Social Security

[shadowsource]

They said all my life that the money wouldn't be there when I got older. And then the money was there, lots of it. And then the same people looted the treasury, so the money isn't there any more. Guess they were right all along, huh? Silly me.

 

[Todd]

They said all my life that the money wouldn't be there when I got older. And then the money was there, lots of it. And then the same people looted the treasury, so the money isn't there any more. Guess they were right all along, huh? Silly me.

Cause Social Security is a vote buying scam that both parties use against the other.

figure if you worked all your adult life until you start getting your social security, if you get Social security for 20 years I read {nope not on boortz he gives a higher return, not much but higher, at CNN} that you only get 2% of its net invested value what you have put into it. Guess who gets the other 98%. Nope not your roads, school, police services, good guess though.

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

I would be willing to let all my past contributions (substantial - I have been working for thirty years) go towards current comittments, and have no claim for future benefits - *IF* they let me take all future contributions (7.5% from me, 7.5% from my employer) and invest it as I see fit, even if it wasn't in a tax deferred package.

STG

 

[Bob Peale]

They said all my life that the money wouldn't be there when I got older. And then the money was there, lots of it. And then the same people looted the treasury, so the money isn't there any more. Guess they were right all along, huh? Silly me.

Anyone born in the last 30 years that considered Social Security a retirement plan should have been investing in oceanfront property in Arizona as a back up.

 

[miles]

I just love rhetoric, especially the lies about the s.s. "trust fund"
financing the tax cut.

Shadowsource will pay anyone $100 if they can find the trust fund in the budget or where the money is squirelled away. It doesn't exist. It's all an illusion, and the joke is on us.

 

[shadowsource]

Hey!

Shadowsource will pay anyone $100 if they can find the trust fund in the budget or where the money is squirelled away. It doesn't exist. It's all an illusion, and the joke is on us.

I just told you, Bushie gave it all away to his pals. I ain't spending a C note on your theory. I'm just saying the money WAS there, still is in fact, and the schmucks who said the government would never pay up are the very assholes who are now giving it away. I personally don't think the stock market's going to be worth shit for years to come (these things happen under all kinds of Administrations, but this one's gonna come up snake eyes). My money's earning money market crap anyway since March. That's why I like to think the SS will cough up my rent money someday (we have socialized rent controls in NYC, and I'm a winner!). And before some Georgian starts saying I don't know investing, stop. I've made nice money down there, even when the market was flat; I just think it's got a long way to fall. And winning in flat markets is, by nature, not a solution for masses of people.

 

[morninggirl5]

Re: Re: Social Security

Anyone born in the last 30 years that considered Social Security a retirement plan should have been investing in oceanfront property in Arizona as a back up.

You selling some Bob. It's obvious there are still some believers here who were planning their retirement based on Social Security.

 

[Laurel]

Re: Re: Social Security

Cause Social Security is a vote buying scam that both parties use against the other.

Yeah, a vote-buying scheme. Kinda like...promising a tax cut!

It'll be interesting to hear what the AARP has to say about it. Their members are the ones most affected by this. They'll probably say nothing, though, even if he cuts into Medicare AND Social Security. GWB cut military paychecks in hopes of funding Star Wars II and you don't hear a peep from the military. The same groups who were screaming bloody murder any time Clinton cut a dime are strangely silent. Liberal media, indeed.

Notice whenever Bush makes any kind of negative announcement lately, Condit pops back up in the news? Reports of his un-balanced budget come out, and the same day that stewardess announces she's suing Condit. What a coincidence!

 

[Todd]

Re: Re: Re: Social Security

Yeah, a vote-buying scheme. Kinda like...promising a tax cut!

Yup, Social Securtiy, Tax cuts, military, envcironment.

They are all vote buying schemes by BOTH parties. If either side really truely cared for any of the issues they would have been solved decades ago.

But if either side had of solved the issues/needs then they would have nothing to compaign on next term around, beside for themselves.

And we all know that Niether the big two paries has a single thing to offer with having an issue to spin on.

