicans in control..until something goes wrong! :nopity:

[greenohio]

76. We're not talking what, we are talking how.

Do you believe in Social Security and the New Deal?
Yes.
Which is why I want to save SS. SS will fail to function when the ratio of worker to retiree is too low. You may not care who that happens to, as long as it is not you. I do. It may be your kids, or grandkids, or theirs. But do we really want a system where the population has to keep growing exponentially? Because that is what you have now. Single payer health care won't save you. When the ratio hits 1 to 1, the system will crash.

I don't want repuke control. But if we keep taking a walk on this issue, that is what we'll have. You are going to have trouble explaining to all of the IRA and 401K owning population that they are throwing their money into a black hole. I assume that you keep all of your money in safe t-bills.

[flaminbats]

87. wrong!

actually single payer is the only way to solve the problem when the ratio becomes 1/1..not that I believe it shall become so severe!

We do have something in America called immigration. But putting that aside, I believe younger workers would be willing to pay more in payroll taxes if in return they are covered by a universal prescription drug Medicare system. They would also be willing to pay more in payroll taxes if they could get jobs providing healthcare for the aging babyboomers.

In other words the best solution to helping the future generations comes in providing better health-care delivery for the older generations. And both government and the private sector have critical roles to play here.

Excluding either one would be a critical error.

[papau]

57. The Not True Part is the $3 Trillion extra cost through 2041 - followed by

savings in 2042 and later - is not part of the Bush sales points - indeed the $1 trillion cost through 2017 is barely making the media footnotes.

And the 3.5% free lunch return for investing in equities that keeps the extra cost down to $3 trillion over the next 40 years (all those put options must be worthless - and Wall Streets'Black-Sholes pricing of options is being done all wrong since equites can "expect" a free lunch extra return of 3.5%)is making the various illustrated benefits in the Dec 2002 report show only that the New personal accounts system can equal the benefit paid out under the current system. God forbid bad assumptions - that the return increase is less than 3.5%, or that less than 66% of the funds in the personal accounts is invested in equity - that extra cost to the treasury - or the hit to retirees benefits - will not be pretty.

Again there is no free lunch - there is only a Trillion dollar debt increase so as to avoid paying off the trillion dollars owed to the Social Security Trust Funds and stolen by the rich to finance their tax cut for the rich.

Smoke and mirrors to avoid a tax increase on the rich - welcome to the "ownership society".

[greenohio]

63. I don't agree with Bush's plan

because he probably won't fund the transition by removing caps or means testing, but by cutting budgets or raising middle/lower class taxes.

But, right now we just spend the money and write ourselves an IOU resulting in no ROI, no savings.

At least with accounts there is a chance from some ROI and savings.

[papau]

74. True as to saving - and a forced savings via a new 2% tax is a good idea.

But the "we just spend the money and write ourselves an IOU" defines an insurance system.

If you reach 62 you collect on the IOU

but the IOU is not for cash - it is for a portion of the payroll tax being paid that year.

we as a group insurce ourselves against being pennyless in old age - and that is a good!

It is called an intergenerational transfer because the payroll tax that you have a claim on is being paid by the folks in the generation behind you.

And indeed one generation can screw another - as Bush is trying to do via private accounts and "transition costs".

Left alone the only way one generation screws another is for a later generation to tell their parents "Screw you, starve to death - I will not pay the payroll tax". I trust my kids.

[greenohio]

78. What is your upper limit?

What percentage of your kids income do believe the upper bound should be to pay for your retirement?

[flaminbats]

81. this depends on how much they would pay in other taxes..

the more we cut the progressive income tax, the more politicians dip into the Social Security fund to pay for wars, roads, and more private contracts.

Remember during WWII the top tax-rate was over 70% and the government rationed all basic necessities. Today a repeal of Bush's tax-cuts, and a slight increase in the payroll tax would not even be a burden in comparison to that time!

But all we care about today is ourselves....me first!!!!:cry:

Forget sacrifice for the common good, screw those whiny tax and spend liberals!

[greenohio]

83. Well...

I'm giving up pushing reform for now. It appears that there are those who keep all of their money in t-bills and expect everyone else to do the same because any other investment is unsafe.

They are defending a system which will break beyond repair at some point because the ratio of worker to retiree is approaching 2-1 (and maybe eventually 1-1). http://www.ssa.gov/qa.htm It won't happen to them, or their children, but will probably happen to their grandchildren.

I don't, however, want to defend a stance that $hrub may make the center piece of his campaign. He will screw it up.

The saddest thing about this, I am afraid that the younger generation who own IRA's and 401Ks may vote repuke based on this issue. The Repukes have a plan, we have the status quo (until it breaks).

[flaminbats]

88. dream on...

most young people can't even find a fucking job!

We can't get health insurance with our job.

And now we must work doubletime without overtime...or else get fired.

Do you really think people like them give a shit anymore about IRAs or 401ks?

What they really want is to robb a fucking bank! x(

[flaminbats]

89. I admit it...

that probably crossed a line..:silly:

[papau]

99. Be happy that their will be plenty of warning -other countries have a much

higher proportion of old to total workers. (Please read the SS deiscussion of bene to worker ratio - it is decreasing but is not at all as bad as you might think - OASDI also has bene's under S and under DI so aging is not the whole story).

Indeed the proposed "transition cost bond sale" addition to our National Debt will destroy the US well before SS will as those other countries - who have been financing Bush's deficits - try to cash in those bonds so as to pay their own retires.

You thought the rich refuse to increase taxes on themselves to repay the payroll tax they stole - so SS Trust Fund has useless IOUs - and therefore we must reform SS quickly.

Just wait until other countries come to the same conclusion about the value of US Bonds - the easy to handle deficit will destroy the US economy. It is fine to run a deficit for a short time as Health benefits are taken over by the Fed (above 50,000 in the Kerry plan) cutting insurance costs and creating jobs that end up paying off the deficit - as with Clinton.

It is quite another to try to change the US to an "ownership society" via deficits that destroy the economy and social welfare programs.

[rfkrocks]

42. the economy the Dem's talked about(refer here) doesn't live here anymore

back in the day before the rethugs destroyed the economy there was talk about modified privatization-but now with the off shoring, the enron scandals, the inflated housing market and AWOLS's great plan of spending while cutting taxes and revenue-he has laid the foundation for massive economic collapse-the whole reason that social security came into being was that the PRIVATE SECTOR FAILED MISERABLY in helping retired Americans exist. With the failing private pension system(witness the steel and airline industry) this is no time to be rewarding the evil minded rip-off artists who masquerade as the founders of the ownership society. The New Deal cannot be undone without paying the piper of massive social unrest-but the rethugs are just the party to do that.

[papau]

52. True - modified privatization - the new tax for savings like a 401k - is

dead until the economy gets turned around.

[flaminbats]

58. In which alternative universe did he support that?

Moynihan did hold numerous hearings on that possibility, but ultimately concluded that individual accounts could only exist in addition to current Social Security benefits..not as a substitute for them. More importantly Moynihan also rejected the possibility of using revenue from the FICA tax as a means of funding such accounts.

