Before Social Security

[shraby]

people could invest their money where they wanted. In the roaring '20s they did. They invested heavily in the stock market. A very high percentage of people were flying high..until the market crashed and wiped out literally everyone's money. With no programs such as social security, welfare, or unemployment benefits, people were thrown into the streets because they couldn't make the rent house or payments.

Food was even hard to come by. Ask the generation who is in their 80s what it was like. Families were large and food cost money. My father-in-law worked for .50 cents a day. My father worked for a farmer and was paid at the end of summer with a pig. Back then, there were many more family farms and those farmers could grow their food plus food for neighbors. Today the farms have turned into corporations and won't have the sense of "neighbor" when history repeats itself..and it will.

With your money put into private accounts, you will be looking at the same fate if the stock market crashes once again, because slowly but surely the Republicans and some Democrats are decimating our safety nets.
I can guarantee you one thing..it won't be pretty, so think hard and long and maybe read a book documenting the 1930s before you consider the Republicans have a good idea.

[BansheeDem]

1. Consider this ...

With your money put into private accounts, you will be looking at the same fate if the stock market crashes once again, because slowly but surely the Republicans and some Democrats are decimating our safety nets.

What if there were a plan that would put the money in a wide variety of financial vehicles, like stock, bonds, real estate, and commodities? What if the plan was managed by a professional investment firm and had a twenty year track record of success? Would you feel better about that?

I say this because that is exactly what the proposed plan looks like. It will be modeled on the THRIFT savings plan that is available to nearly every federal worker (and has been for 20 years). I have been in THRIFT for nearly 20 years and have seen an average return of 9 percent. In order for the plan to lose money, there would have to be a catastrophic collapse of the world's financial markets; which would include, stocks bonds, real estate and commodities all at the same time. That's not very likely, is it? So far, my plan has survived Enron and the collapse of the tech market in the late 90s.

I am really getting tired of my party fear-mongering this subject. It is wrong and does them no justice.

[Bridget Burke]

2. Where can we read the details of The Plan?

Could you provide a link?

[BansheeDem]

10. Here is a link ...

This is a good start to understanding how the proposed plan will work. You can also do a Google search for TSP or THRIFT Saving Plan and get more info.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/retirement/2005-02-03-mym_x.htm

[theophilus]

37. I guess USA Today is formulating policy for the Pretzldent. That is

an improvement. This whole thing is a cruel joke. All Mr. Bush wants to do is plow this government deeper into debt and have poor folks looking to Wall Street for their retirement needs and not a Government that can actually regulate and slap the Corporations around if necessary.

Mark my words. This is a travesty. Social Security might not be an actual insurance policy but it is also definitely not an investment plan. Invest your own frakking money on your own. Where is the debt going with the Trillion(s) necessary to fund this monstrosity? Give up defending George da Turd! He makes plans to help the richest of the rich and that's it. You can take THAT to the bank.

[BansheeDem]

61. Trust me, I'm not defending poor old George.

I am a moderate Democrat and will remain one. But, as I read more about this proposed plan, and that it was going to be modeled after TSP - I decided to dig a bit and see how it would work. I tried to be neutral (something most of the respondents to this thread have avoided like the plague) and found that the plan actually had some merit.

Having experienced the THRIFT savings plan first hand, I thought that I might help convince some of my fellow Democrats that this could be worth looking at. A true mistake. I guess there are none so blind that will not see. But I will continue to try and convince a few of the more level-headed folks here that not ALL things Republican are bad. I can see that my work is cut out for me.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BansheeDem]

65. I respectfully disagree ...

This is an opportunity for most Americans to take a part of what they pay in payroll taxes and earn a better rate of interest on it than Social Security can provide.

My ideas are neither "ill informed" or incorrect. Take some time to look at this from a neutral point of view before you fire off your next reply.

BTW, you may be opposed to the war (as am I) but one has nothing to do with the other.

I won't even comment on the the last line of your reply.

[kohodog]

68. It is easy to make up any argument on this issue

Because no plan has been presented and one ever will. Look at Iraq. The neocons first argument for war was WMD. After the fact it morphed from that to the evils Saddam committed on his people (with the help of Rummy and later GHWB), to stopping terrorism (which this war has strengthened), to Democracy for the region!!! But if we don't get 'um they'll ATTACK us. And while we promote "democracy" in Iraq, we send unnamed, uncharged suspects strapped to the floor of CIA planes to foreign countries to be tortured.

So now they trot out Social Security "reform." No specifics, yet the same fear campaign. It's "Bust", "Broke", "Bankrupt", whatever. We'd better make sure they get some of that dough to our campaign supporters before it's all gone!

Seriously, this comes down to the fact that they don't believe that there should be a safety net. They really don't want tax dollars funding education, welfare, Social security because this is America and every individual has the opportunity to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

Don't get sucked into the thought that "everything is on the table" because it's not. They know where they want to go with this and because of that their plan is done for now.

[BansheeDem]

71. There has to be a plan presented ...

if Congress is going to act on it. Committees will study it, the House will vote on it, The senate will vote on it, then in all likelyhood, it will be sent back to negotiate the final bill before passage.

Iraq, Kosovo, Afghanistan, or San Diego for that matter have not a thing to do with this. Why do you insist on continuing to make the comparison? Apples and oranges.

[kohodog]

72. It's the way this admin does business

Lie, distort, twist arms and pay off the media . Some of the really important bills have been passed without being read. If SS comes to a vote, the bill will not have time to be read by anyone but staffers. Just my oppinion.

But the iraq and Patriot act comparison is inmportant because they will not have an honest discussion on what they believe and their true aim. I'd enter this discussion differently if they bsais that SS sucks and we need to find a new solution for retirement. But all they will do is say "Social Security is Bankrupt." There is no discussion, only their way or the highway. The American people deserve more respect than that.

[BansheeDem]

84. Well, it seems to me that the Democratic party has ...

taken a very keen interest in this subject. That's one of the reasons I want them to look harder at the options available here without just dismissing it out of hand. This is an issue that was owned by our party for many years; how it ever became a Republican agenda item is beyond me. We should taking the ball and running with it, not the other way around.

I agree with you on the point that the Republicans are framing this as a 'crisis' when none exists. However, I still think that developing a plan where a small percentage of the payroll tax can be diverted for private accounts is an idea worth pursuing.

[WLKjr]

104. Buddy that is why you have 401k and IRA's and company stock options

That is what you gamble, you don't gamble the sure thing.

[ProfessorGAC]

97. They Can Do That Now, Banshee

People have been able to save in the market the whole time, so why does this "opportunity" reflect an improvement?

The one thing that your "analysis" fails to consider is the impact on value inflation of the equities in question.

You seem to think you've got it all figured out and that the plan is to the benefit of the payees, but it's not.

