Social Security Reform - Today's News............

[sgeeeee]

Hi MJ. *You are right about the "generalities". *Guilty
as charged. *But, my point was sincere. *BTW, class
envy is very unattractive. *Soaking the rich is not the answer.

JG

John,

You are a complete hypocrite. The rich pass laws and avoid paying their share. Someone points this out and you say, "Soaking the rich is not the answer."

But when those of us in the middle class support legislation that would allow us to pay less (only our share and not the share of the wealthy too), you say, "class envy is unattractive." How is it that our efforts to affect tax/benefit systems is unattractive but the efforts of the wealthy elite is okay?

Being a lackey for the wealthy Republicans in power today is unattractive.

[farmerEd]

When has Bush done ANYTHING that even slightly resembles getting the government out of peoples lives? If anything, since Bush has been elected, and 9/11 and then the patriot act he has done the exact opposite;

Big government is Everywhere and the Republicans are cheering its rapid growth on faster than any other administration in history. Racking multi-trillion defecits does not "get govt out of your lives". In fact, it pretty much guarantees that its going to be picking your pockets even harder in the years to come...the patriot act does not "get government out of your lives"...have any of you who think bush is a "small government" proponent bothered to read some of the provisions of the patriot act?

If Clinton or any other democrat had attempted to pass even 1/4 of the provisions in the patriot act, or deficit spent even 1/2 of what bush has done, all the nut-job right wingers would be stockpiling weapons, food, beer and cigarettes and scanning the skys for the black helicopters....bush is doing much, much worse for individual freedom than any previous president and these same nutjobs are standing out like morons waving the american flags and proclaiming how great bush is.....

I guess Karly Rove really is a political genius

[unclemick]

In the 1970's - freeze dryed food was a biggie.

The smaller versions - I loved when back packing.

[RAE]

Farmer Ed - I agree completely that individual freedoms have taken a bit hit in this administration, so in that sense you are absolutely right, govt. is more involved and controlling in our lives than ever. I was referring more to W's disdain for govt. regulation of industry, govt. involvement in health care, his penchant for contracting out work traditionally performed by govt. employees, etc. I work in the natural resources/environmental field, and believe me, since the day he took office, W has been doing whatever he can to dismantle environmental laws and regulations to make it easier for corporate America to do their thing, with minimal govt. "interference". Now, you may agree or disagree with this philosophy (I happen to disagree strongly with it), but there is no dispute that it is occurring. I could cite many examples, as I work with this stuff every day.

I see his push to privatize SS as within this same general theme of minimizing the role of govt.. I really do not think he is under any illusion that privatization will fix the long-term problems of SS (and it won't).....it simply fits better with his general philosophy of the role of govt..

RAE

[haha]

Farmer Ed - I agree completely that individual freedoms have taken a bit hit in this administration, so in that sense you are absolutely right, govt. is more involved and controlling in our lives than ever. *I was referring more to W's disdain for govt. regulation of industry, govt. involvement in health care, his penchant for contracting out work traditionally performed by govt. employees, etc. *I work in the natural resources/environmental field, and believe me, since the day he took office, W has been doing whatever he can to dismantle environmental laws and regulations to make it easier for corporate America to do their thing, with minimal govt. "interference". *Now, you may agree or disagree with this philosophy (I happen to disagree strongly with it), but there is no dispute that it is occurring. *I could cite many examples, as I work with this stuff every day.

I see his push to privatize SS as within this same general theme of minimizing the role of govt.. *I really do not think he is under any illusion that privatization will fix the long-term problems of SS (and it won't).....it simply fits better with his general philosophy of the role of govt..
RAE

RAE, I see the same facts- increased control of the population, decreased environmental, health, OSHA oversight- but I see a different motivation behind it.