For some reason I can't see Moynihan taking revenue out of the Social Security fund at the expense of the disabled and the elderly to boost those already making enough to support themselves! Both Clinton and Lieberman supported using the surplus Social Security dollars to reduce the National Debt before pursuing individual accounts as a serious option. But thanks to the Bush taxcuts and two unfunded wars, this option no longer exists.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/dailymojo/2004/08/08_518.html

[greenohio]

64. In reality dude, its a matter of public record read the thread

http://finance.senate.gov/hearings/testimony/100302omtest.pdf

[papau]

75. The only recommendation is for a one year study - and the report simply

noted that the groups 3 recommendations all include private accounts (based on the crazy projections of the GOP whore half actuary Steve Gross where Gross tells us there is a free lunch of a 3.5% improvement in the rate of return these equity invested monies would make over a bond rate - those options you buy to protect against downside equity risk should be priced at zero I guess).

Please note that he was a lawyer -a law degrees from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.

While he did indeed study as a Fulbright fellow at the London School of Economics and Political Science, he did not claim to be an economist - or for goodness sake - an actuary.

[flaminbats]

79. Wonderful letter...

But I see two big problems. The first is that report was issued to the finance committee when Baucas was the ranking member and Moynihan was no longer chairman. Second problem is the letter proves my point, Moynihan studied the idea of individual retirement accounts...but this was before the 2000 election!


Now we have huge deficits, are fighting two wars, and have passed countless tax-cuts. I don't find it plausible that Moynihan would dip into an already ravaged Social Security system to fund individual retirement accounts. Maybe if the trust fund was solvent, but not while Republicans are now using this money to fund countless other spending projects!

One other point, Hillary agrees with Moynihan and Clinton on most issues. Somehow I find the argument that Moynihan and Bill support such a high profile initiative that Hilliary doesn't unlikely!

[greenohio]

82. Moynihan was chair of the committee

reporting to congress, not chair of the congressional committee. Look at the date of the testimony, it is October 2002.

This is not a Dem/Repuke issue. My biggest gripe is that we have no plan. Kerry says he won't raise taxes, won't cut benefits, and won't allow investment for higher return. Mark my words, one of those is going to give.

"Social Security is not sustainable over the long term at present benefit and tax rates without large infusions of additional revenue. There will be a massive and growing shortfall over the 75-year period. "
http://www.ssa.gov/qa.htm

[flaminbats]

86. We do have a plan...

let the Bush tax-cuts expire. then pull the troops out of Iraq.

Guess what...in four years the deficit should be cut in half. If Kerry is re-elected expect to see surpluses in his second term.

What if Bush gets four more years?

Expect more and more money to come out of Social Security...not just for Iraq, but for Individual accounts for haliburton investments and for Enron stock purchases! Bush will leave office with the first ever $2 trillion deficit. The national debt will be $20 trillion and the U.S. dollar will be more worthless than an Iraqi flako...

ohhh well

[greenohio]

69. Moynihan isn't even mentioned in your article

Apparently MJ is in "nothing to see here, move along now" mode.

It implies everything is fine and can be fixed with little pain.

Read your social security statement:

"the Social Security system is facing serious future financial problems, and action is needed soon to make sure that the system is sound..."

Either MJ is right or SSA is right.

[flaminbats]

73. so?

I remember most of the hearings Moynihan held on individual retirement accounts. He never supported the idea backed by Domenici and other freepers of using the payroll tax to fund them! Not that this entire debate should circle around a retired Senator..

One idea he did flirt with was the Nunn-Domenici tax, which would make all money saved or invested tax free. This proposal freed individuals from paying income tax or capital gains on money put into longterm investments. At the same time it maintained the same progressive tax rates on all other forms of income, while reducing the level of double taxation that occurs on income which is invested.

But until the Bush tax-cuts are repealed, and there is again a surplus left in the Social Security fund...taking money out to put into individual retirement accounts would be a high risk venture. Balancing the budget, and paying down government debt is the most logical way to tackle this problem.

Ultimately it will take a little of everything, not simply one huge reform. A higher age limit, higher payroll taxes, slower increases in retirement benefits, greater discipline over other forms of government spending, and more individual initiative when it comes to retirement planning.

Finally the Mother Jones article not only addresses this problem, but points out that Bush avoids two of the basic ways to solve it!

So if the government wanted to divert payroll taxes for all workers under, say, the age of 30, it would have to come up with additional money to pay those retirees over the age of 30. Economists estimate that the transition could cost at least $1 trillion -- money that the government just doesn't have, especially in the wake of mounting deficits. The alternative is to either raise existing payroll taxes, or cut future benefits, neither of which Bush is proposing. So the president can claim that he can magically fix the system, but his math just won't work out.

[papau]

77. MotherJones tells it like it is - - :-)

:-)

[greenohio]

80. Read the report-Moynihan did support using payroll tax

paupau included a link to it. I included a link to the congressional testimony. Read the ndol link to his 98 plan.

It does include using payroll tax to fund it.

And you are absolutely right, extra money will have to come from somewhere to pay for the transition. If a Dem did it, it would come from removing the payroll tax caps and means testing the benefits, both of which take it from the wealthy. If a repuke does it, it will come from you, me and the poor.

It is going to cost more money any way you slice it because the system is in trouble:

"Social Security's financing problems are long term and will not affect today's retirees and near-retirees, but they are very large and serious. People are living longer, the first baby boomers are five years from retirement, and the birth rate is low. The result is that the worker-to-beneficiary ratio has fallen from 16-to-1 in 1950 to 3.3-to-1 today. Within 40 years it will be 2-to-1. At this ratio there will not be enough workers to pay scheduled benefits at current tax rates."

http://www.ssa.gov/qa.htm

I do agree that ultimately it will take a little of everything. But when you are thinking about cutting benefits, remember, people depend and these and they don't get much now. They paid in 15% percent for decades.

[flaminbats]

84. again this really doesn't matter to me!

Moynihan is political history, dust in the wind. One other point..before the current ahole was elected President I supported individual retirement accounts. Little did I know that Clinton's predecessor would wipe out the Social Security surplus, create record deficits, and support countless tax cuts when we were at war!

This is like asking me for my umbrella a month after a summer storm. Sorry but I don't care that with me on a bright autumn day!

Nor did I suggest that benefit reductions would be necessary. I said slowing spending should only be one of the many possible options, hopefully one of the last! The objective should be to save the program, not to make it less secure..

[rfkrocks]

100. I agree with you and papau

the economy is in shambles and to pretend that circumstances are anywhere approaching suggestions made in the good years of the Clinton economy is a joke-"foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a weak mind"-Ben Franklin

[papau]

101. True - Moynihan wanted poor folks estates beginning in 91 - but I thought

we were discussing the final report -

Where the size of the transition cost is exposed as 1 trillion through 2017, and nearly 3 trillion through 2042.

Which meant Moynihan - while he never backed off trying to sell private accounts - he did back down from recomending a specific plan - leaving the commission recommendation as "the Congress should take the next year to discuss private accounts".

Since adding a term insurance component to OASDI gets you the estate for the middle class and poor at a much lower cost and in a simpler way, I really do not understand Moynihan and private accounts.

[Unforgiven]

125. Precisely

On both accounts!

[Fovea]

2. It was so popular the first two times

It will surely go over now that the economy is flirting with the Charybdis of the toilet bowl.