A quick hypothesis to consider: What will happen to the value of equities when 4% of all payroll up to $90k per salary (almost $200 billion annually when older workers not participating is included) enters the equity markets? At the same time, since the gov't will have less capital to expend, they will borrow more, which is part of the plan. (The transition costs.) The velocity of money decreases, as a result and the economy is not impelled higher. Now, the companies for which these equities are issued have no financial justification for higher stock valuation.

We now have almost 2% of GDP entering into a market buying equities which aren't worth that extra 2%. What happens? Equity inflation. Eventually, (and i'm talking a few years, not decades), the entire market is overvalued and these equities stop trading since P/E ratios are inflated, and long term growth is an illusion. Ultimately, as it always does, the market achieves equilibrium of price to value.

What does that mean? Market correction. Those gains you assume are there because it's a professionally managed fund evaporate. Being professionally managed cannot be used to prevent equity inflation and the market corrections are beyond the control of the investment professionals.

IOW, this plan leaves out such a critical mathematical area of investment as to be laughable.

You hadn't thought of that, had you?
The Professor

[geniph]

117. Details of The Plan

In the beginning was the plan
and then came the assumptions;
and the assumptions were without form
and the plan was completely without substance;
and darkness was upon the face of the workers;
and they spoke unto their group heads, saying:
"The Plan is a crock of shit and it stinks."
And the group heads went unto their section heads and said:
"It is a pail of dung and none may abide the odor thereof."
And the section heads went unto their managers and said unto them:
"It is a container of excrement and it is very strong,
such that none here may abide by it."
And the managers went unto their director and said unto him:
"It is a vessel of fertilizer and none may abide its strength."
And the director went unto the executive director and said:
"It contains that which aids plant growth and it is very strong."
And the executive director went unto the vice president and said unto him:
"It promotes growth and is very powerful."
And the vice president went unto the president and said unto him:
"this powerful new Plan will actively promote the growth and efficiency
of the department and this area in particular."
And the president looked upon The Plan
and saw that it was good:

and The Plan became policy.

...oh, that's not the Plan you meant? Never mind.

[Larkspur]

4. Consider this...

Social Security was intended to be a supplemental source of income to a retiree's retirement plan. The worker was suppose to have a pension from their company, their own savings, as well as Social Security. But the same bozos who are drooling over getting their corrupt and greedy hands on Social Security are the ones who have either sent company pensions into bankruptcy, or didn't even bother to setup a pension for their workers to begin with. So why should we trust these Robber Barons with Social Security funds?

There is a more just solution to keeping Social Security solvent than destroying it with privatization. Keep Social Security the social insurance program it is now. The changes to make are as follows: 1) remove the salary cap so that Bill Gates & Co. pay into SS every business day of the week, not just the first business day of the year, 2) make all government employees and our Congresscritters pay into SS, and 3) grant every worker a living wage so that they can save on top of their Social Security benefit. When employee wages are low, employees can't save and Wall Street loses out on more money to invest.

[oneighty]

15. Congress does pay into SS

Do not buy into that fable.

180

[Ironpost]

90. I don't believe so

I've read so many times that congress have their own retirement fund.
So I buy.

[oneighty]

99. Google is your friend

Congress does pay into Social Security. The anti-people wingnuts want for you to believe the congress critters do not.

It is another scheme in the divide and conquer contract with America bullshit.

Fight back inform yourself. Google.


180

[Ironpost]

100. I just googled it

and from what I get they don't pay into any retirement plan at all and they continue to draw their salary for the rest of their lives. Google it and see what you get. I've read this several times over several years.

[oneighty]

101. You are wrong.

They do pay into SS. Also like many other people they pay into a retirement plan.

I cannot believe you googled the right place. I have gone over and over this with rightwing in laws.

And I will not do the research for you. Look and learn.

EDIT on second thought. Google: Social Security and Congressional pay. You will find a SNOPES page explaining the URBAN LEGEND concerning congressional pay. It rebuts the E-Mail on the subject which arrives in all E-Mail boxes time and again. I have seen it many times.

180

[Ironpost]

102. Who do I believe you or my lying eyes. jeeze

[oneighty]

103. Your eyes do not see.

Perhaps they do not wish to see.

A law passed in 1983 requires ALL Congress critters to pay into Social Security period.

It is the truth of the matter there for all the world to see.

A pity you do not chose to.

180

[B Calm]

113. Ironpost, try snopes!!

[applegrove]

5. It is not your party that is doing the 'fear mongering'. The fact that

the WH puts out a plan without putting ANYTHING DOWN ON PAPER creates this low to high level of anxiety. The message: we are going to take something fundamental away from you and we will not tell you how exactly.

Then they put all sorts of little 'notions' out there but do not put out any of the assumptions they used when coming up with the plan. The result is a vacuumed of information and people running hither & dither trying to get back to their previous normal level of anxiety. Some fight the plan with not enough information, some catastrophize, some do research, some cry out for more information.

The emotions are a planned outcome. Castastrophizing is a normal reaction to the future being suddenly unknown. Apathy, division, arguments and nowhere to aim countermeasure at because of the information vacuum are also normal emotional outcomes. How long this vacuum will be, we do not know. As long as Rove needs it to be: perhaps long enough to wear people & their fight down would be my guess.

[BansheeDem]

9. Here's a link that may help ...

The plan that the White House is promoting is based on the very popular THRIFT savings plan. I contend that there is something on paper if you consider that much has been written about THRIFT (99 percent of it positive). My problem with my party is that they are saying a lot of negative things about this proposal when they know full well it is modeled on THRIFT.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/retirement/2005-02-03-mym_x.htm

[applegrove]

30. They don't know that. They do not know what the plan is. It is a tactic

of Rove's to drive Democrats nuts. It is working. Nobody can say that plan is the one until Bush says it official.

Ever heard of bait & switch? That is a common con-man tactic. It could be the T plan, it could not. The longer Rove puts the idea out there and does not resolve the issue (either way) the more anxiety it causes.

Rove may be hoping that the WH gets accused of a bait & switch and then they don't do the switch. It is all about cause emotion, that will cause behaviours that will cause people to not be a strongly together in their opposition to the plan.

There is not any pen to paper. That is a tactic. Call it what it is and do not fall into the trap of "assuming" you know anything or know how anyone else should be reacting because you (like everybody else) do not have enough information.

[Jim__]

6. ... that is exactly what the proposed plan looks like ...

Could you provide a link to the proposed plan? I haven't been able to find any specific information on it.

[Inland]

11. You would have had a twenty year record of success before the Crash, too

That's why they say that past performance is no guide to future returns. Besides, the THRIFT fund functions more like a 401k. We already have that; what we need is the insurance that Social Security brings for the individual, the individual's family, and the society as a whole that everyone will be able to live at the poverty level even if they are too old to work.