 

[WriterDom]

Re: Re: Re: Social Security

Right again, Laurel. The seniors have spoken

Nationwide Poll: Seniors Want Fundamental Social Security Reform


WASHINGTON, Aug. 22 /U.S. Newswire/ -- On the day that President Bush's Commission to Strengthen Social Security held hearings in Washington D.C., Charles W. Jarvis, Chairman and CEO of United Seniors Association released results of a national survey of adults over fifty years of age. The following are among the findings:

-- Senior Americans, in all age subgroups of men and women, are deeply concerned about the health and future of the Social Security system. While almost three quarters are confident they will receive their retirement benefits, 57 percent believe that their children and grandchildren will not.

-- An overwhelming majority, 84.4 percent of respondents, believe that personal retirement accounts are important to give their children and grandchildren a better retirement income with a higher rate of return on their investments.

-- 61 percent of Seniors are in favor of allowing workers under the age of 55 to have the option of placing a portion of their Social Security payroll taxes in a personal retirement account, provided current benefits are not cut as a result.

-- Over half of Senior Americans, 51.4 percent, say fundamental reforms are needed to keep Social Security solvent.

-- Senior Americans overwhelmingly oppose raising the minimum age they can receive Social Security benefits. 68.4 percent are opposed.

-- Senior Americans overwhelmingly oppose any effort by the government to make cuts to the cost of living adjustments on benefits. 78.3 percent are opposed.

-- 84.1 percent want Social Security funds locked away from other government spending. Senior Americans overwhelmingly disapprove of using the Social Security trust fund for spending on any other government program.

-- By a comparative margin of 37.1 percent to 28.1 percent, Senior Americans believe that Democrats in Congress do a better job of "Strengthening Social Security," than President Bush and the Republicans do.

-- 52.8 percent of Senior Americans approve of President Bush's income tax cuts, 38.8 percent disapprove.

The National Survey of Senior Americans was commissioned by United Seniors Association and conducted by McLaughlin & Associates. The poll was conducted over the weekend of August 18, 2001. Full survey results will be posted on www.unitedseniors.com Thursday August 23, 2001.

 

[miles]

shadow

I just told you, Bushie gave it all away to his pals. I ain't spending a C note on your theory. I'm just saying the money WAS there, still is in fact, and the schmucks who said the government would never pay up are the very assholes who are now giving it away. I personally don't think the stock market's going to be worth shit for years to come (these things happen under all kinds of Administrations, but this one's gonna come up snake eyes).


As usual, no facts, just political diarrhea. So predictable.

If you can't logically articulate your opinion, start yelling and screaming. Say it loud and often enough, and people will believe it.

Zeig heil.

 

[miles]

WriterDom

Some people hate facts. Sure got quiet in a hurry.

 

[Laurel]

Here's the AARP press release on Bush's Social Security Commission. It's very mildly worded:

"The President's commission on Social Security appears to lack a balance of viewpoints which suggests its recommendations will not develop in a way that will lead to the broad support needed for action. Social Security is the bedrock of our nation's retirement income security. Plans for its future deserve careful, objective consideration.

Unfortunately, this commission may represent a missed opportunity because it lacks the balance of opinion that is essential for public credibility of its recommendations.

A commission is most effective when it frames an issue by thoroughly evaluating all options, laying out the pros and cons and forging a consensus among members who represent diverse points of view. Moreover, a commission works best when it deliberates without preconditions.

Finding a solution to Social Security's long-term financial challenges sooner rather than later would ensure a less dramatic solution and afford a greater opportunity for those affected to adjust their plans.

The underpinnings of this commission show a fundamental misunderstanding of the Social Security system. While nearly all payroll taxes go to pay current benefits, any remaining funds are invested in Treasury securities. These securities are the safest investment in the world, returning just under 7 percent interest to the trust funds. Funds are not simply 'stuffed under a mattress' and any diversion of these funds would only move the date of Social Security's insolvency closer.

Individual or personal accounts can take different forms. Some ideas, such as individual accounts that add to Social Security's guaranteed benefit, have merit. Unfortunately, most of the commission seems to reflect only one model -- "carve outs" -- which would leave Social Security's trust funds worse off.

In any event, the Commission can't replace the job of the legislative process. Changes to the program must be subject to a full and open public debate including input from all sources."

the link is
http://www.aarp.org/press/statements/2001/st050201.html

 

[miles]

Laurel

Fact: Tax cuts allow taxpayers to keep the money they earn. How horrible!!! Am I hearing that the money really belongs to the government?