Bush is a simple old fashioned oligarch. His plan to use government power to advance the issues sponsored by favored industries. I suppose these industries in turn direct some of that flow back to Bush and the political class that are doing their bidding. In an era less facile with spin, this was called fascism

Mikey

Wow! salaryguru......................more "rich bashing".
Not good, not good! I always defend the rich. There is
no hypocrisy there as I am not rich and never will be. The rich can't hurt me. The government can.
It's that simple. Whatever the government does with
SS, I fully expect they will screw it up. That alone causes
me to advocate a hands-off approach. As for Bush, I think he is just awful, except for the alternatives
in the Democratic Party.

JG

[amt]

If someone came to this forum and admitted that they have not yet saved enough to retire yet, and that they were getting close to needing to retire, and asked if it would be a good idea to borrow some money and it invest that borrowed money in the stock market to see if they could make up for the savings shortfall, I wonder how many people here would support that "plan"? Probably not many...when it comes right down to it, that is what Bush's plan is...

Absolutely a great plan, IF you can borrow at 2% or less (the rate the govt social security is paying), and the time horizon for investment is 40-45 years. Would you rather take 2% interest in that situation? That's what our current Democrats' favorite status quo is doing for us.

Absolutely a great plan, IF you can borrow at 2% or less (the rate the govt social security is paying), and the time horizon for investment is 40-45 years. *Would you rather take 2% interest in that situation? *That's what our current Democrats' favorite status quo is doing for us.

Why don't you pose this question to those that lost 80-100% of their next egg on the Dot Com Bubble a few years ago. My guess is that they would be happy with a guarenteed 2%.

We already have the option of investing our own private accounts in the Stock Market. SS is not meant for that.

[amt]

Why don't you pose this question to those that lost 80-100% of their next egg on the Dot Com Bubble a few years ago. My guess is that they would be happy with a guarenteed 2%.

We already have the option of investing our own private accounts in the Stock Market. SS is not meant for that.

1. Who said we should have investment options in SS private accts to include dot-com like stock picking/gambling? It should be based on INDEX funds modeled after Federal Employee Retirement System. Ask Galveston and Brazoria County (TX) public employees who will assure you that opting out of the SS system was the best thing happened to their retirement planning.

2. If you reread my post, I was saying 40-45 yr time horizon, not 3 yrs (2000-2003).

3. SS is not meant for that?? Who are you or anyone else or the govt to decide what SS or anything else means for me as an individual? That's the calssic socialitst/liberal thinking.

Hey amt, you should be careful about challenging Cut-Throat. He may be a liberal, but he's a thinker and so
deserves some respect. You can pick on me if you wish
as I am mostly impervious to slings and arrows. Pay more attention to your spelling and syntax please

JG

[MJ]

The rich can't hurt me. The government can.

You are wrong, the rich CAN hurt you and have done so to many people.

It is the government that will be giving you and your DW your future SS payments and medicare (by way of forced contribution, yes I know) NOT the rich who would love to scrap it all and have us work til we drop while they enjoy the fruits of our labor.
I guess you like cutting your on throat. No pun intended.

MJ

The rich can't hurt anybody? If you want to know just how malignant and inherently antithetical to the public's interests they can be, read Wealth of Nations

The whole purpose of modern, enlightened, "Jeffersonian-style" government is to protect The People from The Rich. You're thinking of Feudalism.

[Hyperborea]

1. *Who said we should have investment options in SS private accts to include dot-com like stock picking/gambling? *It should be based on INDEX funds modeled after Federal Employee Retirement System.

If the point is to "goose" the returns then why not pool the money and invest it in aggregate much as private pensions do? This should bring all of the benefits of bigger returns and getting the surplus fund out of those unsafe US government bonds (do the Republicans know something that we should know?) with the added benefits of lower costs with more balanced allocations. Many investors in 401ks will put equal amounts in every option available or chase last year's best performing option or plenty of other stupid things When this happens to "individual investment accounts" society 30 years from now is going to have to spend a lot more again to take care of these people. As many have said the biggest benefit of Social Security is that it is a "guaranteed" amount that provides a stable safety net for retirement.

3. *SS is not meant for that?? *Who are you or anyone else or the govt to decide what SS or anything else means for me as an individual? *That's the calssic socialitst/liberal thinking.