By the way, if a catastrophic collapse of financial markets is unlikely, so is the cataclysm of SS running out of money, which would require an average GDP growth of 1.6% a year, less than half the average of the preceeding century. In other words, if the economy is going well, then the SS system is more than solvent. If it is going like shit, then neither SS nor a diversified holding of investments is going to be worth a tinkers dam.

[BansheeDem]

13. Social Security is not an insurance plan ...

You write very cogently, so I know you will understand the difference between a guaranteed insurance plan (which social security is not) and a law passed by Congress that can be changed at will. If social security was an insurance plan with defined contractual benefits, Congress could not change it - but as you know, this is not the case. There are no guarantees with social security and there never have been.

As to the success of the THRIFT plan - diversity has been and is the key to its success. Because the financial makeup is a blend of stocks, bonds, real estate, and commodities, the chances of a complete collapse are so small as to be insignificant.

I agree completely with your assessment and factual layout as to why the Social Security fund is not in 'crisis'. Having the White House use this term is quite disingenuous. On the other hand, allowing a meager 4 percent of payroll tax to be diverted for private accounts will not put it in crisis either. I see it as a win-win for the people who choose to take advantage of the proposal.

[oneighty]

16. Oh Boy

My Gold Plated TIAA-CREF took a beating. I am told it is one of the best. There was a time I wished my SS money went into that plan. But not anymore. The reality of retirement set in.

Stock market by any other name is a crap shoot. Read the fine print. If you cannot afford to lose money do not gamble.

180

[BansheeDem]

18. Did you read the details of the THRIFT plan ...

If you did, you would know that you have a number of investment options. One of them being short term Treasury Bonds. If a person doesn't feel comfortable with a mixture of stocks and bonds, then they can opt for the above conservative route. After all, Treasury Bonds are what is keeping Social Security afloat now.

I have been in the THRIFT savings plan for 20 years and have had an average gain of 9 percent. I have moved from common stock to a fixed income, and will convert over to short term bonds once retirement nears. The closer to retirement you get, the more conservative you should become.

[oneighty]

19. No I have not

My own experience with the stock market is disappointing. I have no investment options with my TIAA-CREF. My understanding with the SS plan is that the individuals will have no option either.

It is too late for me. But with my SS TIAA-CREF and Military retirement I do pretty good. Thank you.

180

[BansheeDem]

32. You are not the first person ...

to say that they have been disappointed with TIAA-CREF. Apparently they made some really poor management decisons over the last several years.

If you study the THRIFT model, you will see that it has about 5 options. Each year there is an open-season where a person can change the type of investment they want. The best model (IMHO) is to use common or mid-cap stocks early on, then switch to guaranteed income mid-career, then short-term bonds as retirement nears. As I understand it, the WH proposal would have a mechanism that would force those nearing retirement to do something similar - a somewhat fail-safe method to reduce risk.

[oneighty]

21. You are misleading. TSP/thrift

is for government and Military service. Google tells me so.

Why did you do that?

180

[JanMichael]

24. It part of the plan to confuse people. The Fed Employees have...

...the THRIFT BUT they also have SS. The lie works like this: Pump up the THRIFTs and use Fed Employees as the happy examples, of course not mentioning that they still get Social Security and the money for the Thrift doesn't come from workers SS deductions.

This is NOT what Bush is proposing.

[BansheeDem]

40. What the WH is proposing ...

is a plan modeled after TSP. The same investment options, managed in the same way. THRIFT has been successful because of how it was designed and managed. Taking 4 percent of a person's payroll tax and diverting it to a THRIFT modeled account is a good thing - and will add to their Social Security - not the other way around. The Social Security proposal doesn't replace what we get in social security - it is an option to get a higher rate of return on 4 percent of the tax we are already paying in. The bottom line is that our net pay will be the same. This is very attractive to low-income and middle-income earners who want to invest but don't have the casual income to do that. Most federal workers do have that casual income and can take advantage of THRIFT as a supplement to their retirement and Social Security.

Sometimes I think that my fellow Democrats would rather whine about something and always see the negative because it came from the opposition party (regardless of the facts) than actually look at it form a neutral point of view and glean the benefits.

[yankeedem]

44. Get your numbers straight

It is NOT 4% of your Social Security contribution.
It is 4% of your salary that would be redirected to this ruse.
It is about 65% of your Social Security contribution.

No thanks.
I guess we're just whining though. I tend to not trust anything that comes from the Heritage Foundation, thank you.

[retnavyliberal]

74. OK lets do the math

A person makes $10 and hour for a gross pay of $20,800. That means said American pays $1289.60 into SS a year. The Plan you talk of would take 4% of that an invest it into a TSP. That is a whopping $51.58 a year. After 30 years the TSP balance will be $16,756.

Um.... thats less then one year of pay.

Now tell me. Why is this worth 2 billion in debt?

Note: I am not an investment analyst, so if I am in error in here, I apologize. I used a TSP calculator found at http://www.tsp.gov/calc/PAB_intro.html
4% of 1289.60 for 30 years.

oops on edit. 9% return

[Q]

95. It's not 'whining'...it's suspicion...

...about someone coming on this board and defending a Bush proposal when we KNOW he has lied about nearly everything since 'taking' office. Why should we trust him now?

And what about the Trillions it would take to start this program in a country that is already running so deep in the red? How long can this country keep writing bad checks before our economy collapses?

Whining my butt. We know that Bush doesn't give a crap about the 'little' people and this 'plan' is meant...like his tax cuts for the rich...to benefit the wealthy. Stop pissing on our shoes and calling it rain.

[annabanana]

47. This is true.. When the TSP program started..

People already vested in the CSRS system were offered a choice. They could switch over to FERS and start contributing to Social Security, with the offer of matching funds into TSP account. If you opted to stay with CSRS, you could still start a TSP account, but only up to a certain % of your income, and with no matching funds. Your pension would continue to grow as before with no Social Security contributions.

In neither case is TSP meant to stand alone without Social Security or the traditional pension system.

If money is being DIVERTED from SS to go into a market based (inherently risky) account, SS will shrivel and die.

[BansheeDem]

58. I respectfully disagree ...

First ...

Correct, I came into federal Service under the CSRS system. I was one of those folks that was offered a choice, I chose to convert to FERS because I saw it as the better value long term. And it has certainly been that. If the proposed WH plan is managed in the same manner, it will be a very good option for younger workers.

secondly ...

We are talking about a very small percentage of the payroll tax contribution here. And I agree, TSP is meant to stand alone as a supplement to Social Security. What I have been saying (and apparently some folks just hear what they want) is that this plan is modeled after TSP, in the way it is designed and managed. The SS reform plan is not designed to supplement Social Security, it is designed to divert a small portion of the payroll tax to TSP like accounts.