Please tell me how Social Security is returning money back to the same people who had it stolen from them to begin with. How does that work?

 

[Laurel]

Keep in mind the above press release was from May. Here's one from February from the AARP that's rather strongly worded:

AARP agenda opposes Bush priorities
By Morton Kondracke

"Often rated Washington’s most powerful lobby, the AARP assembled its official 2001 policy agenda last week — and its main points are bad news for President Bush.

The AARP, formerly known as the American Association of Retired Persons, doesn’t make campaign contributions, doesn’t endorse candidates and rarely plays hardball. But it is definitely putting its muscle behind priorities that preclude Bush’s $1.6 trillion tax cut.

On other major issues, the group will resist any Social Security reform that reduces guaranteed benefits and Medicare reforms that force seniors into managed care. Moreover, AARP is staunchly backing Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., on his push for campaign finance reform.

Nothing in the group’s new 4-inch-thick agenda book breathes a word of hostility toward Bush or his legislative agenda. In fact, the AARP is rigorously nonpartisan. It lays down “principles,” not hard positions. And its lobbyists always “work with” people with whom they have differences.

However, with 34.5 million members who theoretically could be mobilized in a crunch, the AARP usually gets heeded by Congress on its issues.

It is also in the process of retooling itself — the name change is part of it — to expand its influence. The organization wants to be the voice not only for 35 million “seniors” over 65 but for the 78 million-strong baby-boom generation that is gradually turning 50.

In major magazines and on television, the group is “rebranding” itself with ads featuring vigorous-looking 50-plus business owners, environmentalists, educators and rock climbers rather than “retired persons.”

The organization just launched a glossy new magazine, My Generation, sent free to people ages 50 to 55. Its redesigned standby, Modern Maturity, goes to members over 55.

The remaking of the AARP is a project initiated by the group’s 13-year veteran executive director, Horace Deets, who is retiring next January. A nationwide search is under way for his successor.

One internal candidate is Bill Novelli, who sold his powerhouse public relations firm, Porter Novelli, in 1990 to start a second career in public service, working first at CARE and then leading the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

Novelli has been in charge of the AARP’s advocacy and public affairs activities for 13 months and envisions the group’s becoming “the No. 1 organization in the country working for social change,” including better education, upgraded standards for long-term care facilities and tax credits for long-term care insurance. As part of Deets’ reorganization, the AARP is establishing offices in all 50 states, up from 22, to lobby legislatures and stay in touch with local groups.

Only 10 percent of the AARP’s $450 million budget is spent on lobbying and advocacy — but that amount is still huge. The rest goes to volunteer and service work.

For four years running, the AARP has headed Fortune magazine’s list of the most powerful lobbies in Washington, beating out such groups as the National Rifle Association, the National Federation of Independent Business, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the AFL-CIO and the Association of Trial Lawyers of America.

The AARP’s clout-wielding reputation is based partly on a mistaken legend. In 1988, the organization backed so-called “catastrophic” prescription drug coverage for seniors, which passed Congress.

But well-off seniors and those with pre-existing drug coverage raged against the mandatory program for its increased premiums, famously banging on the car of then-Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, D-Ill., chief sponsor of the measure.

The AARP’s board and Washington office urged that the program be kept alive, but Congress got scared and repealed it in 1989 under massive pressure from rank-and-file seniors, many of them AARP members.

That issue was evidence of the power of the membership, though, and AARP lobbyists bring it silently to bear when they visit members to talk about their issues.

Last week the AARP’s board decided that the group’s “principles” this year would include “balanced” use of the federal budget surplus, with enough money available for a Medicare prescription drug benefit, expanded health insurance for children and new education spending that would preclude Bush’s $1.6 trillion tax cut.

Moreover, the group wants tax cuts to be targeted — reducing (though not eliminating) the inheritance tax, providing a credit for caregivers and expanding IRAs — rather than across the board, as Bush proposes.

The AARP will support Bush’s idea of a Social Security commission — but will oppose the kind of partial privatization proposals he backed in the campaign, known as “carve outs,” which called for a reduction of guaranteed benefits. The AARP favors a new voluntary savings plan being added to Social Security.

