Re: PRIVATIZATION: The boogey man will get you, IF

I suppose you'd like the same sort of logic applied to your military pension also? From what I understand Military pensions and Healthcare are suffering the same problems. It all comes out of the same Pot.

Social Security is an Insurance program, not a retirement program!

Heck I'd your logic applied to my homeowners insurance, Car insurance, unemployment insurance.

BTW - We already have private accounts - They're called IRA's, 401K's etc. etc.

[MRGALT2U]

I am old enough so that my benefits are pretty well known. I also agree that it is irony that someone as
anti-government and ultra conservative as I am
would need SS as the centerpiece of his retirement.

That said, I am interested at the number of left leaning
folks that tell me the "Bush plan" is to destroy SS.
And, they attribute all sorts of sinister motives and
conspiracy theories to support this. I don't agree.
Bush is not a deep thinker. Most of the stuff he comes up with that seems just nutty is probably due to this
lack of vision, not ulterior motives (like destroying SS).
I think he really is committed to this stuff (sincerely)
but doesn't see the big (long term?) picture in many cases. Anyone else feel this way? The "He's out to destroy the system because FDR thought it up and the
the Republicans
think it's socialism" theory doesn't do it for me.

JG

Quote:

Great programs -- work great!! Have taken the place of pensions for many... Gee; using that logic, private accounts plus disability insurance might just work great... Hmmmmm... Is that what you had in mind??

Exactly! - If the private accounts become disabled because the investments tank, then the masses will still have their Social Security, so they don't have to stand in soup lines like they did in 1932 under Herbert Hoover.

[whitestick]

I guess what I don't understand is, that if privatization for the purpose of putting "my" money into a faster growing return on investment is the "saviour" of the SS system, then why cannot the gummint, with all of their experts pointing this out, do the same. Wouldn't that have the same effect, except you apply the mass of paid experts, research, and extensive resources to generating this extra wealth -- oh right, I forgot, in a fair and open market, there have to be losers, to match the winners, and of course, if the gummint were the winner, then who would be the offsetting loser? Must be the ones that are currently promoting this trainwreck, so they will be the winners, and the collective "we" will be the losers.
Am I missing somthing here?

[Berkshire_Bull]

I trust the government as long as Bush is Pres. and we have Mr. Frist and Mr. Hastert in charge of the Senate and House, respectivelly. I regret that someday when we have Pelosi, Boxer, Dean, Kennedy and company running the show, the government will find another way to screw us and take your money. As long as SS money would remain in a government account, it would be easier to pass tax-law mischif than would accounts at private firms. I think any SS money paid is as good as gone, the WORST thing we could do would be to agree to a higher tax to bail out this system. Accumulate your money and quit working so you don't have to pay anymore, it's the only way to blow that popsicle stand.

[sgeeeee]

Quote:

. . . That said, I am interested at the number of left leaning folks that tell me the "Bush plan" is to destroy SS. And, they attribute all sorts of sinister motives and conspiracy theories to support this. *I don't agree. Bush is not a deep thinker. *Most of the stuff he comes up with that seems just nutty is probably due to this lack of vision, not ulterior motives (like destroying SS). I think he really is committed to this stuff (sincerely) but doesn't see the big (long term?) picture in many cases. *Anyone else feel this way? *The "He's out to destroy the system because FDR thought it up and the the Republicans think it's socialism" *theory doesn't do it for me. JG

But that's because you are too arrogant to read and study politics, John. You think you already know everything so you don't follow the right-wing think-tank white papers and the stuff that doesn't make it to prime-time TV. Dick Cheny, Bill Crystal, . . . and company have been plotting the demise of social security and writing about how to accomplish it for years. Bush may or may not be smart enough to know what he's backing, but the people who are pulling his strings have an agenda that includes eliminating social security, creating political chaos in the Mideast, etc.

[MRGALT2U]

I doubt it. Too alarmist.

Quote:

I trust the government as long as Bush is Pres. and we have Mr. Frist and Mr. Hastert in charge of the Senate and House, respectivelly. *I regret that someday when we have Pelosi, Boxer, Dean, Kennedy and company running the show, the government will find another way to screw us and take your money.