[BansheeDem]

31. I'm not being misleading ...

This is the exact model that the WH wants to implement for all Americans, and that is what the linked article says. This is what I have stated repeatedly; that the THRIFT savings plan is for federal workers and it is the model that is being used for Social Security reform. If you want to know what the reform plan will look like, study the THRIFT model.

[JanMichael]

23. You've already GOT those options.

Since you're so fond of links to back up your THRIFT arguments here's one that you might not like.

"John Rother, policy director of AARP, the lobbying group for older Americans, said Bush knows "most Americans would love to have what federal employees have, but of course that's not what the president is proposing. He's pointing to the thrift savings part of the plan but not mentioning their regular pension plan and their Social Security benefits that lie underneath it."

Rather disegenuous of Bush, eh?

[oneighty]

25. Yes Jan Michael

We only got part of the story. Often things sound too good to be true.

180

[JanMichael]

26. I'm just shocked that so many good Dems fall for this crap so regularly.

Appalled, really.

[BansheeDem]

36. Yes, the part where we were fear-mongered into ...

believing that if we invested in these private accounts that our Social Security benefits would be taken away, and we would be at the mercy of the markets. Is that the part you are referring to?

[retread]

42. I guess the White House has shared it's "plan" with you and you

alone, because I see nothing but speculation. If you really think this band of pirates has the best interests of working men and women in mind then I have a bridge I would like to sell you. On the other hand I suspect you are just trolling for a little fun uh?

[BansheeDem]

57. Actually, I quite mad at my party for looking for every ...

opportunity to sabotage what could be a very good deal for many Americans. They (meaning the Democrats) had 40 years to fix what they knew was a broken system, and did virtually nothing. Now that the Republicans propose something that might actually have some benefit, they are against it on principle alone. The facts just don't justify that. I find it curious (but I should expect it here) that anything that the opposition puts forward is killed before ever having a look. n I took the time to look at the proposal and weighed it against what we currently have. It was obvious to me that this might be a good way to go. Too bad the rest of the flock is too blind to even consider it.

[ChairOne]

75. There's exactly *one* party that's "looking for every...

opportunity to sabotage what could be a very good deal for many Americans."

Every individual must judge for themselves just *which* party that is, and join appropriate websites for discussion of their judgements.

[BansheeDem]

87. I respectfully disagree ...

The Democratic party has taken a firm stand on this issue without looking at the all the positive possibilities. They can be for a partial privatization of Social Security in a form more that is more palatable. They can oppose some of the proposed changes; like linking future benefits to prices. But to dismiss it out of hand is (IMO) not th right approach.

[ChairOne]

88. Cool... then you should vote for the party that best reflects your beliefs

One party is for privatization, one party isn't. It's up to you to choose which one you support. There's nothing to argue about, on this issue.

[BansheeDem]

96. Ther is plenty to argue about on the issue because there are ...

"Cool... then you should vote for the party that best reflects your beliefs" One party is for privatization, one party isn't. It's up to you to choose which one you support. There's nothing to argue about, on this issue.

many parts to the plan. I support one part of a plan on one issue, and all of a sudden I should switch and embrace the Republican's whole platform? You can't be serious.

[ChairOne]

105. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one wondering why.....

... you're talking to Democrats at all... Your remarks, precisely because of their false and misleading nature, would find a substantially warmer reception in the forums of another political party...

[BansheeDem]

107. And therein lies the problem ...

because you are absolutely convinced that I am being false and misleading even in the face of the facts; even when our own party is telling Americans that they will LOSE all of their benefits if they opt into this plan. Now THAT is misleading.

If you don't want to listen to me, you can always "opt out" of this thread and put me on ignore. My only purpose in being here is to try and convince some of my fellow Democrats to at least take a neutral look at the plan (at least the private investment portion) You don't seem to want to let go of the party line long enough to do that. The last time I checked, not all Democrats were required to walk in lockstep on any one issue. Has something changed - or is that some kind of new rule?

[yankeedem]

109. Who is telling us that we will "lose our benefits"

It is the Republicans (unless that's what you meant by "our own party") that are telling us that SS will be gone if we don't privatize NOW.

It is Democrats (except for Ben Nelson) who are telling us that SS is safe until 2052--- actually that's not true, it is the Congressional Budget Office.

Do you trust the bipartisan CBO, or do you trust the Heritage Foundation?

[BansheeDem]

110. I was referring to William Gale's remarks ...

"He is being extraordinarily misleading," said William G. Gale, an expert on Social Security for the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, both liberal-leaning think tanks here."

"TSP is an add-on plan, not a substitute for Social Security" benefits like Bush's proposal, Gale said. "He wants to take away their Social Security benefits if they participate in the thrift plan. That's the crux of the debate. No federal employee loses Social Security money by putting money into the thrift plan."

It is very clear that Mr. Gale is not a Republican, and that he is strongly suggesting that (the WH) "...wants to take away their Social Security benefits if they participate in the thrift plan" That's a pretty sweeping remark without any qualifiers. Anyone who read that would most likely walk away thinking that they would lose all of their benefits if they opted for the thrift plan.

I don't believe that the Social Security system is currently in a 'crisis', and I think the WH is being quite disingenuous when they use rhetoric like that. On the other hand, I do think that changes will have to made to shore it up and make it viable into the foreseeable future. This may mean raising the cap to generate more revenue, raising the retirement age, increasing the payroll tax, or a combination of these.

What I have been saying through all of these posts is simply that one part of the plan does have advantages for those that are under 55 and want to have a bit of control over a small portion of their account. You would have thought I had killed the Pope with the responses I have received.

[yankeedem]

111. Link?

[kohodog]

114. Banshee, you sound a lot like....

Joe Lieberman! He's on thew same page as you, but that's not my page.

You can drink the kool-aid of this Administration who brought us Medicare Drug benefits for Pharma, Trade agreements for Multinationals, Health care for...oh, we're going
back wards on that one. On the bright side, we have the patriot act, tax cuts for the rich, approved torture, a loss of habeas corpus, faith based everything, media consolidation and a new record defecit.

Some folks can't get enough, I guess. Drink up, I'll abstain.

[BansheeDem]

119. Here's the link ...

I didn't mean to leave it out

http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/benson022405.html

[yankeedem]

122. Did you mean to leave this part out of Gale's remarks?

"Everyone already has the option of investing in the stock market," Gale said. "Anyone can go to a discount broker and open an account. They already have that option. The distinguishing feature of the president's plan is its guaranteed reduction in Social Security benefits if you do invest."

Not eliminate, reduce. Try not to take quotes out of context next time, it really diminishes your points.

[Romberry]

80. Something tells me it isn't "your party"...

...that you are mad at. You really have all the talking points down cold and repeat them ad infinitum. Try this one: Social Security IS social insurance and is NOT an investment plan. Repeat until it sticks in your head.