[MuseRider]

3. Did you see

the poll on the page? 69% against privatizing

[Hell Hath No Fury]

4. Grover Norquist...

“I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."

For the Bushistas, words to live by

[warrior1]

5. My older brother`

would like to retire in five years. He's 62 now and a bush supporter. I need to get a hold of him and try and shake some sense into him. I don't it will go over very good.

Fuck, we've got to defeat this ass.

[The Zanti Regent]

48. My idiot sister

SHe is 62, brittle diabetic, no health insurance, pays $300/month for her prescriptions...

...she votes Republican because her preacher at the ASSemblies of Gawd brainwashed her...

...the idiot goes to every healing service she can, makes SACRIFICIAL offerings to these fucking crooks and STILL blames her illness on Bill Clinton's Penis...

...her son goes to Iraq and takes a bullet in his spinal cord. He's 23, ruined for life, when she found out he was shot, she said Praise The Lord and she was so proud that her son took a bullet for God's Man in the White House...

...and for the past 20 years, she keeps sending me mail that Jesus is coming to take her away in the rapture in a week or 2...

[barb162]

68. oh my god

what a hororr story

[PROUDNWLIBERAL]

72. Let Her Rot

Let her rot---get on with your life and don't send her any money. She chose her own health care plan---Close the pinko hospitals let Jesus save her. Go out and have a beer with Jesus and look at all the good lookin' chicks. My god drinks beer and is a great person to be around---can't stand right wing wackos. Like I said get on with your life and don't let her drag you down---I have a sister the same way!

[Trillo]

6. Dole out more Corporate Welfare...? Why am I not surprised? nt

[soupkitchen]

7. Can America afford another one of the President's miscalcuations?

Again George Bush had demonstrated that he doesn't have the ability to think things through.

[TexasSissy]

8. Not so fast, Burgermeister! The devil's in the details.

Just to say SS privatization evokes all sorts of horror images, but I can envision a privatization that could be a good thing. It depends on the details.

What are the details? As it stands now, Greenspan is saying that I won't get back the $$$ I have put into SS after working my entire adult life. Would privatization ensure I'd at least get that $$$ back? If so, I'd be interested in listening to such a plan, for sure.

The alternative is raising the retirement age to past 70, at which point many "retirees" will be dead. Which means they will NEVER be able to retire. And SAYING we should stay in teh work force longer is easier than actually staying in the work force, when faced with companies who want to replace us with younger workers. So we'll be unemployed but not retired elderly people, unable to get Social Sec., even though we're, say, 68 years old? Unacceptable. Yes, I'll listen to a privatization plan. Depends on the details.

[warrior1]

11. past experience's

with the bush idea's have been complete failures.

I vote HELL NO!!!!

[trogdor]

14. one word should convince you this is a shitty idea.

ENRON.

[TexasSissy]

15. What does Enron have to do w/SS privatization?

The Enron debacle was the pension fund, where the employees had invested in company stock. No different than my 401K, except we don't have company stock offered in my 401K.

I don't see the connection.

[Trillo]

17. Theft of others' money. nt

[TexasSissy]

90. Isn't that the current shape of the Soc. Sec. system? We're out of $$$.

[TankLV]

112. See post #12 below.

Allowing those who have been proven to have screwed ALL of us AT GREAT COST TO ALL OF US, while STILL scott free, to manage our SS.

Just who do you think will control and "invest" and watch over the newly privatized SS accounts?

Answer: THE SAME CORPORATE, REPUKE SCUMBAGS AND THIEVES WHO CREATED ENRON, HALLIBURTON AND ALL THE OTHER FAILED REPUKE BUSINESSES THAT ARE CURRENTLY SCREWING AMERIKKKA!

Wake up and smell the coffee.

It has EVERYTHING to do with Enron and Halliburton.

More of OUR hard-earned money being stolen by repukes and bunkerboy and his pals - including our vice pResident!

[Yupster]

21. I don't get it?

Why Enron?

No privatization idea would allow you to put your money in one stock. The closest choice would be a stock mutual fund.

[napi21]

18. How old are you now?

You realize that the retirement age for some, depending on what year they were born, is 67? The retirement age WAS increased in the 70's or 80's to make sure it was solvent! The problem isn't SS, the problem is that our wonderful Congress people SPENT THE SURPLUS! They couldn't stand to see all that money sitting there just waiting to pay out many years from now.

Don't give me the nonsense about privitazion.

[Yupster]

22. The problem is the term "sitting around."

Currently there isn't anything to do with any social security surplus money. It can't just sit around in someone's drawer. So it gets lent back to the general fund, and then of course it gets spent like any other general fund money.

I'd like to see the surplus money physically removed from the government. Put it in bank CD's, or insurance fixed accounts or even corporate bonds. Then it's likely the money will actually be there when needed.

If you keep the money in the federal government, it will of course get spent because what else can congress do with it, but spend it.

[Doctor Smith]

26. We should be buying back bonds with the SS surplus.

This would put us into a stronger financial position to be able to meet our future obligations, plus it would keep interest rates low, and improve economic growth.

Of course, you would have to replace that money in the budget somehow. That would mean spending cuts and tax increases; there is no free lunch.

[TexasSissy]

91. Greenspan just said the retirement age would need to go higher

to save the SS system, didn't you hear? That's been talked about for years. It's inevitable. Someone told me just last week that her full retirement benefits age is 70.

Yes, I'd like to hear the details. Can't imagine why anyone wouldn't want to hear the details before passing judgment.

Part of the problem with the SS system is that the money that I put in is going to pay for others' retirement (and disability) benefits right now. So when it comes time for me to retire, because of the decreasing population, there will be fewer people to pay in to pay ME MY retirement benefits that I've paid in. That's my understanding, anyway. Ralph Nader disagrees. And Kerry says there's another way to save it w/o raising the retirement age.

My current full benefits retirement age is 66, but I don't expect it to be that age by the time I get there. It sure wasn't 66 when I started paying into it. And it won't be 66 when I get finished paying into it. I've been screwed. Privatization may not be the answer, but it MAY be. I'd like to hear a couple of plans and see what some economic experts say about it.

[davekriss]

23. You are wrong

"The alternative is raising the retirement age to past 70, at which point many "retirees" will be dead."

No. That is a false choice. Or rather one of many choices.

The Social Security Trust Fund is solvent until 2042; thereafter, a slight downtick in benefits hold it over for the entirety of the baby boom blip. And this is based on conservative GDP growth, a slight uptick there and Social Security is awash with cash. It just is not true that Social Security is the source of our crisis and the thing in need of a fix.

The problem is, the surplus in the Trust Fund is immediately consumed to pay for current services. It is lent to the USG in the form of special, low interest Treasury Bonds. The USG owes the Trust Fund the entirety of the surplus we've already paid to fund the future yearly excess in benefits over receipts. The USG, in the future, will need to pay those IOU's when they come due either via general taxes or by printing fresh money -- or the USG will have to reduce benefits. Now we get to the real crisis.