Now this would be really funny if it wasn't so sad! - You actually believe that the federal budget has been 'taken care' of in the last 4 years?

Quote:

the WORST thing we could do would be to agree to a higher tax to bail out this system.

Really? - Where do you think that the moneys is going to come from to bail out the debt that the Bush and the GOP Congress is racking up? - The tooth fairy.

Quote:

?? The masses in line weren't necessarily retirees or disabled... just hungry... SS wouldn't have helped most of them, since they wouldn't have qualified simply because their private accounts became 'disabled'... A similar depression today would lead to similar results -- only the private charities providing the soup would probably be harder to find. There's NO telling how those of us receiving gov't checks would fair, but we just might need firearms to keep our soup... *

You are enough of a student of history to understand that the depression is what caused Social Security to be enacted in the first place - right?

Your attitudes are not new, and all you have to do is study history to see how they are being repeated.

Your solution of having firearms is a typical simple solution to a complex problem that won't work.

Quote:

the government doesn't respond President Hoover and other politicians believed that free enterprise, individual charity, and hard work would bring us out of the Depression. Direct federal assistance was evil, and would stifle the self-reliance that Americans were famous for. The government tended to ignore the problems of the Depression....in fact, some politicians arrogantly believed that hard times were good for us. "Too much prosperity ruins the fiber of the people." --Dwight Morrow Hoover insisted that the Red Cross and other private charities take up the burden of helping the poor. The task was overwhelming, and became nearly impossible when the federal government withheld funding.

[unclemick]

My favorite was the Council of Churches in 1969 Seattle feeding 78,000 people a week in soup kitchens because there "was no problem". Kobe Japan(sister city) had little kids putting together their version of Care packages.

Magnuson/Jackson reading into the Congressional Record and garnering Media coverage helped turn things around.

"Will the last person leaving Seattle please turn out the lights."

Heh, heh, heh, heh! I left - for Denver.

[MRGALT2U]

Hello C-T. I picked up on your "tooth fairy" comment.
There is another way. It's called "cutting expenses".
Businesses do it. Maybe you've heard of it?

As usual I have the answer. Won't happen. Federal government (spending) will continue to grow out of control with only brief respites............... forever. That's my
prediction. All of you kiddies remember what ol'
"Uncle John" told you this morning. You should be able to remember the date.

JG

[sgeeeee]

Quote:

I doubt it. *Too alarmist.

Again, you're arrogance keeps you ignorant of the facts. The white papers exist and with a little effort, you can find them. Doubt all you want. It won't change the agenda of this administration and it won't change the fact that they have been completely irrisponsible fiscally.

[fletzie]

ALthough I am new to this forum I want to add my 2 cents to this on SS because in a class I am taking I learned somethings yesterday about this topic:

First of all, as someone said earlier, it all comes out of the same 'pot' and that is true.

Current debt figures are around 7.3 TR (trillion) and
of that 4 TR is in marketable debt (there are securities of one sort or another that can be bought and sold to manipulate the debt and the 'real' money in the economy). This is all further complicated by the currency exchange rates and who is buying our 'debt'.

Each year the Treasury pays around 450 BN (billion)
to cover JUST THE INTEREST on the debt. What does that interest mean? It is the interest paid to the investors in the government securities! Recently the government 'called back' some of the older securities with high interest rates issued in the 80's. But to do this
they have to be able to pay not only the interest but also the principal.

When enough securities are not sold to provide for that interest only payment, the Fed and Govt agencies 'borrow' out of any monies elsewhere in the system (including the SS trust fund) to pay that debt interest and hopefully some of the capital. To me that sounds like my going around to every relative who will lend me money when I can't pay the mortgage!

Currently Medicare and Medicaid are in worse shape fiscally that SS. And of course that all links to the general costs of healthcare (not the cost of groceries and rent and stuff like that that one thinks of the general SS collector using their monies for). Who benefits from the rise in healthcare costs

Very, very smart people are manipulating the debt to real money ratio every day. The US government securities market is the largest market in the world...way bigger than Wall Street. Our tax monies go into that mix to pay for whatever the government buys and sells.