[BansheeDem]

86. Something tells me that you don't like it when a fellow Democrat ...

has a thought that aligns with the opposition on ONE subject. And BTW, if you had read a few more of my posts, you would see that there are parts of this plan that I adamantly oppose: Like tying future benefits to prices. I am also in favor of raising the cap to 90,000 dollars or more. Not exactly Republican is it? As to the insurance mantra. I would gladly say it if it was true, but it isn't. Social Security is not even remotely like insurance. It has no guaranteed benefits and can be changed at will. What type of insurance do you own that is like that?

[BansheeDem]

29. Thanks for the link - I take it that this is what you are referring to ...

"TSP is an add-on plan, not a substitute for Social Security" benefits like Bush's proposal, Gale said. "He wants to take away their Social Security benefits if they participate in the thrift plan. That's the crux of the debate. No federal employee loses Social Security money by putting money into the thrift plan."

What Gale said - and it is VERY misleading, is that this plan will TAKE AWAY their social security benefits if they participate. That couldn't be farther from the truth. Well, it's not misleading, it's actually an out and out lie. This is the type of fear-mongering that My party is doing, and I have a real problem with that. If they are opposed to the plan - fine by me, but put out the facts and propose something better. Lying about it doesn't cut it.

"Under his plan, Bush said, workers under 55 would be allowed to put up to 4 percent of their Social Security payroll taxes into the personal investment accounts "and receive a better rate of return" than they could expect from Social Security."

What this proposal amounts to is a supplement to planned Social Security benefits. Taking 4 percent of payroll tax and putting it in a private account isn't going to put anyone at substantial financial risk, and the additonal income derived from a higher rate of return will ADD to their social security - not the opposite.

[JanMichael]

43. Wrong. Seriously man, it's not true.

http://www.pkarchive.org/column/020805.html

Don't fall for this crap please.

It is not a "supplement" it's a substitution. And if the economy advances as fast as this scheme needs then voila! SS is fine too.

[retread]

46. You are a much better person than I JanMichael. When I see

crap like this, I immediately assume ulterior motives.

[Toots]

63. Let's do a little math okay

You make $75000 a year. the maiximum amount for payroll tax. Payroll tax is 6.25% employee part anyway. You pay $4687.50 for the year. 4% of that is $187.50. Now let's say you make your 9% on that $187.50. That is $16.87 If everything goes according to schedule and we all know how that goes. The average income is only half this amount. Are we in the chips now?

[BansheeDem]

67. In the Chips? -- Nope, not even close ...

and this is what I have been saying for many posts now. This plan is not designed to replace Social Security. It is just a way to add a bit to our retirement. It is always better to make 9 percent than 3 percent; even if we are talking about small amounts.

[kohodog]

76. 9%...dream on, especially after deducting a 4%-15% management fee.

BTW, which is your party? You cleverly talk around that. Just curious because I haven't run across many Democrats with your passion fot "personal accounts." If you're Rebublican or Librertarian that's fine with me. Just stand up and say so.

[BansheeDem]

82. Apparently you haven't looked at the administrative ...

costs associated with the THRIFT model or the average return. Even in the most conservative option, it is about 5 percent. And as to my party, I've answered that question not cleverly, but directly numerous times during this thread. Maybe I can get you to read more of what I've written if you look through them and see.

[annabanana]

66. If 4% of the Social Security payroll taxes go into

the "private" accounts, they DON'T go into the Social Security funds.. That is diversion which will further weaken the Social Security system..

[kohodog]

120. It's not 4 % of SS tax, even though that's what Bush says.

It's 4% of your income, up to 90k or whatever the limit is this year. The balance, 2.2% plus employer matching (another 6.2%) would go to Social Security. So the 4% is 2/3 of the employee contribution, a large amount of money overall which will need to be replaced by borrowing to pay current benefits.

"Under his plan, Bush said, workers under 55 would be allowed to put up to 4 percent of their Social Security payroll taxes into the personal investment accounts "and receive a better rate of return" than they could expect from Social Security."

Either Bush is lying, confused, or the reporter here has no clue.

[Inland]

50. No, its an insurance plan

Although like any insurance plan, it is only as good as the insurer. True, congress can change it at will. But to say there have been no guarantees--there have been plenty. In fact, Bush makes plenty himself. Legally enforceable? Maybe not. Will I burn Bush's ass if he breaks them? I promise I'll do everything I can.

As to the success of the thrift plan, it's the same as my 401k plan. A diversified portfolio manages risk. A diversified portfolio would include an amount of safe investments. Right now, my portfolio's safe investment is Social Security. Eliminate Social security and I don't invest more of my 401k in stocks. I invest less. I and really most Americans have about as much in stocks as they can stand.

Now one of the problems with the diversified portfolio as a way to eliminate risk is that it returns less. Bush loves to use the return on the stock market as what one can expect from private accounts. But in the same breath, he says that the accounts will have to be controlled to avoid risk. You can't have it both ways.

And diverting four percentage points is actually about a third of the total payroll tax. I don't see the effect, but I don't think that lowering receipts by one third is tenable.

I like Paul Krugman's comment that if the stock market is such a sure thing, why doesn't the government borrow the intial two trillion to convert to private accounts, and just invest it in the stock market, and use the amazing profit to pay off the social security and make a buck on top of it? The answer is, of course, that the government wants YOU to take the gamble, so that if it doesn't work, its YOUR fault. It isn't interested in the risk. My interest is limited.

[yankeedem]

52. Well put

Socialize the risk, privatize the gain. It's the Republican way.
:yourock:

[BansheeDem]

69. WOW, that was excellent ...

Finally someone I can talk to that makes a cogent argument without the rhetoric.

Let me respond ...

I think your "I'll burn his ass comment" is commendable, but if Congress decides to significantly change Social Security there is nothing that you or I can do about it. As a matter of record, it has been changed many times already. Correct me if I'm wrong, but neither of us had any real influence on those changes. In reality it holds no guarantees either now, or for the future. This is one of the reasons that reform is even being discussed.

I agree with your comment concerning the over investment in stocks. I think we learned a valuable lesson in the late 90s when the tech bubble burst and many were left holding the bag as it were. Had they been invested in a much wider range of vehicles,ie; stocks, bonds, real estate, and commodities, the bump wouldn't have been nearly as hard, and the recovery much shorter. I have my THRIFT in the Guaranteed Income fund at present. Prior to that it was with common stock. As I get nearer to retirement I will switch it again to short term bonds. I know that you can see how my strategy has played out. Like you, I am less willing to accept risk on investments as I get nearer to retirement. It just makes good sense.