This is much like society sets bounds on you as an individual in how fast you can drive your car, what you have to tell investors in your company, what chemicals you can put in baby food, and many more. Even if your personal definition of baby food includes lots of dioxin society won't let you sell it as such. If you want an existence unfettered by the duties and subsequent benefits of civil society then perhaps you and John Galt can go and set yourself up an island somewhere else? Of course, you'll have to return all the benefits you've accrued over the years from being a member of society. Also, if you and John Galt make any decisions between the two of you on use of the fresh water on the island or sharing the workload then realize that you've just put yourself back on the path to a society of laws and rules.

[Zipper]

Look no further than the Canada Pension Plan, Hyper.

They've got their act together.

My gosh, I leave my keyboard for a little while and what
do I find upon my return? More whining and
"rich bashing". MJ and WR, suck it up and get a
life. You will enjoy life more if you stop blaming rich
people for your (or others) problems. Life is not fair.
Just deal with it.

JG

[Bob_Smith]

My gosh, I leave my keyboard for a little while and what do I find upon my return? *More whining and "rich bashing". *MJ and WR, suck it up and get a life. *You will enjoy life more if you stop blaming rich people for your (or others) problems. *Life is not fair. Just deal with it.

JG *

John, you misread MJ's post. He didn't say that HE had a problem. He just said GW, and his corporate sponsors, would scrap SS and Medicare if they could.

As far as just rolling over and accepting whatever life dishes out... c'mon John. That's terrible advice! Where's your moxie? This country was built on grit, determination and guts. What if our ancestors had bought into the wimpiness you're espousing here? If they had let the big guys walk all over them, we'd be British subjects, or speaking German or Japanese. If there is a wuss here who needs to "suck it up", it certainly isn't MJ. He sounds like a stand-up guy to me.

on Today at 10:17pm, John Galt wrote:My gosh, I leave my keyboard for a little while and what do I find upon my return? More whining and "rich bashing". MJ and WR, suck it up and get a life. You will enjoy life more if you stop blaming rich people for your (or others) problems. Life is not fair. Just deal with it. JG

Its not whining and rich bashing, its observations of fact. I dont need to suck anything up. I'm retired. I been there since 37. There has never been any blaming of rich people for my or any other problems. Only observations of facts. I'm retired and I dont have to live off my my wife to do it either. JG get a life and an education. You might not be as happy though since then you'll know something. You might even have to read what other poeple actually write.

As far as life not being fair.. That's right. And that is no excuse to NOT get as fair a deal as one can. Make it as far as can be. Not fair? So what? Maybe you like to give up.....

[sgeeeee]

Wow! *salaryguru......................more "rich bashing".
Not good, not good! *I always defend the rich. *There is
no hypocrisy there as I am not rich and never will be. *The rich can't hurt me. *The government can.
It's that simple. *Whatever the government does with
SS, I fully expect they will screw it up. *That alone causes
me to advocate a hands-off approach. *As for Bush, I think he is just awful, except for the alternatives
in the Democratic Party.

JG

John,

You read so carelessly that you missed the whole point of the post . . . or is it just easier to pretend that my most recent post was rich bashing as opposed to being about your knee-jerk, unjustified support of the wealthy -- regardless of the facts?

[sgeeeee]

Seriously, I neither dislike nor envy the rich. Most people in this country probably consider me one of them.

But I also don't worship the rich. And I certainly don't believe that simply because some of them want another tax break that it is in the best interest of the country to grant it to them.

When I look at the growing gap between rich and poor as well as the growing national deficit, it's hard for me to understand why a rational person would think that granting the rich additional tax breaks is a good thing.

[Martha]

I am still working. Our income puts us in the highest tax bracket. I am willing to pay more in social security taxes to help preserve the system. I am willing to pay more taxes to cover basic health care for all.

I believe this way because I think it is the right thing to do. It is shameful to me in a country with all our riches that we can be so stingy with our own.