Rather than prepare for that day when future obligations come due, Gee Dubya decided instead to deliver 2.7 trillion dollars in tax cuts to mostly a thin sliver of the U.S. population. He decided instead to raise military expenditures to the levels recommended by PNAC (3.8% of GDP). He decided to burn $200+ billion in an elective, illegal, and unnecessary war. So, naturally, the trajectory of surpluses launched under Clinton that would have prepared our society to meet it's future obligations have instead been reversed. Instead thay have been used to steel the financial fortresses of the few. Instead, we have record deficit spending with overall debt already above $8 trillion and counting. So instead, ahead of the RNC, we have Greenspan floating the trial balloon of cutting future benefits instead of deficits via fair taxation. It represents a huge transfer of wealth upward and is a coup for plutocrats throughout our once fair land.

Don't buy it. Don't swallow their meme. Instead, demand fair taxation now. Stop the stealth slide whereby only "earned income" is taxed, mine and your wages, while dividends and capital gains and estates -- our overlords' form of income -- go tax free. There are so many other choices besides capitulation.

Gee Dubya prepares now to speak of the "ownership society". What he means is that, after 20+ years of policy-induced inequality not seen since the Guilded Age, they want to close the door to expansive opportunity. They want to steel their financial fortresses while telling you and I that we "own" our future deprivation and misery. Don't buy it for a second.

Where the law of the majority ceases to be acknowledged, there
government ends; the law of the strongest takes its place, and
life and property are his who can take them.
---Thomas Jefferson, to Annapolis Citizens, 1809

Speak truth to power! Stand up for our rights! Act now! Insist that we focus on the real problems facing the people, not the contrived problems serving the powerful.

[never cry wolf]

43. Spot on, davekriss, spot on

You have these guys nailed!

[mbperrin]

56. Thank you for saying this! Reagan started this in a big way

to finance Star Wars (the first one), and it became a very popular thing. The point is yes, the baby boomers are the largest retirement group in history, and the other point is, we have paid more in than any other group in history, because we are larger, tend to be better educated and make far more money than any other group in history.

Get back the bucks the Gubbermint has "borrowed" and we are awash in money! Now does this mean that the wealthy bastards and the 60% of businesses that paid NO tax last year will have to pony up? Yep. So sad. Too bad.

We paid it. It's ours. We want it. We will punish those who steal it!

[davekriss]

71. We will punish those who steal it!

I admire the clarity of your remark: "We paid it. It's ours. We want it. We will punish those who steal it!" Yes!

Argh, tin-foil creepin' over my scalp! ...but that's what Patriot I and future Patriot II are for, to oppress dissent. Recall the militarized police at FTAA Miami? What will we see in NY? Is that our future? Jack London's Iron Heel stomped down? How were the unfavored classes oppressed in Honduras, El Salvador, Guatamala, and Nicaragua? Is that our future? A Latin-Americanized America? :(

[TexasSissy]

92. I'm all for reversing the tax cuts given to the wealthy. BUT...

you say "a slight downtick in benefits" will solve the Soc. Sec. crisis? A slight downtick in benefits? Soc. Sec. is an "entitlement," not a benefit handed out to those who have not paid.

That's MY money, paid with my blood and sweat over a lifetime. I'm SUPPOSED to get it back in the form of monthly payments. That's the purpose of Soc. Sec. A slight downtick in benefits means that someone is taking MY money, doesn't it? My monthly income, which I paid for years previously, will be lowered, making it even more difficult for me to pay my monthly bills?

I'd still like to hear a privatization plan before deciding. IN ADDITION to reversing the tax cuts to the wealthy. Maybe a privatization plan isn't the answer. But I'd like to hear details and hear what leading economists say about it.

I'm aware that there's a disagreement by some as to the solvency of Soc. Sec. Nader disagrees, for one. But most seem to think it's in serious trouble and will run out of $$$ for the benefits by the time the baby boomers start to retire (in about 2014?). I don't know who is right. But I SURE don't want my retirement age to be increased. It's not right to ask the elderly to stay in the work force that long, esp. since employers don't really want them. We'll be standing in long unemployment lines at the age of 68, if we're not careful. And that's not right.

I want to be SURE that my soc. security that I've paid in will be given back to me, with interest. I will need it. So I'll listen to any plan that seeks to do that. I think I can discern what's a good plan and what's not (with the help of leading economists).

[TexasSissy]

93. Correction: Soc. Sec. is given to some who have not paid in...

so when I say it isn't in my prior post, I'm referring to the retirement benefits part, which the retiree HAS paid in.

[davekriss]

114. You CAN be sure...

...that the money won't be there given the national priorities set for us by the Republican administrations since 1980.

On paper Social Security is solvent to 2042. The problem is the money paid in as surplus was already spent by the USG. Later, when the bill comes due, it will have to payback those IOU's and, if it does, then there is no problem.

The problem is the USG itself, thanks to Republican administrations, is (nearly) insolvent. It won't be able to raise the general funds needed to meet their obligation.

The alternative would be to cease this tax-policy-induced climb into record deficits. If the Clinton surpluses were left alone, the future ability of the USG to pay back those IOU's would be that much better.

Recall O'Neil's study that revealed the USG is facing $44 trillion in future obligations (of all kinds). Historically when a state faced this kind of debt (4 times GDP) it never pays -- instead, the obligation is either repudiated, inflated away, or done away with via wars. It appears the Republicans intend to use a bit of all three.

[flaminbats]

116. the prospects of a do-nothing plan are much more dangerous

"I want to be SURE that my soc. security that I've paid in will be given back to me, with interest. I will need it. So I'll listen to any plan that seeks to do that. I think I can discern what's a good plan and what's not (with the help of leading economists)."

http://www.concordcoalition.org/releases/020812release.htm

"We have a simple suggestion to improve the dialogue. Critics...should come up with their own plans for shoring-up Social Security. They should be specific about the benefit cuts and tax increases they recommend and the amount of general revenues that would be required. A real debate could then take place...

“We should stop playing political shell games with this issue. If we do not have the political will to solve the Social Security problem now, there is no hope of doing so when the baby boomers start collecting benefits -- not just for Social Security but for Medicare and Medicaid as well. The problems facing our health care programs are much more daunting and difficult than Social Security. These three programs together are expected to double as a share of the economy within 30 years, putting unthinkable pressure on tax rates, the economy and the budget...

I have posted the basics of what I believe would be a workable entitlement reform plan, what would you do?

[TexasSissy]

131. Don't be silly. I'm not an economist or CPA or anyone qualified

to "fix" the Social Security problems. But I DO have a brain and can listen to various plans proposed and decide which one(s) seem best (with the help, as I said, of leading economists).

How to fix SS is a job for economists and accountants. I will wait to hear details of plans, and then take it from there. Of course, if * wins, what I want won't matter. And I will be pretty sure that what they do will not be a good thing for ME, any more than burning trees in the "healthy forests initiative" was a good thing for forests.

[flaminbats]

132. hello....

yes join the accountants only club, and you too can speak freely on Social Security and healthcare reform.

Otherwise shut the hell up! :wtf:

[papau]

27. Raising Normal Retirement age to 70 doesn't mean U can't retire at age 62

Indeed you can retire at age 62 despite "Normal Retirement Age" of 70 - an increase from todays normal retirement age of 67 - which in turn was a gify from our hero Ron Reagan who decided to finance his 1981 tax cuts for the rich via payroll tax increases and lower Social Security Benefits at age 62 via raising the then "Normal Retirement Age 65" to age 67.

