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

[MJ]

B_S,

I couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks

John,
I am a simple person and I am not as eloquent as some on this board. I certainly don't profess to belong to Mensa like you but you always seem to either generalize or just give knee jerking responses. Perhaps as anERer, you don't feel like putting in more effort (work) in your responses.

Again, I am not say that the "rich" (& powerful) are bad bad bad and guvment is good good good. They are made up of people that both are good and bad. Mostly good I hope. "We" the people have to make sure "they" (the powerful and the govern't) follow the social rules that are beneficial to society as a whole.

MJ

[Martha]

More thoughts of Social Security "reform". I understand there has been some talk about different eligibilty dates based on sex and color. For example, women as a group live longer so they should start collecting social security later. If you are black, you are likely to have a shorter lifespan so maybe they should start collecting social security sooner. It sounds like a divide and conquer strategy to me.

If this philosophy is followed, then smokers and other people with health problems which shorten their life span should collect social security earlier because of their shorter life span.

A concern I have about the continued raising of the eligibility age is that I think there might be a wide variation in the ability of people to work past age 65. It might depend on the type of work you do, such as manual labor vs a desk job. Changing the type of work you do late in life is tough because of age discrimination. Are people going to be working themselves to death?

This is supposition on my part. Anyone know any facts relating to these issues?

Hello Martha. I also heard the idea floated about the
variation of benefits, based on sex, race, etc. Just more
bureaucratic nuttiness. Don't bother listening to this stuff. The inmates are in charge of the asylum and Nurse Ratchet and her minions can not ragain control.
We can debate here all we want. Purely an academic exercise.

JG

[Eagle43]

Just saw GWB at his press conference. He promised to go around the country and try to put pressure on Congress to address ss reform. His talking points: The numbers are there making it necessary. A 20-year old will have a lot less unless something is done. Also, it is best to address a problem before the train wreck. I believe there are 77 million baby boomers coming down the pike. These boomers have no reluctance to demand what they want and you can be sure they will want social security and medicare. The other point is present-day seniors have no change coming.

You do know that GWB could just sit tight and ride out his second term. He doesn't have to grab this issue which is always divisive. The Dems will raise hell, cause they believe that this is an FDR program which is sacred.

Whether or not his solution is THE solution remains to be seen.

BTW, Bush looks a lot more confident since the election. Wonder why?

"W" was always confident, which I find very appealing.
Alas, many of his ideas (including on SS) are crap.


JG

What you see as confidence I see as arrogance and ignorance. 'W' has made one mistake after another, and never meets his goals for the country (except getting elected). I can't imagine anything happening in Iraq (even civil war) that would cause him to admit that it was a mistake, a squandering of 'the peoples' money. Then there is the budget! Another $80B for Iraq. And even larger deficits for this year (he's always underperforming). It's not surprising that he was never successful at business.

Now we're going to 'free the world'! (remember Mars?) I don't trust this man with our military, or our money. I hope he does nothing for the next 4 years. He's demonstrated an ability to make problems worse.

[Eagle43]

Here's a link to an article in NY Times this a.m. The title is: "Chile's Retirees Find Shortfall in Private Plan"

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/27/bu...?oref=login&th

You might have to register to use the link. The article's gist is contained in this direct quote:
QUOTE
"Rather than finance pensions through a system to which workers, employers and the government all contributed, millions of people began to pay 10 percent of their salaries to private investment accounts that they controlled.

Under the Chilean program - which President Bush has cited as a model for his plans to overhaul Social Security - the promise was that such investments, by helping to spur economic growth and generating higher returns, would deliver monthly pension benefits larger than what the traditional system could offer.

But now that the first generation of workers to depend on the new system is beginning to retire, Chileans are finding that it is falling far short of what was originally advertised under the authoritarian government of Gen. Augusto Pinochet."
UNQUOTE

This is strange. I have always heard that Chile's program was a success. Anybody heard any different before today?

[Hyperborea]

This is strange. *I have always heard that Chile's program was a success. *Anybody heard any different before today?

Yes. I recently half-read economist John Kay's book Culture and Prosperity (I didn't have time to finish it and the library had a waiting list for it - I'm getting it back this weekend to finish it) and he mentions this in the first half. He said that Chile's "success" was touted without any measurable evidence except for having implemented the changes imposed by the Chicago school wonks. The touting was generally done by Republican writers with an axe to grind. After I get the book back I'll see if there's any more info.

JG and Eagle,

Re: "W" was always confident, which I find very appealing.
Alas, many of his ideas (including on SS) are crap.