The 4 points can be absorbed by a combination of those coming into the system, raising of the proposed retirement age to 67 now, and a hike on the current cap. I read recently that a raise of the cap to $90,000 would recover about 10% of the revenue shortfall and the retirement age rise would take care of about 25%. That would cover that third you are talking about. I don't believe that it would be the fatal blow to the Social Security program that many have said if they enact measures to offset it.

[Inland]

106. None of that changes much.

True, congress has changed the plan before--when the plan seemed insolvent, changes were made that both lowered benefits and raised revenues. The increase in the retirement age you discussed, for example, is already in place and phasing in right now.

But nobody has had the crust to look at the plan, see insolvency thirty years from now and then suggest LOWERING revenues.

Its' the difference between shoring up the plan and undercutting it. Bush is in the process of undercutting it.

As I said before, there ARE guarantees. The risk is that the guarantees won't be honored, in other words, the risk to social security is Bush and his agenda. Remove Bush's agenda and you remove the risk of the guarantees being breached.

Given that the entire foreseeable risk to SS is Bush and his dirtbag agenda, I can't see raising the cap. All that does is put money in the ss fund, which Bush says doesn't exist. Clearly, raising the cap would make a larger amount of money for Bush to misappropriate. MOreover, it is abundantly clear that Bush uses the social security surplus to disguise the size of the operating deficits he is running, so that every dollar raised from wages leads to a tax cut of two dollars on investment income. Until the risk of Bush is behind us, I don't believe ANYONE should give the system more money then is already planned.

NOw, it seems that you suggest removing the cap to fund the private accounts. That seems a lot like the "social security plus" whereby the existing system is left alone and another system of forced savings supplements it. It's neither here nor there.

[K-W]

73. Right, it was supposed to be insurance, but because it is a law,

republicans can dismantle it.

Exactly right.

[King Coal]

12. Do you think Rove wants to change SS because he is benevolent?

They want to steal the money. SS is not an investment program. That's what 401's and IRA's are. There is too much money chasing too few investments now.

[BansheeDem]

17. I think the plan is to allow a bit of ownership ...

much like that in the THRIFT savings plan. It has proven so popular with federal workers that Rove & co know a good political advantage when they see it.

[King Coal]

22. That's not what I asked you.

Do you think Rove is benevolent?

[BansheeDem]

33. And I answered ...

Rove knows political advantage when he sees it. I don't know of any politicians - from either party - that do things out of the goodness of their heart.

[Kingofalldems]

45. Total BS

The plan is to destroy SS. Armey just admitted it yesterday. Furthermore TSP is VOLUNTARY and has nothing to do with SS or any other retirement. In fact this is what Gore and Kerry proposed---SS plus a program modeled on TSP. Why hasn't Bush gotten on board on this perfectly reasonable plan?

[kohodog]

70. Look Again at what happens when you retire.

The money in your "personal" account is invested in an annuity so you won't spend it too quickly. When you die, any leftover money in the annuity goes back to the fund, not your kids. The fees will jump from .05% to 3%, or 15% if Chile and Britain are an example.

And your investment choices are narrow and decided by the Government. You talk about "thrift," but the admin has only ever said that there is a comparison. They need to lay down their cards and present specifics before we can get anywhere with this. But they never will. They will try to pass something on that order before anyone has had a chance to read it, ala The Patriot act or the last budget. "Here's a 1000 page bill. the vote is in two hours. All we can say is that if you vote against it you're unpatriotic."


baaa...baaa...baaa say the dems in the house.

[yankeedem]

20. Yea, those "professional" investment firms

Really have a great track record. Did you know that 80% of mutual funds don't beat the S&P 500? Would more "professional" firms have stopped the 2000 stock market dive? Or the 1987 dive?

Congratulations on the thrift savings plan. Isn't it a comfort to be able to invest some money there, especially since if you lose some or all of it you still will have Social Security to fall back on?

I can invest a little more aggressively, and gain a little higher return, because Social Security gives me a backup plan. Take away half of that GUARANTEED benefit, and I can't invest aggressively.

[BansheeDem]

28. THRIFT's track record speaks for itself ...

and since the WH proposal is modeled after it, I am very comfortable with the idea. What I still don't understand is why more Democrats can't see the value of allowing more Americans (not just federal workers) to take advantage of such a plan. BTW, we are talking about 4 percent of payroll tax here, not exactly a huge gamble for anyone, is it?

As far as the 2000 dive is concerned, THRIFT made it through that just fine. As it did the Enron meltdown. Apparently the "gubberment" hired some pretty smart managers to administer the TSP and for a fraction of the cost of most firms.

I can understand a certain amount of reluctance to invest in something that has a downside potential, but after looking at the facts and history concerning the type of plan proposed, it would seem to me that most of the fear-mongering would be abated.

[yankeedem]

38. I have a 401k and a brokerage account

And I appreciate the security of social security, thank you. I can risk my own money since I have Social Security is available.

Do you understand insurance at all? Social Security is NOT an investment plan, it is insurance. If you understand insurance, you are minimizing your payout in exchange for reduced risk. Your scheme is based on you working until full retirement age.

But....

37% of people receiving Social SECURITY are not retired.
Millions of recipients of Social SECURITY are children who have lost parents.
Millions more receipients of Social SECURITY are disabled.

How much will your vaunted "Thrift" plan pay out if you are permanently disabled at 28? If your GUARANTEED benefit was cut up to 47%, as is true of the * plan, would you be able to survive at all?

See, you people like to think the good times will last forever. But if something happens before forever, I know that Social SECURITY will be there. Your risky schemes will not be there.

[BansheeDem]

56. Social Security is not insurance ...

It is a law passed by Congress that can be changed at will. Insurance is a contractual arrangement binding on both parties. Social Security has no such guarantees. If you doubt that, look at your periodic Social Security statement the next time and read the disclaimer at the bottom.

[yankeedem]

39. By the way, your numbers are fuzzy math.

You say that 4% of the Social Security contribution will be redirected to the plan, or,
I'm quoting you in another thread "use a person making 260 dollars a week gross income as an example. Right now 15.60 of that goes toward payroll tax. Under the partial privatization plan, 62 cents of that could be diverted to a private account."

Uh, no. About $10 of that $15.60, or about 65%, goes towards private account schemes.

You do know that the last 23 years has been the strongest secular bull market in history, right? What is your plan if the stock market does nothing for the next 20 years, like, for example, from 1929 after the crash to 1955, when the Dow finally exceeded its precrash high?

http://www.socsec.org/publications.asp?pubid=503

[annabanana]

48. see post 47

also..TSP accounts DID take a big hit (up to 30%) in 2000. I know mine did.

[yankeedem]

49. Oh my, good that you didn't retire in 2002

with your plan...


G F C S I
2000 6.42 11.67 -9.14 -15.77 -14.17
2001 5.39 8.61 -11.94 -9.04 -21.94
2002 5.00 10.27 -22.05 -18.14 -15.98

While the two more conservative plans did well, the others? Whoa!