Greenspan is saying that as an investment SS barely gives you back the dollars you put in - you get very little interest - if you try to view SS as an investment. Of course Greenspan and the GOP know this is a crock - SS is an intergeneraltional promise - the folks who got 12 per month in the 40's had not paid for that benefit - it was more or less a gift from the next generation for the joy of inheriting an economy that provided much more than their parents ever had.

There is no investment account and no one is adding interest - so Greenspan's "barely get back" is a crock. What is important is intergenerational equity - and so as to get "GOP type better future intergenerational equity" the GOP wants to screw the current generation and their kids.

The "transition cost of $1 to $2 trillion" is coming out of the middle class pocket and the pocket of their kids - you do not expect the rich to to pay do you?

Privatization ensures nothing other than the non-rich getting screwed. You will be told what a great deal you will have by putting money away - but there is no free lunch. The folks on SS benefits checkd now must be paid - so your middle class taxes are raised - or your kids portion of the national debt increases - to allow those great private accounts. Of course the real effect is a new expense that comes out of the payroll tax paying those Wall Street buddies of Bush and the insurance companies. You will get less bang for your buck than you would get by simply putting money into your IRA.

But to your main point - "68 years old? Unacceptable" is not a worry because you can still retire at 62.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

65. Thanks Papau....it's always nice to see an expert counter this nonsense

[TexasSissy]

94. Those who need full Soc. Sec. to retire CANNOT retire before the

full benefits retirement age.

It also follows that if the full retirement age is raised, so will the partial retirement age, OR the percentage of the full benefit will decrease if the minimum age remains at 62. Most people will be unable to retire at 62, if the full benefits retirement age is raised to 70 for everyone. (The age is 70 for some, currently.)

In other words, they will be forcing the elderly into remaining in the work force, while taking small, partial benefits at the earlier age. This, in turn, will decrease their lifespan, which will help the Soc Sec system further.

Privatization is worth a look-see. Maybe it's not the answer. But maybe it would help.

[OKNancy]

35. I don't think that is what Greenspan said

"that you wouldn't get back what you put into it"
Do some calculations. Almost every retiree ( only those who die young) get a lot more back than they put into it.

[rustydad]

49. Big problem is.....

.....that SS pays out entitlements using money coming in from payroll taxes of the working stiffs. As the money coming in declines vs the money going out (baby boomers)the the difference is supposed to be paid out of the "lock box" trust fund. Trouble is it is empty, just IOUs left there. That means that the difference will have to come from the general fund. And that dear friends can't and won't happen. And even if it could if current workers were allowed to put their payroll contributions into the stock market or whatever where will the money come from to support those now retired?

This is just one more scheme in the Ruling Elites agenda to turn the clock back to the days of the robber barons. Kiss the experiment of a "middle class" and "social democracy" goodbye. And thank the demos as well as the repugs for this mess. Bob

[papau]

54. You are saying that taxes will never be raised on the rich to get General

Account funds to pay off the bonds held by the Social Security Trust Fund.

That the Theft of the payroll tax surplus is a done deal and the rich will never pay back the money they stole to finance the tax cut for the rich.

I hope you are wrong - and that Kerry wins and reverses the tax cuts for dollars over 200000 on a return.

[warrior1]

9. He must have made

more promises to his buddies.

This must be a just a feeler.

Lord DOG do I hate these guys.

[King of New Orleans]

10. I hope Bush does push this

Let's see--

Iraq--a badly managed expensive fiscal mess (an expensive human toll too)

The Federal Budget--from a surplus to the biggest deficits in history.

Now, who in their right mind would let Bush near Social Security.


Quite frankly, this looks like it could be the greatest campaign gift ever.

[bvar22]

12. I thought this was gonna happen.

I noticed Corporate Propagandists on DU this week touting the wonderfulness of privatizing SS.

Hey, I gotta great idea. Let's give our retirement money to Enron and Arthur Anderson!
You can trust corporate Amerika.
They won't fuck you this time!
No, really!
Corporate Amerika looks out for the little guy!

[Cobalt Violet]

13. And yet, some morons will still vote for him.

I guess they think eating dog food in their senior years is good.

[chromotone]

16. I really can't believe the US is wanting this...

After seeing Enron, Arthur Anderson, and the rest go down in flames due to greed, corruption, and lies, why would ANYONE want to privatize SocSer???

It makes NO SENSE whatsoever...

on edit: Whoops!, apologies to bvar22 and post 12; it appears we both thought of the same corporations when thinking of greed, corruption, and lies!

[SCRUBDASHRUB]

20. MSNBC Live Poll

Where do you stand on privatizing Social Security? * 736 responses


None at all.
70%

Up to a fourth of my Social Security withholdings should be under my control.
6%

Up to half my Social Security withholdings should be under my control.
10%

Social Security should go completely private.
15%

[Journeyman]

19. Yet in his stump speeches, Dumbya decries the market of the 90s. . .

as "pie in the sky" investing and expresses profound suspicion of the "Eastern" monied interests.

Words fail to capture the depth of this man's hypocrisy.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=768428#768901

[bluedog]

24. Hers what a GOP nut said to me!

"Obviously you couldn't do anything abruptly. It would have to be phased in. However, people are living longer and they are much healther than they were a few years ago, So the retirement age should be increased to retire after age 70.

That has been suggested several times, but administrations have not had the courage to do anything about it. That includes the Clinton administrations as well as Republican and other Democrats."


My Reply""""""""""


you are nuts young man........we have worked a lifetime and with our taxes we supported many administrations........And the answer is that you to expect us to work longer...some jobs just can not be done after a certain age......better come up with something better than that......Or is that the plan..for us to drop dead on the job and the government doesn't have to pay us anything .........

[David Dunham]

25. We should urge all the Dems we know to hit Bush on this issue, hard.

[Disturbed]

28. Devil's in the Details.

Anyone ever read the details in the Medicare and Drug Prescriptions Plans? I have and they are mind numbing. They are also slanted in favor of the Corps. I suspect that the SS details would be similar. Neo Fascists care as much about humans as I do about flies.

[papau]

30. True - indeed "ownership society" means screwing middle-class

And "rate of return is poor" is a bullshit false analysis of an intergenerational transfer program - it is not an investment program.

And "Equity returns are great" - if Bush truly believed it - would be easy since all that need be done is have the Social Security Trust Funds sell the Gov Bonds they now hold and replace those assets with equity assets.

But this is not about ownership, and it is not about equity investment, and it is not about saving the Social Security System.

This is all about never having the rich repay the monies they have taken from the payroll tax via the tax cut for the rich forcing the tax cut monies lost to be filled by the payroll tax surplus - rather than using the excess payroll tax to pay down the National Debt (the old "lockbox" of Gore fame) thereby making room in our credit markets to borrow a bit to finance any small shortfall in the years 2020 to 2052 where we expect the payroll tax to be a little less than benefits paid.

Unless the benefits are reduced in the year 2052 - most likely via increasing the reduction for getting checks at age 62 - a process called raising the retirement age to age 70 -

or the wage base expanded to cover all income - indeed both wage and investment income -

there will be a problem in the year 2052.