As someone earlier said, then, I don't understand why the government can't find a way to protect SS as an insurance plan if it has all those people experienced in high finance.

There are people who sincerely believe that if you invest in the Stock Market in any fashion (including mutual funds, etc.) that they will make more $$$. However, not everyone who contributes to SS has that sort of business knowledge or time...(eg - see commercials on why people don't use TD Waterhouse!).

So, when you create another managed fund for this private investment the people in the long run who make the most off it are the people who MANAGE the investments, 10 or 15% at a time. I don't think you really have all that much control over your investments unless you watch them day and night 24/7 like those people are paid to do. I just don't think the majority of the people who might opt for private accounts are going to be able to manage them, themselves. And I fear that all the hype aboput how they are going to solve the problem will make people NOT sophisticated enough to manage them, opt for them just on the idea of 'I am keeping MY $$ out of the government's hands".

Since current SS is being paid out of current wages and not from what has been 'invested' people get scared when they see the workforce (or us boomers) going down in numbers. There are other ways to put the people back into the working and paying taxes mode that will save SS. I don't see what is wrong with raising the dollar level on which SS is collected. After all, when we do the math, each and every person who has drawn social security to date will eventually on the average would be entitles to withdraw MORE than they ever contributed. SO every time an interest rate jumps one way or the other and every time ANY entitlement program gets a COLA increase that withdrawal rate icnreases over the contribution rate unless something
is done to offset that.

I do think there are people who have looked more closely at the far range impact of the private accounts that Mr. Bush. I don't care for him generally because I don't think the IRAQ war is a 'just' war, but that is a topic for another time or place.

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Quote:

FDR's presidency which then caused Pearl Harbor.

Not to sidetrack this healthy discussion, but there is significant evidence to support the idea that FDR's administration allowed the Japanese aggression at pearl harbor. The administration at the time recognized the threat posed by the Nazis but knew gross public sentiment was leaning towards the conservative 'let other countries mind themselves'. Realizing that only a preemptive strike against our interests would change that mindset and allow FDR to enter the war in Europe.

Based on the evidence available, either we knew something was going to happen at Pearl well in advance, or hundreds of people involved were complete nincompoops and hopeless boobs. I dont think they had any idea that it would be as major an attack as it was, but...

Of course, this is just opinion...I guess nobody really knows...

As far as social security, well it'd be solvent if not for all the unbridled borrowing and crazy spending. What happens in the end we wont really know for sure. All I can say is that I doubt it'll be in the best interest of the average joe who has pumped money into this hole in the ground for a large part of their lives. Just like I dont expect to ever see a check from the SS administration. I'm more hoping they dont find a way to send me another bill to pay.

[Martha]

Quote:

I suppose the depression caused SS in the same sense as it caused FDR's presidency which then caused Pearl Harbor. In the same sense that 9/11 caused the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; the National Security Act; some significant deficit spending; re-election of Bush; etc... If you're implying that SS led to the recovery from the depression OR that having it 60 years prior to the depression would have somehow prevented it -- well that's definitely debatable. Ahhh the whatifffs...

Or the Depression caused us to care enough about the suffering of the elderly to enable the enactment of SS.

Quote:

I suppose the depression caused SS in the same sense as it caused FDR's presidency which then caused Pearl Harbor. In the same sense that 9/11 caused the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; the National Security Act; some significant deficit spending; re-election of Bush; etc... If you're implying that SS led to the recovery from the depression OR that having it 60 years prior to the depression would have somehow prevented it -- well that's definitely debatable. Ahhh the whatifffs...

I was not talking whatifffs - I was talking facts. And as Martha Said the Great Depression took a toll on the nations elderly. And Social Security kept them alive.

There are a lot more serious issues for the president to be focused on right now than Social Security. Which is not a crisis, it is a slight problem. Of course if he continues to spend money on needless wars, the whole economy will be a Crisis.

Oil Shortages are a Crisis.