It’s not clear where Bush will end up on Medicare, but the AARP prefers a much more costly drug benefit than Bush seemed to favor in the campaign, and it wants to keep traditional fee-for-service Medicare, not push seniors into HMOs.

The AARP has a genteel atmosphere about it that fits right in with Bush’s less confrontational Washington. But their differences leave them with a lot of “working with” to do.

Morton Kondracke is executive editor of Roll Call, the newspaper of Capitol Hill."

link at
http://www.reporternews.com/2001/opinion/opp0225.html

 

[Laurel]

Re: Laurel

Fact: Tax cuts allow taxpayers to keep the money they earn. How horrible!!! Am I hearing that the money really belongs to the government?

Fact: Irresponsible tax cuts that cripple the economy and start a recession in which thousands of people lose their jobs aren't good for taxpayers. Sorry, but a measly $300 isn't worth risking a recession. I'm not that much of a money-grubber.

BTW, the Government is us. We are the Government. Only people like Timothy McVeigh and Moammar Khaddafi see the US government as The Enemy. I'm sure you're much more patriotic and honorable than those two!

Funny how we scoff at politicians who are paid off to vote a certain way, then we as citizens will vote for whoever dangles a couple hundred bucks in our faces. Whose the cheaper whore?

 

[Siren]

I heard on the news today that they are thinking of raiding the SS

 

[miles]

laurel

Economics 101.

What if I could show you stats that show when taxes are reduced, government revenue increases.

Please show me credible evidence that tax cuts cause a recession.

Take more of my money, I have less to spend and invest. When I stop spending, factories stop producing, and people lose jobs. It's very simple.

Based on your logic, the less money taxpayers keep the better off the economy is.

 

[Laurel]

I'll bet you my $300 that Bush's tax advance does little, if anything, to curb the coming recession.

(BTW, I don't think I'm eligible for the $300 advance because I'm self-employed. At least, I have yet to receive a notice or check, and I paid in several people's worth of taxes last year.)

 

[miles]

Fact: Irresponsible tax cuts that cripple the economy and start a recession in which thousands of people lose their jobs aren't good for taxpayers. Sorry, but a measly $300 isn't worth risking a recession. I'm not that much of a money-grubber.

Wow.

Giving people their money back is irresponsible.We didn't earn it, we don't own it, and we are not entitled to it. The government is.

so·cial·ism (ssh-lzm)
n.
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy

Plans and controls the economy.....producing goods and services collectively.

Why don't we all put our earnings in one pot and divvy it up?

 

[Laurel]

greedy - a person who wants to use public roads, expects public police to protect them, and wants a strong military, yet gets all bent out of shape when asked to fork over one thin dime. Everyone else should pay in, but not ME, damnit! They're violating my fargin rights by making me pay for services I use! How dare they! It's a conspiracy!

It's easy to call me a socialist. It's a common tactic. Call someone names and then you don't have to deal with anything they're saying. Then, you can make up all sorts of views for me that I've never expressed and argue with me about things I've never said. I can then move onto other threads while you knock down straw horses.

Please explain to me where the money comes from to build roads and pay the military if not from the very people who use it. Private enterprise? Have you looked into how "well" the privatized prison system has fared? How about the privatized toll roads in L.A. which are begging for a government bailout?

Businesses run to make a profit. Government runs to provide a service. Many services - i.e. roads - do not make a profit per se, yet they enable commerce and thus make us more profitable and successful as a country. Do you really want the military in the hands of private enterprise? Do you really think that business is any less corrupt than government? If you do, I've got some beachfront property in Missouri I'd like to sell you.

It's not some Red Conspiracy. It's common sense. If you don't see the difference - if the world is all blacks & whites (or Reds, in this case), if for you it's either anarchy or Stalinism - then I really don't have anything more to add.

So call me whatever names you want, if it makes you feel better. Doesn't change the facts. I'm centrist, a moderate. If I seem Socialist to you, that may say more about your position on the political spectrum than mine.