But I think one of the two actions above - retirement age 70, or wage base expansion, will be voted into law - and all problems go away.

By the way - with Clinton like growth - there is never a problem in Social Security - and we would actually lower the retirement age back to age 65 - or 60!

But that is only if folks vote for the Dem!

:toast:

:-)

[The_Casual_Observer]

39. The essence of chimp's big plans are emerging now

The elimination of all progressive social programs in the name of "ownership". They dream of a return to the industrial revolution era when a poor human being was "owned" by the company, and when he got older or sick, he simply died to be replaced by a healthier one.

[CBHagman]

31. Obviously it's National Scare the Baby Boomers Month

First Alan Greenspan tells us that we need to put off retirement AND expect less from the system. David Broder of the Washington Post blames the whole Swift Boat Veterans for Truth flap on the baby boomers and basically says, not without gratitude, that we'll all be gone soon anyway. (Thanks a lot, David!)

Now Bush is coming out with his hare-brained "ownership society" crap again and telling us to privatize Social Security. Does this dunce have even the slightest clue what people live on and how much they make? Does he even know how many of us are being priced out of the housing market and the health insurance market? Does he know about Section 8 housing waiting lists?

I'm going to raise unadulterated HELL about this.

Oh, and the White House comment line is 202-456-1111. Got that, DUers? Give GWB something to worry about this fall, friends.

[Elginoid]

33. SS privatization, national sales/Vat tax, abolish income & estate taxes...

I-
Fucking HATE
greedy fuckhead
republicans.

BUT-

if the american people are stooooopid enough to let them get away with it(they are), is it really their fault for trying?

[neverborn]

47. National Sales > Income -- simple enough

[flaminbats]

124. When there are no problems there will be no government...

when there is no government there will be no taxes...just magic and the powers of captain kangaroo!

Wouldn't that be lovely?

Unfortunately people are flawed, problems do effect us all, laws must be enforced, and every type of democracy must be financed with taxes.

[kskiska]

34. I'd like to know where we're all supposed to be working

until we're eligible to collect at age 67 or beyond. Are employers really going to keep us old folks on the payroll till then? Or will we all be burger flippers?

[Radius]

36. Option

I would not be against having the option to manage my all or part of my SS account like a 401k.

It should not be mandated but it would be nice to try.

Just a thought.

[greenohio]

46. You're not alone

There are a few of us here.

[indypaul]

50. Then set up your own

conventional or Roth IRA and do it.

[papau]

55. You do not have a social security account with funds in it - you have a

claim on future payroll taxes once you retire.

It is not a fund accumulation system - cause when the Dems in 1942 tried to make it a funds accumulation system, the GOP went nuts and screamed "socialism by the backdoor" and forced us to have a pay as you go intergenerational transfer system.

Now you know the GOP has not found a love of "socialism by the backdoor" - so when they push individual accounts what they are really doing must be something different - can we say the destruction of Social Security and Medicare as we march on our way to an "ownership society"?

[Radius]

104. Got one

There is a $4000 limit. And tax penalties when it comes time to cash out.

Most people who work don't look at how much money they pay into this.

My issue is with control of money. Not everyone follows the markets or wants to mess with this, they should not have to. However I would like more control of the account or part of it. I don't see the harm. If I blow part of it It would be my own fault.

I can see this being used politically but freedom of choice is important as well. I think I can get a better return on my money than washington.

[Andromeda]

121. You're free to start an IRA or a 401(k)

pension plan on your own anytime you want but leave my Social Security alone!

Social Security needs to be left alone -- not privatized. That would be disasterous and would leave many people no way to support themselves and without Medicare they would have no health benefits. As it stands now Medicare provides meager care but something is better than nothing at all.

There are some places of employment that give employees an option whether they want a deduction for Social Security taken out of their paychecks and placed in a company 401(k) or applied to Social Security.

If your pension account does a freefall your S.S won't be affected but if S.S. is switched over to a private pension plan your money is gone -- finite -- nada.

Social Security is an insurance policy, not a pension plan. Privatizing it will hurt the middle class and the poor. Markets are not a sure thing and rise and fall with the economy. Your investments do well, then you do well. It's a total gamble.

Invest your money if you wish. Nobody is preventing you from doing that now but you don't know how your pension plan will be situated in 20 or 30 years and if your portfolio takes a nose-dive, so does your retirement and you'll never be able to retire. You'll have to work until you die.

Social Security is a safety net for all Americans and promises them an income so they can survive when they retire. Sometimes that's all they have to live on. Gambling on that future by putting their money in the markets doesn't give them that assurance.

[flaminbats]

122. But that could be fun..

imagine a Car insurance policy that takes the premiums of the car owners and invested this money in IRAs, 401(k) plans, and company stocks.

What would happen to you if one of these policyholders totaled your car, or even worse...didn't have the money to cover those damages? :smoke:

[Radius]

126. That is exactly what happens

your liability is sold to a reinsurance company and the primary insurer uses your part of your premium to invest in all types of financial instruments.

If you invest in the market you know (or should know) the risk.

I'm not saying SS should be privatized, I'm saying I would like more control of my SS money. It is a financial and political impossibility, will never happen. It would be nice though.

[flaminbats]

128. I think your opinion would dramatically change if you became disabled

First of all, what comes out of Social Security isn't your or my money. What comes out of it is our money used to finance retirement and those on disability.

Giving one person greater control of any share of this money would destroy the basics of financial security that this social program is meant to provide to the taxpayers. Regarding investments, yes they do invest some of your premiums in a variety of financial instruments..mostly T-bonds. They do not allow premium holders to invest this money in IRAs, 401(k) plans, or company stocks as a substitute for car insurance! Something tells me that would land a few CEOs in prison for fraud.

The best way to use extra Social Security funds is to pay down the national debt. This seems like a meaningless argument until Bush is defeated and we have another budget surplus.

[fearnobush]

38. I just had a long conversation with a 62 yr old man and his is terrified.

He said the writing is on the wall for his SS Bennie's that he paid in to for the last 44 years will be cut when he reaches age 70. Since Bu$h plundered the surplus... The retiree's are getting really pissed and scared.

[rfkrocks]

40. Shut-up America and eat your Soylent Green

yep-the end of the "New Deal" is what AWOL was all about in college and his mind hasn't matured since then so this is what we will get-a system ,like Halliburton no bid contracts, where Shrub's base will get "transfer fees" in the phasing in of the privatized social security-and when your private fund gets f**ked because our economy tanks-don't be looking at Uncle Sam for help- but you will be able to buy a "saturday nighte special"without a background check so when you get depressed in your old age you can blow your brains out-as any good compassionate conservative desires for the non rich classes-I say KISS MY ASS to the GOP

[scared]

41. It looks like Greepspan was just setting the stage

for Bush to again push for the privatization of social security.

[amandabeech]

44. Absolutely! Greenspan is really saying that he has no intention

of making any arrangements to pay back all those IOU's or bonds or whatever they are. If those things were enforceable, and some lawyers say they are, Greenspan would just have announced an intention to default on public debt.

Wouldn't that do great things to all stock, bond and currency markets in the world if he had announced his intention to default on treasury notes and bonds!