Medicare is a Crisis.

Deficeit Spending is a Crisis.

[sgeeeee]

Quote:

LOL -- AHHH, the arrogance and ignorance... The ARROGANCE of those who would label their OPINIONs as FACTs and then their ignorance to label those who disagree as IGNORANT... Verrry convincing to me...

Perhaps I should explain. John Galt regulary puts up posts explaining how he thinks he knows more than anyone else. He often reminds us of how smart he thinks he is. etc. (arrogance?) He also regularly tells us that he doesn't pay that much attention to political issues because he doesn't trust any politicians and he doesn't think he can do anything about it. He also reminds us that he doesn't even vote. (ignorance?)

Now, John has every right to hold these opinions and I suspect there is even some amount of accuracy in them. He seems very comfortable with those opinions and I have no reason to be concerned about John. But when he makes statements implying that he knows that the Bush administration isn't really trying to eliminate social security and passes off people who make such arguments as misguided left leaning alarmists . . . then I feel obligated to point out that he has no data at all -- only his arrogance and ignorance to base such an opinion on. While the "left leaning" types do have at least some specific writings (facts) of some of the people who are advising this administration to back up their opinions.

Of course, if you want to examine these facts, you will have to turn off FOXNews, get off the couch and dig a little in the library through some more academic Political Journals, but the facts are there.

But as for your specific comment:

Quote:

LOL -- AHHH, the arrogance and ignorance... The ARROGANCE of those who would label their OPINIONs as FACTs and then their ignorance to label those who disagree as IGNORANT... Verrry convincing to me...

Well . . . how can I argue with another informed opinion from the right?

[sgeeeee]

Quote:

Liberal to reality dictionary facts = opinion...

Is this statement a fact or only your opinion? And does that make you a liberal?

Quote:

And of course, ONLY your opinions are informed... Apparently JG isn't the only arrogant one....

Well . . . in this case, my comments were based on facts (existing writings). John's were based on . . . well, on nothing but his own uninformed (ignorant) opinions and his own faith in his superior intellect (arrogance).

Quote:

BTW: Just because 'someone' who provides 'advice' to an administration writes a paper doesn't equal the paper is 'administration policy' in any rational universe... BUTT you are entitled to YOUR opinions <facts?>

It is true, that complete proof of a connection between the opinions of chosen advisors and the intentions of this administration has not been demonstrated. Even the consistency between the policy recommended by these advisors and that enacted or pushed for by this administration does not accomplish concrete logical proof. People are free to assume that the goals of the administration are different from the people whose advice they request and pay for. They are free to assume that the consistency between the recommendations of the advisors and the administration are coincidence. Heck. . . people are free to assume that Republicans are always right and that anyone who disagrees with them is a left wing alarmist.

And I am free to point out that their opinion is not driven by the facts.

[Nords]

Quote:

Not to sidetrack this healthy discussion, but there is significant evidence to support the idea that FDR's administration allowed the Japanese aggression at pearl harbor. * Based on the evidence available, either we knew something was going to happen at Pearl well in advance, or hundreds of people involved were complete nincompoops and hopeless boobs.

Having read the Dorn Report and considering my last couple decades in the military, I'm gonna have to go with your latter conjecture as the root cause.

But here's the ultimate proof of my reasoning-- why else would Jerry Bruckheimer cast Dan Akroyd as a naval intelligence officer in the eponymous movie?

[cute fuzzy bunny]

You have a good point their Nords, including your fine example of the definition of 'oxymoron'

The two pieces of pearl harbor that made me narrow my eyes were the positive intelligence that the large carrier group had left japan heading roughly towards hawaii, and the navy ship that 'holed' a japanese mini-sub just outside the entrance to the main harbor many hours before the attack began. When the folks in charge queried washington on the presence of a japanese sub at the mouth of the harbor, they were told 'young captain, young crew, dont go on alert, ignore it'...

Somebody(s) were major chuckleheads...but I do believe that stupidity is usually a more likely cause of many problems than intention...

The rest of this discussion is starting to look familiar, except I'm not involved...