 

[shadowsource]

The fact is:

This is very much like a friend telling you your car is unsafe, and then wrecking it by driving recklessly - and saying it proves their point. The money was there, is no longer there. The tax cut was botched in many ways, and the Alternative Minimum Tax (which I pay every year) is going to bite a lot of people who enjoyed big breaks, and they'll want that removed, too. Where's that money going to come from?

The upshot is that we'll all have to wait an additional 4 or 5 yerars to collect on OUR money, which was there, while they peddle a scheme to privatize. This is not an ideological statement: The stock market does not always go up! If you had been 53 years old in 1970 and had invested all of your money in a DJ index fund, you would have lost at least 75% of it in real money by 1982, when you would have turned 65.Wake up, people!

 

[Bob Peale]

Re: Re: Re: Social Security

You selling some Bob. It's obvious there are still some believers here who were planning their retirement based on Social Security.

Then have I got a deal for you!

Just look at the economics of the situation. America experienced an increasing population surge, the largest bit of which ballooned 1941 - 1964 (the infamous Baby Boom).

1965 - 1980 saw a severe contraction due in part to the widespread legal availability of birth control (including the legalization of abortion...no, I'm not getting into the morality of this; I don't have a womb, therefore the most I'm prepared to discuss is whether or not I'd want my wife to have one).

1981 began another, smaller baby boom.

Thus, the reality was always that those of us born between '65 - '80 would be helping to take care of those that came before us, which almost outnumber us 2 to 1. I don't care how much they paid in; at the time Social Security was conceived, the longest people were expected to live was around 72; that number is now closer to 90.

Add to that the fact that, with fewer of us in the market, the next 20 years are going to see lower housing markets (fewer buyers, more sellers as people downsize their primary residence in preparation for retirement), as well as a much smaller management layer in business (the good news about that is that we will be able to take care of our own future).

 

[miles]

Laurel

Laurel:

I'm not going to be drawn into a game of reinventing the English language by making up my own word definitions. We all remember what the meaning of the word is is. Anyone can do that. Once again, hyperbole instead of facts. I prefer the dictionary.

greed·y (grd)
adj. greed·i·er, greed·i·est
Excessively desirous of acquiring or possessing, especially wishing to possess more than what one needs or deserves

I love the word greed. It's a relative term - someone who wants more than what they need or deserve. Is it greedy for a business owner to try and double his profits by selling more of his product? Of course not. Laurel, I'm sure some people might think you are greedy for what you do here. Unless a person's greed deprives someone else of life and liberty, it's nobody's bisuiness how much money they want or earn. According to the definition, wealth is bad.

The issue on the table is social security. Not roads, police, or the military. Take a look at the Budget and tell me how much money is spent on them as opposed to social programs. I don't know anything about privatized roads or prisons where you live, but if they were designed like the self-induced energy problem in CA, it's a no-brainer why they are fucked up.

It's easy to call me a socialist. It's a common tactic. Call someone names and then you don't have to deal with anything they're saying. Then, you can make up all sorts of views for me that I've never expressed and argue with me about things I've never said

A rose is a rose. This is what you said, not me.

Fact: Irresponsible tax cuts that cripple the economy and start a recession in which thousands of people lose their jobs aren't good for taxpayers. Sorry, but a measly $300 isn't worth risking a recession. I'm not that much of a money-grubber

....and I said.....

Giving people their money back is irresponsible.We didn't earn it, we don't own it, and we are not entitled to it. The government is.

so·cial·ism (ssh-lzm)
n.
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy

Plans and controls the economy.....producing goods and services collectively.

You're right. That was a stretch, and I was wrong. I apologize for intimating you are a socialist. But I stick by everything else I said.

To be continued..I have to go...

 

[shadowsource]

Ok, shoot the geezers -

Screw all the people who paid the SS tax and need the money to live on. The hell with them. They were fools not to make more money earlier in life. Their catastrophic illnesses, company failures, low lifelong incomes, etc., are all their fault. I'll accept that, though it sadly includes some people I really care about.

But will you guys do the "Christian" thing when these geezers come crawling down your street looking for shelter? For food? Or will you do the he-man thing and laugh at them? Lecture them about their socialist foolishness. There will be millions and millions of them, folks who worked hard for many decades. I trust you'll be able to convince them it's all their fault - and to go away quietly.