I guess everyone bailed out of the C, S, and I funds just in time, huh? By my calculations, if you retired after 2002, from the "I" plan, you had 56% in your account of what you had at the end of 1999. You had 86% of what you had at the end of 1994.

Good they had a GUARANTEED benefit, wasn't it?

See, all you SS privatization advocates think everything is going to work out perfect for you. But intelligent people are willing to pay for insurance, just in case.

[BansheeDem]

60. I've been invested in the THRIFT plan for nearly 20 years ...

and have had my money in a number of different funds. All told, I have seen an average return of about 9 percent. Taking a snapshot of one or two years is not a good way to judge a program. As to the GUARANTEED benefit? If you are referring to Social Security, then you are mistaken. There is no guaranteed benefit, and never was. Congress can change the plan at will. Congress can eliminate the plan if they so choose. Social Security is NOT an insurance plan. An insurance plan is a legally binding contractual agreement between two parties. Social Security has no such provisions. Everyone understands that, right?

As a note:

The best way to manage this is to invest in the common stock (S&P 500) early in your career, then switch to mid-caps, then over to short-term bonds near retirement. It's not rocket science by any means. The WH has stated that they are thinking about putting such a provision in the plan. Those nearing retirement would automatically be switched over to the more conservative options as a fail-safe measure.

[oneighty]

53. We can take advantage

of such plans without using our SS payroll tax. We are already free to do that and have SS too. What are you missing?

You make no sense at all.

180

[BansheeDem]

59. Try and see this from a neutral standpoint for a minute.

Low and middle income workers generally do not have the expendable income to do that. Personally, I have always saved a portion of my pay and invested where I could; but with that said, I realize that not everyone can or wants to do that. With this plan, a person can invest a small portion of their payroll tax in the plan and still have the same net income. Under plans like THRIFT, payments are made over and above the payroll tax. So although the plan has many of the same features as THRIFT, it doesn't involve putting aside additional monies for that purpose.

[oneighty]

98. I think you are

trying to sell me (Us) something that feels, smells and looks like snake oil. Tell me. Do you have an agenda? And if so--why?

Also you assume that unlike yourself others do not save a bit here and there. Many 'poor people' save by investing in homes and small business. They also invest in children and in local taxes to maintain our streets our villages our schools (It takes a village).

Many of us look at our country as a community; all for one and one for all.

Social security is part of that.

I do not wish to see it diminished.

180--socialist and pacifist. (Oh no! Not a socialist!)

[Eric J in MN]

27. Those conservative investments are unlikely to return

over 3% per year. People whose investments get less than 3% get their benefits cut.

Also, everyone under the age of 55 may get a benefit cut of 40% by linking increases to prices instead of wages.

Please read my article at:
http://www.moveleft.com/moveleft_essay_2004_12_15_bush_administration_wants_to_cut_social_security.asp

[BansheeDem]

64. The most conservative option under TSP ...

has returned about 5 percent over the life of the plan. This is not to say that this is a guaranteed amount, but a 20 year track record is a fairly good indication of what it will earn on average.

As to your second point ...

I read the article and it contains some very good information. I don't think the Social Security benefit should be linked to prices either. It should remain linked to wages, and continue to include a COLA that is linked directly to inflation. This is one part of the proposed plan that I adamantly oppose.

I am also in favor of lifting the cap. Personally, I would like it raised even more than proposed. I don't think raising it to 150-200k would be unreasonable.

[me b zola]

77. Fear mongering??

The repukes are the only party specilizing in that offense against America.

There is no crisis in social security. Period. Anyone who says that this is an issue that needs immediate attention is fear mongering. If you want to talk about issues that need immediate attention, might I direct you to traditional Democratic values...you know, those things that help sustain a healthy community.

In the meantime, when it becomes neccessary, raising the cap on SS will more than be enough to keep it solvent, particularly since all of us Dems know that the BILLIONS given to the wealthiest in the last tax cut can well afford this slight inconvience to their obscene lifestyles.

Lanugage tells a lot about a person.

[BansheeDem]

91. I've answered the fear-mongering question elsewhere several ...

times, so I will address your other point. I favor a raising of the cap on Social Security. As a matter of fact, I would raise it to the 150-200k range, or even more. I am also opposed to the idea that future benefits should be tied to prices as opposed to wages.

The only part of the Republican proposal that I favor is the partial privatization of a very small part of the payroll tax. This is what I have consistently said here. If you think for one minute that this alligns me with the Republicans, then you haven't been reading what I've said.

[Romberry]

79. So, basically as a moderate Dem you favor killing Social Security?

You seem to not have a grasp of what Social Security is, exactly. You somehow seem to think that it is or ought to be some sort of "investment plan" when it isn't and shouldn't be. Retirement benefits are not all Social Security is for. It's also for the disabled and their dependents and for the survivors of the deceased. It's a bedrock social contract that says we are all in this boat together. Democrats aren't fear mongering. The fear mongerers are the Republicans running around screaming "Social Security is bankrupt!" when it in fact is not and will not be even if the trust fund is depleted in 2044-52 and benefits are scaled back to 75-80 percent of what is scheduled.

You're tired of fear mongering? I'm tired of people who don't know what they are talking about and who seem to stand ready to offer help to the far right to phase out the most successful program in the history of government. Social Security works. Leave it alone.

[BansheeDem]

89. Social Security is not going to die now or in the future ...

I don't buy that line any more than you do. What I was describing as fear-mongering was the parties characterization that if you opt into the very minor private accounts portion, then all of your benefits would be stripped away. That's no more true than the WH saying that the program is in 'crisis'.

As to phasing out Social Security? Please, it may not be a guaranteed program, it is certainly not insurance; but there will never be a time when the general public would ever allow the plan to be phased out altogether. You and I both know that.

[Trajan]

112. There is nothing stopping you from investing YOUR money in these elements

Nothing at all .... The question is: how do we protect Social Security for the future ?? .... The fact is that one can invest in the stock market in addition to doing one's share to support the economic safety net that has saved a great many americans from financial hardship and dislocation after their productive working years have ended ....

That is EXACTLY what was intended with SS ... and it has been an amazing success .... The problem is: it needs to get over the hump of the baby-boom retirees .... private investing wont help this process in ANY way .....

No one is stopping YOU from investing in the wide variety of financial vehicles available in the marketplace ... have at it ....

In the meantime: we need to make sure that social security is there for the rest of america ...

Private investment is Apples ....

Social Security is Oranges ....

Just as you say: DON'T compare apples and oranges ....

[MadHound]

123. And in times of great financial distress

All of those investment vehicles go straight out the window, along with the money invested in them. And if you would look carefully at things such as our ever widening trade gap, our record busting defecit, the slide of the dollar, the switch to euros as the currency of choice, the over-inflated PE ratios on most investments, etc. etc. ad nauseum, you would realize that financially speaking, this country is on the brink of a crisis that is going to make the Great Depression look like the Roaring Twenties.