If there is no intention to pay back those IOU's then I want back all my social security taxes that have been collected as a result of the 1980s Social Security tax increase.

[Inland]

45. When Bush first floated privatization, he said required trillion bucks

for the transition would come from the surplus.

Hey, George--Ain't no surplus no moar, George.

Privatizing SS was just one of the things this country could have done when it was fiscally solvent.

But you decided a huge tax cut for the rich was more important.

Thanks. Thanks for being such a tool.

[bleedingheart]

53. He will lose the Elderly vote immediately with that bonehead idea

sorry but I am all for a national 401k savings plan (separate from SS) or just the idea of telling banks they can't charge people a fee on savings accounts since so many poor folks can't even begin to save with some banks charging as much as $5 a month if you don't keep a balance over $500...

But social security should not be tampered with because those individuals who invest poorly will end up with nothing and the government will still end up bailing them out because who wants to see vast swaths of the elderly population starving because they invested poorly or got bilked out of their retirement.

[barb162]

67. totally correct but

I wonder how many of the elderly will vote for him because they think he is a good christian, commander in chief, because they don't trust the damn Democrats,etc.

[teryang]

59. heart of a thief

More grand schemes of larceny by the Bushonian thieves.

The central investment banks and equities brokers must be incredibly desperate.

[autorank]

60. Privatize Defense Contracting First, then use savings for Soc. Security

[Strelnikov_]

61. Scam To Pump Money Into The Stock Market Ponzi Scheme

Middle class investment in the stock market is waning due to a decline in real wages and employment that provides 401(k) benefits.

An infusion of cash is required to keep the Ponzi scheme afloat.

[KoKo]

129. Agree, it's nothing more than a ploy to boost stocks, just like 401-K's

relieved the burden on Companies to provide a pension to their workers.

They got rid of pensions and put in 401-K's which gave huge inflows into stocks pushing value far above what the companies true worth was. So, accountants got busy and started "cooking the books" to make companies seem more valuable than they were to match the increased inflows into stocks.

Without pensions most folks have to rely on SS benefits. You can't have folks being layed off, and downsized because of Mergers in their late 40's through their 50's and expect them to find jobs in this kind of economy. So increasing retirement to 70 and asking everyone else to start converting to a private scheme will just lead to many folks left without anything for their later years. It's unfair to the young the middles and the oldies to do this.

[barb162]

66. Privatization of SS is a BIG SCAM

on the American people. SS is one of the best social programs out there. Privatizing SS is a worse scam than someone tryinmg to say a 401K is equal to a fully funded pension. Everyone should fight against this.

[LincolnMcGrath]

85. Two-thirds of Chile's hard-pressed workers will get

Chile's privatized Social Security, health care is a failure


Two-thirds of Chile's hard-pressed workers will get a poverty-level pension, or less.

When President George W. Bush decided to push a partial replacement of Social Security with individual investment accounts, a Chilean economist named Jose Pinera had his ear.

Now on the payroll of the Cato Institute, a right-wing think tank in Washington, Pinera filled Bush's head with stories of the "indisputable success" of the private, individual savings account system he put in place in his country under a military dictatorship in 1980.





http://www.revolutionmag.com/newrev6/chile.html

[papau]

102. True - I am aware of Chile's privatization pension problems - but

that was a case of over promising the return on investments.

Come to think of it - Bush's Mr. Gross - the half actuary with the title "Chief Actuary" - is saying that 3.5% is a free gain in return if you invest in equities. Gee - he said this in early 2001. And since then most folks have been hit by 50 % losses to date if they went for "growth" stocks.

Maybe there is a bit of overselling going on in the Bush administration - eh? But will our media fall for it - or at worst just treat the Bush lies as "he said vs. he said"?

- you know that will be the approach as the US Media tries to elect Bush in 04.

[moondust]

95. Privatization = Stock market pump and dump scheme.

Stocks are already overpriced due to too much investment money chasing too few good stocks.

[Radius]

105. Markets

There are different ways to approach the market.
You can make money on short term investing(futures). Or you can buy traditionally stable companies and offset yor risk with bonds. The market is an engine that generates wealth or can take it.

Not everyone has the time, or understanding to invest in stocks rationally. But I have met many people who have made money on the market over the years. I went to school with a guy who took his college loan refund and used it to buy red hat at the ipo. bought at 60 sold at 250. Paid for 2 years of college. Over time the market has gone up. I've made money, not much, buying depressed stocks. Companies like CA and Apple were depressed and their stock slowly returned to a normal value.

No one should be forced to invest in the market, but I personally would like to have the ability to manage my ss account, or part of it, like a roth or 401k account. I think I can beat washinton's ror. They could even take an override (%) of my return to return to the main fund.


The problem is politics, how can something that could benefit people be done without a political spin.

[roseBudd]

107. the real problem is the transition cost

I have to defer to Paul Krugman.

http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/socsec.html
NOTES ON SOCIAL SECURITY
A number of readers have posed what is actually a pretty sophisticated question about Social Security reform. They have realized, after reading Martin Feldstein or other sources, that in the long run a pay-as-you-go system can offer retirees a rate of return equal only to the rate of economic growth (work force growth plus productivity growth). Meanwhile, even risk-free investments offer a higher rate of return. Doesn't this mean that pay-as-you-go retirement systems are inherently inferior, and that we should privatize on simple efficiency grounds?

It can seem like a compelling argument. But it turns out that there is a catch - roughly a $3 trillion catch. And the deliberate efforts of would-be privatizers of Social Security to hide that catch in the fine print - not to mention their failure to take that fine print into account in other policy proposals - are what get me angry about this whole issue."

Krugman has stated in other columns that the tax cut, Iraq war and deficit make the transition costs of privatization a whole lot less doable.

Blame Bush. He *ed it up.

Rosebud

[sadiesworld]

108. What's a SS acount?

Not familiar with that particular beast.

[sadiesworld]

109. What's a SS acount?

Not familiar with that particular beast.

[Radius]

110. Deducted from your check

Part of your check goes to your social security account. The goverment tracks how much you pay in. Currently my understanding is that everyones payment goes into a pool.

Putting that entire pool into the market would be insane. However allowing people to choose to invest part of their pay-in would give people a chance to improve their benefit, and even fund those who are not part of a market linked plan.

Politically this is a mess, but at a personal choice level it makes some sense.

[sadiesworld]

115. In light of my double, misspelled post...

perhaps your condescension is warranted.

[Radius]

123. none meant, I assure you(NT)

[TahitiNut]

130. Yup. We saw that in 1998-2000, too.

When stocks are selling with P/E's over 35, you know folks are finding greater fools everywhere. Insane predation.

[Bo]

96. The great whore

only does what he is told

[Bo]

97. The Great Whore has no alternative

And the sheeple go along

[JDPriestly]

98. Delaying social security benefits

and privatizing social security will solve nothing. That is because, in addition to or in place of taking social security, baby boomers will begin to withdraw and live on their investments in annuities, 401(k)s, etc. and also start receiving pensions from the private and government employee pension funds. That could have a tremendous detrimental effect on the economy. There is no way around it. Older employees need to stay in the work force longer than in the past.