It's pretty easy to be confident when your level of understanding is so low. I honestly believe he's of the "ignorance is bliss" mold. By the way I find this very unappealing. I prefer the more "intelligent" type that analyzes the situation based on the facts and acts accordingly as opposed to the ideolog that predetermines his position and modifies the "facts" to justify it. One of the reasons that GW's ideas are crap.




Regards,
RBC

Hi RBC. Just for fun, how about posting an example
of an "intelligent" politician, by your definition?

JG

[haha]

Hi RBC. *Just for fun, how about posting an example
of an "intelligent" politician, by your definition?

JG

Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, TR, Coolidge, FDR, Truman, Dwight Eisenhower. These guys all dealt with happening times, and made our country. Admit that silent Cal is an outlier.

Mikey

[Nords]

Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, TR, Coolidge, FDR, Truman, Dwight Eisenhower. These guys all dealt with happening times, and made our country.

And every one of them was vilified in their contemporary media on almost a daily basis. Years of historical debate was required to validate the "intelligent" concensus.

But it's kinda hard to imagine an "intelligent validation" happening with George, George W., Jeb, or Ned...

[charlie]

Isn't it interesting that TR took us to war against
Spain. I bet the press had a conniption fit.

Cheers,

Charlie

Isn't it interesting that TR took us to war against
Spain. *I bet the press had a conniption fit. *

Cheers,

Charlie

Not too interesting to me, because it was before my time. Not sure what your point is here. Are you against a free press or just freedom in general?

You cons say you like freedom, until someone starts practicing it. There are plenty of countries in the world that restrict freedoms. Go move there and be happy!

[Zipper]

It is pretty obvious that chuck worships GW's balls!

Give him a couple of months to come around. Oh! Oh! What have we done?

[charlie]

At least GW has balls ..... more than I can say for
most pointy heads on the left.

Hey, CT .... you forgot the smiley. I like it
here. Don't want to retreat to Canada like
some on this forum.

Cheers,

Charlie

Isn't it interesting that TR took us to war against
Spain. I bet the press had a conniption fit.

Cheers, Charlie

Chuck the Ball-Worshiper is typical of those he worships.TR didnt take us to war against Spain. It was Mckinley. And the press didnt have a conniption, they were all for it. In fact it was WR Hurst et al who started the war. WR Husrt famous quote to his field artist "on scene " in Cuba, (didnt have field photographers in those days I guess) when the picture man said there was no war here. Hurst said You furnish the pictures. I'll furnish the war I guess that's an early version of Fox News?

Now, if "W" wanted to be like TR he'd saddle up and actually go into battle and kill some people and maybe put himself at some risk too. But he had his chance and joined the TX National Guard instead. (On paper, anyway)

Boys, boys..................let's be cool and engage in
civilized discourse if possible. First, I confess that when
I made my "intelligent politician" comment I was thinking
mostly of contemporary politicians. Obviously there
were some highly intelligent individuals involved in the
founding (and running) of the country early on.
But.............I see a difference. Those folks (Washington,
Jefferson, Adams, et al) were not career politicians.
They answered the call of their fellow countrymen, at great
personal sacrifice. Today, we have a whole collection of
people for whom politics is their whole life. Alas,
many couldn't find their ass with both hands

JG

Boys, boys..................let's be cool and engage in
civilized discourse if possible. *First, I confess that when
I made my "intelligent politician" comment I was thinking
mostly of contemporary politicians. *Obviously there
were some highly intelligent individuals involved in the
founding (and running) of the country early on.
But.............I see a difference. *Those folks (Washington,
Jefferson, Adams, et al) were not career politicians.
They answered the call of their fellow countrymen, at great
personal sacrifice. *Today, we have a whole collection of
people for whom politics is their whole life. *Alas,
many couldn't find their ass with both hands *

JG

John,

I don't think so. - This is mostly wishful thinking on your part.

People are people and that has not changed. People hated Lincoln in the 1860's more than you hate Hillary Clinton today. Heck, they killed him! - He stood against their livelihood. Cheap Labor in the form of Slaves.

Not much different today.

JG et al.,

How's this list of recent intelligent presidents:

JFK, Nixon, Carter, yes and even Clinton the balance of the recent ones had next to nothing in terms of brain power. Now you can debate whether each of the above used their intelligence wisely or not but at least they were so endowed.

In former times (generally considered before the reagan years) intelligence mattered since we still had a representative government. Election was based on the individual representing the best interests of the country, not in promoting some personal agenda or predetermined ideology. In the current world of lies, deceipt, and spin we get W. I fear we are probably doomed for more of the same in the future unless we as a nation somehow learn to become critical thinkers. It would probably help if the people would turn off their tv's and AM radio's and start reading again)

Of the others mentioned earlier I believe Washington was considered to be a bit "slow".


Regards,
RBC