In addition, you aren't addressing the 4.2 Trillion dollars that this plan would take to implement, money that will be added directly to the deficit. In fact such another huge burden thrown on our economy may very well be what breaks it.

Sorry friend, but privatization is designed only to benefit the few, the stock brokers, and the Bushco gang who are out to bankrupt our government to satisfy their own greed.

[applegrove]

3. Joe Kennedy Sr. was given a stock tip from a shoe shine boy on

Wall Street one day. He decided then and there that if this person thought he knew the markets that the whole thing would soon collapse. Kennedy Sr. was one of the few who took all his money out of the stock market before the crash. Why he ended up so rich (really everyone around him ended up so poor).

There is some value in investing in stock markets if the corporations are going to be growing in & with the emerging economies, while the American and Western economies will not see so much growth. There is money to be made there and long term growth. But also a big danger that as investors are kept small, the rich will have better investment advice and make money off the un-informed middle class. Also the rich can "retire" in a market downturn and survive. There is a reason why the elites do not want the pension funds and the SS investments to be the biggest block of investments. There is power in that.

The corporations would also like the wealth of the American Middle Class to fund their expansion. But don't hold your breath waiting for them to ask for the favour - that might make you think you were entitled to taxes from the corporations & the elites or something.

[ArkDem]

7. Kennedy made his money bootlegging liquor during

Prohibition.

[applegrove]

8. Oh yes - so did many people in Canada. Fishermen in Nova Scotia

turned to Rum running when it was profitable - and none of them are embarrassed by it. The only big difference today for business people is that they buy the government to get favorable regulations so they can make a profit (rather than going around the regulations like the rich always do - who do you think drank all that booze? Who do you think was doing all the cocaine in the 1970s? Rich kids!).

Kennedy also invested his profits in the stock market until that "shoe-shine boy" tipped him off to 'too much speculation'.

Yes - investing is risky for sure.

[Egalitariat]

14. If we had an other 1929 style market crash and economic meltdown

money would quit flowing into, and (more importantly) out of, SS now. Not later. Not in 2018 or 2053. Now.

The SS reform is not a good deal, but your comparison is not a good one.

[BansheeDem]

35. Remember what caused the crash ...

and why so many lost all they had. They had been buying stock on the margin, and then had it called. This is no longer the case, as we all know - so a 1929 style crash is all but impossible.

[yankeedem]

51. Except for

1962

1974

1987

and of course 2000-2001. I guess if someone was 65 those years, they could have just kept working another 10 years and made their money back, right?

[Egalitariat]

54. None of those was even close to 1929***

nm

[BansheeDem]

55. None of those events came even near the 1929 crash (n/t).

[met00]

34. Count on Joe to sell you out

We, the Democrats, are winning the battle. The opposition has tried to pain the AARP as pro-gay anti-military to kill the messenger. So, what about Congress? Are the Dems standing together and making a wall that will not fall? Yes... and No...

Joe Lieberman is negotiating with the GOP to come up with a partial solution to privatization.

We have this won! DINO Joe is selling out, yet again.

http://www.timetogojoe.com/

[yankeedem]

41. Don't forget Nelson of Nebraska

nt

[me b zola]

78. You wrote an outstanding post

Too bad an f'er had to come to slime it up.

[Ms. Clio]

81. They are working really really hard today

Rove must be getting nervous.

[yankeedem]

83. Funny, our friend did nothing to address his "fuzzy math"

He can take his talking points back to the Heritage Foundation and collect his check.

[annabanana]

85. ding ding ding..We have a Winner!

The spurious arguments must be furiously addressed, lest anyone mistake our positions.

[sadiesworld]

92. Our "friend" did nothing to address most of the points made here, e.g.,

-What about disability and survivors' benefits?
-Why has privatization failed miserably everywhere it has been attempted?
-What about the fees-any sane person knows they will steadily increase?
-Did s/he really acknowledge that "poor investment decisions" could impact retirement benefits????
-What about retiring after a downturn ("terra, terra, terra")?

My favorite new talking point is that SS "isn't REALLY guaranteed". Okay, while technically true, what in the hell is? Defined benefit plans? Insurance company solvency? The stock market???? So what are they saying here--since a perfect guarantee is not available, how about no guarantee at all? Sounds a bit like "since the rich avoid their tax obligations, why bother taxing them at all? At least we (sort of) have our vote.

But truly, I would love to see * and every repug in the house and senate shout this from the rooftops: "Your SS benefits are not guaranteed because we can do WHATEVER THE HELL WE WANT! Even Diebold wouldn't be able to cover for the carnage in '06 and '08.

[Bridget Burke]

93. SS is really his main interest--if you check his posts on other threads.

And he never did manage to give the details on Bush's plan.

[kohodog]

94. There are no details....and none will be forth coming.

Bush and his cronies want people to buy into the concept. Then they will shove a Corporate/Wall Street written bogus plan like they did with medicare down Congress' throat. The Financial Services big wigs will break out fat cigars...

But this one isn't going to make it. There is too much sentiment against privitization and lawmakers have to consider their primary job...re-election!

[yankeedem]

108. Gee, I forgot the great privatization successes

Some puke on the radio was talking about how privatization worked so well in Chile. Yea, that's what all Americans want, a Chilean lifestyle. They are rolling in the retirement money from private accounts, I tell you- that is those not eating out of garbage cans.

[Cha]

115. Excellent point ...to remember what happened

before Social Security and why it was so well received when FDR instigated it.

People were putting their money in the st0ck market and lo and behold..1929 happened.

Just like 1984 is happening right now.

[kohodog]

116. Yes, War is Peace

Freedom is slavery. Healthy Forest Initiative, Clear Skies Agenda. Social Security Ownership. Blah, blah, blah. Got to give 'em credit though. Who'd ever have thought they'd get this far?

[Cha]

118. When you have the mainstream/fascist

media on your side and billions of dollars ..that they are stealing from America AND they will stop at NOTHING to achieve world domination..this is how far they get.

It will be interesting to see what exactly does bring them down.

[bleedingheart]

121. The Average Family didn't have JackShit before Social Security

Most people worked until they died or were too infirm to get to work.
Grandparents, Parents and their children lived together to pool resources.

There was no large middle class and very few people had enough money to even think about investing it. Those that lost their shirts in the Stock Market were the ones who got shit on by the Ponzi schemes and the eventual market crash....but they were the few ...not the average.

The average people just got to deal with the ramifications of a bad market environment.

Sadly today people are overextended and they aren't putting away any money for their future so if they f*ck up social security ...we will see a return to the hard scrabble days of the early 19th century..