Some issues that need attention:

AGE DISCRIMINATION. This forces older people into early retirement. Employers lay older workers off (often to hire younger replacements) and then no other employer will hire the older worker. Penalties for age discrimination must be increased. Prohibiting age discrimination is not a kindness to older people. It is an economic necessity.

RIGID WORK SCHEDULES. When you get into your 60s, your friends begin to die, and you realize that you could die any day. You want to work because it gives life meaning, but you also want to be able to enjoy life a little. If seniors could work more flexible hours, they would likely work longer in terms of years and delay drawing on social security and on their savings and other investments.

OVERLY DEMANDING EFFICIENCY STANDARDS. Many employers rate younger employees as more productive than older employees because they think that younger employees grasp things more quickly and complete discrete tasks more quickly and easily. Those employers need to be reminded that the strengths of older employees -- experience in life, practiced judgment in making decisions, good work ethics, mature perspective and dependability -- make them just as productive in the long run.

UNWILLINGNESS TO TRAIN OLDER EMPLOYEES. Older employees should have the same right to be trained to do new jobs and learn new technology in the workplace as younger people. That is the only way that older employees can stay in the workplace. Employers should be rewarded for teaching older employees new skills.

It's late. I hope this is coherent.

[papau]

103. Great Post - great points!

:-)

[roseBudd]

106. I defer to Krugman

He is an ecopnomist I feel I can trust to lay it out on the table.

Social Security Scares
by Paul Krugman

The annual report of the Social Security system's trustees reveals a system in pretty good financial shape. In fact, it would take only modest injections of money to maintain that system's current benefit levels for at least the next 75 years. Other reports, however, appear to portray a system in deep financial trouble. For example, a 2002 Treasury study, described on Tuesday in The New York Times, claims that Social Security and Medicare are $44 trillion in the red. What's the truth? ...

The biggest risk now facing Social Security is political. Will those who hate the system use scare tactics and fuzzy math to bring it down? ...

After Alan Greenspan's call for cuts in Social Security benefits, Republican members of Congress declared that the answer is to create private retirement accounts. It's amazing that they are still peddling this snake oil; it's even more amazing that journalists continue to let them get away with it...

Should we consider modest reforms that reduce the expenses or widen the revenue base of Social Security? Sure. But beware of those who claim that we must destroy the system in order to save it.


http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0305-04.htm

Rosebud

[roseBudd]

111. the so-called "Ownership Society"

http://www.yuricareport.com/Campaign2004/BushAdLaudsOwnershipSociety.html

Bush's Own Goal

...But there's a political imperative behind the "ownership society" theme: the need to provide pseudopopulist cover to policies that are, in reality, highly elitist.

The Bush tax cuts have, of course, heavily favored the very, very well off. But they have also, more specifically, favored unearned income over earned income - or, if you prefer, investment returns over wages. ..

The political problem with a policy favoring investment returns over wages is that a vast majority of Americans derive their income primarily from wages, and that the bulk of investment income goes to a small elite. How, then, can such a policy be sold? By promising that everyone can join the elite...

Four years ago, Mr. Bush got a free pass from the press on his Social Security "plan," either because reporters didn't understand the arithmetic, or because they assumed that after the election he would come up with a plan that actually added up. Will the same thing happen again? Let's hope not.

As Mr. Bush has said: "Fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - can't get fooled again."



Rosebud

[papau]

113. Thanks for posting those Articles - Krugman is a good kid & and it is

good to see the message is out there in some other form besides my rambling rants!

:toast:

:)

[TahitiNut]

127. Very good. I'm glad to see other than Kool-Aid here. Let me ALSO say ...

... that "Social Security" is the most prominent economic program that actually relies on recognizing and realizing the increased value of labor instead of merely the exploitation of labor.

What do I mean?

The source of funds for Social Security come from earned income such as wages and salaries, not investment income. (Yes, it's inequitable that income from labor is taxed at rates twice as high as income from ownership, but that's not quite the point here.)

Corporations are wealth redistribution machines. They take the wealth generated by labor and distribute a share to owners and a share to labor. Labor gets the lesser share. Right now, it's about 2::1 ... with 'ownership' taking a share about twice as large as labor. The ownership share is variously disguised and called 'growth,' 'dividends,' 'retained earnings,' 'amortization of goodwill,' or 'market value.'

Largely because of the ways in which corporations currently redistribute wealth in the US, along with the ways in which the expenses of the system which permits this being increasingly placed on the back of the working class, the Gini Index (which measures the inequity of the distribution of income) has gone from 0.32 thirty years ago to nearly 0.45 today. That puts us in the same class as banana republics - plantation economics.

Social Security relies on a valuing labor while the stock market relies on the ownership exploitation of labor. When we eliminate the only major "investment" in the earing power of labor and seduce people into cheering on the exploitation of that labor in order to further inflate the 'ownership share' (because that's what the privatization charade is all about), then those few who already own a wildly disproportionate share of the means of production will benefit even more disproportionately.

It's purely a game to make the rich even richer and the working class back-broken.

Social Security contributions are reduced any time fewer people are employed. (Workers in China or Bangladesh or India don't pay Social Security to American retirees.) There are currently nearly ten million fewer people employed than if the number employed continued to increase since the beginning of the Busholini Regime at the same average rate it has for the past 30-50 years.)

Social Security contributions are reduced any time people are paid less for their work. The number of people working part-time because they can't get full-time jobs has doubled during the Busholini regime. People are losing overtime pay. Hello?

If the minimum wage were increased, it would result in an immediate net increase in Social Security contributions. What does that tell anyone? Why is the minimum wage now at it's lowest in 40 years?

[ItsMyParty]

117. There's a simple way to solve this whole damn thing

Totally abolish SS. Totally abolish Medicare. Pass a federal law or constitutional amendment that requires all children to take care of their parents, uncles, aunts, etc. in their elder years....housing, food, medicines and medical care and put the children's houses, incomes, and belongings as things that can be confiscated to provide such help if necessary. This should be easy to do because it's what FAMILY VALUES is all about, isn't it, oh greedy children??? Hahahaha...god, talk about divine justice.......

[demgrrrll]

120. Well it is all part of the plan. I read an article about Rove. The

interviewer asked how he planned to cripple the Democratic party.
Essentially he is looking at who funds the Democratic party, the consensus was that unions, trial lawyers and federal employees tend to vote Democratic so they should be targeted. In the case of federal employees the analysis was that one would be beholden to the government if one was employed by the government, if one is employed by a corporation one would be loyal to the corporation and possibly become loyal to the Republican party. People of the Jewish faith fund the Democratic party so Middle East policy would have to be tailored to split them from the Democratic party. If people depend on
Social Security and Medicare rather than business they tend to see those programs as being more geared to the Democrats and if they privatize SS and Medicare the population will become more dependent on business which leads to votes for Republicans. This was their goal when they elbowed their way into the White House, the goal remains the same and they want four more years to finish the job. They want to cripple people who donate to the Democratic party and dry up programs that make people think well of or feel are part of Democratic policy. That is from memory and it is hard for me to remember exactly where or who wrote this, I read things quickly and then forget who wrote what.

[lovuian]

118. If they take Social Security away from Americans

They will storm the Bastille

[neverborn]

119. Eliminate SS in my mind...