TAX FREE UNIVERSAL SAVINGS ACCOUNTS TO FIX SOCIAL SECURITY?!?!

[bottomtheweaver]

Please, please say it ain't so!

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Rosco T.]

In addition to, not instead of n/m

[SmileyRose]

39. I'm going to stick that to the end of a hammer and start beating people with it.

"In addition to not instead of". Seems pretty obvious to me and everyone else I know who watched the speech. I'm beginning to wonder about Netvocates on the DU.

[bottomtheweaver]

40. Word to those who cannot remember the past:

The universal savings account gimmick is not new. It's a well-known ploy to private SS by diverting payroll deductions into 401k-type "savings" accounts. Some of us have seen this movie before:

http://www.network-democracy.org/social-security/bb/proposals/usa_accounts.html

[bottomtheweaver]

41. Oh and that website? Sponsored by

[SmileyRose]

42. Where does it say anything about diverting payroll deductions from SS?

I heard that claim when IRA's and 401K's started and have not yet seen any evidence either one of those has negatively impacted SS benefits.

[bottomtheweaver]

43. Did you read the document I linked to?

The idea is that it would use the exact same payroll-deduction mechanism, including the matched employer contribution, to basically do what SSA already does, only via private investment:

"Investment Choice. Individuals will have the option of investing
their accounts in a universal retirement plan similar to the Federal
Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), a 401(k)-type plan for federal government
employees. Individuals would be able to choose among a limited number
of broad-based investment options similar to those offered in the TSP
and in many private sector 401(k) plans. We look forward to working
with Congress and experts from the private sector to devise the best
way to administer the accounts, as well as to explore whether it would
be possible to provide account holders with the option of investing
directly with private sector fund managers."

In other words, it would give workers the "option" of diverting some or all of their SS contributions into private hands. If it looks like privatization and walks like privatization, it's privatization.

[SmileyRose]

44. Again

where does it say SS deductions would be diverted? It specifically says similar to 401K plans, which is CLEARLY IN ADDITION TO SS security deductions not instead of.

You are reading your own fears into the plan, which is fine. But nowhere in any of the plans I've seen does it say diverting SS deductions.

[bottomtheweaver]

46. Of course they don't say it.

They don't say they've been trying to wreck Social Security since 1936, either, but they have. And if this idiotic ruse was really independent of SS, why would he mention them in the same breath? Don't be so naive. None of this is new.

[SmileyRose]

48. That was the claim about 401ks and IRAs too.

If this becomes about privatizing SS then I'll get my shorts in a twist. Until then, I'll leave "there's no proof but I'm making the charge anyway" to talk radio.

[bottomtheweaver]

50. What the heck do you think it's about?

And if we already have IRAs, savings accounts, and all the other wonderful "products" currently offered by the financial services industry, why do we need to peel off payroll deductions from Social Security?

And you have the gall to accuse ME of being a netvocate? :crazy:

[SmileyRose]

51. Er

From your link - this is obviously for people too poor to do much savings on their own......... and I do not know nor do I care who or who is not a netvocate, but when there are dozens of threads willfully misrepresenting what President Obama is advocating then yes, I do wonder WTF is going on. You need to really read your own link, it's abundantly clear the plan is intended for people who make incomes too low to be capable of saving in 401ks or IRAs on their own in addition to making sure they can count on social security.



Here's How USAs Work:

98 million adults would receive an automatic government
contribution to their Universal Savings Account every year.

In addition to the automatic contribution, the government
would match, dollar for dollar, voluntary contributions to
the USAs by low and moderate income workers. Eligible
workers with higher incomes would have a match rate of at
least 50 percent.

[Skittles]

1. WTF?

[bottomtheweaver]

5. He just said we need to face up to fixing SOCIAL SECURITY!!!

Good grief, it's the most UN-broken progam in our nation's history!!!


:wow:

[leftstreet]

10. And all those Congressional fuckers applauded like mad

:puke: :puke: :puke:

[bottomtheweaver]

18. I thought the applause sounded a little thin right after he said that.

In fact it seemed to me the ovations dropped off noticably for the rest of the speech.

[closeupready]

55. I did notice that Pelosi gave polite, brief applause to that part.

The nonverbal equivalent of damning with faint praise, is how I interpreted that.

[elleng]

34. 'Fixing,'

or addressing as a significant 'money pit?' (my words)

Could we please be calm until we see what he suggests? PLEASE?

[bottomtheweaver]

37. The word he used was "reform"

which is a little more honest, considering that it doesn't need fixing, but equally alarming.

[elleng]

45. If you choose to be alarmed, go right ahead.

.

[leftstreet]

2. Fuck No!

I just threw up in my mouth.

[Oregone]

3. LOL...so he did say it...I thought so...

I turned this on to check. Hm. Strange.

[Captain Hilts]

4. UGGGGGGGGGGGGGG HHHHHHHHHHH....nt

[aquart]

6. Nononononononono!

[Hello_Kitty]

7. Sounded like more of an adjunct to SS and a (hopefully) replacement for 401ks. eom

[Demobrat]

8. I think he was talking about

401k's for everybody, not just people who work for employers who offer them. Nothing to do with SS.

[bottomtheweaver]

16. "reform," "Social Security," and "universal savings accounts"

do not belong in the same paragraph of a Democratic speech. Okay, I admit, he hasn't unveiled the details, but this sounds very similar to the crap Junior was pushing two years ago -- unsuccessfully.

[eyesroll]

9. Look at the grammar:

"To preserve our long-term fiscal health, we must also address the growing costs in Medicare and Social Security. Comprehensive health care reform is the best way to strengthen Medicare for years to come. And we must also begin a conversation on how to do the same for Social Security, while creating tax-free universal savings accounts for all Americans."

(my emphasis added)

"do the same" = strengthen.

"While" indicates that the savings accounts are separate.

[bottomtheweaver]

12. Translation: let's break Social Security by privatizing it.

Because corporations do such a better job of safeguarding our pensions?!?!


:wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:

[eyesroll]

15. This is not what I got out of this.

I got:
"We will strengthen Social Security."

WHILE we are doing that, we will create universal tax-free savings accounts.


Social Security is not enough to live on and hasn't been for quite some time. Private pensions are evaporating. We already have 401(k) and 503(b) for workers--why not have something not tied to the workplace?

[bottomtheweaver]

17. Why privatize it? It's doing better than any private plan I'm aware of.

Once you start splitting it off into corporate-administered accounts, the gates are open to total privatization.

I know, it sounds innocent enough, but they've been pushing variations on this theme since Roosevelt established it in 1937.

[elleng]

35. Thanks for this analysis!

Sure wish more would do the same, and avoid hysteria!

[bottomtheweaver]

38. Deconstructing the speech doesn't change anything. n/t

[BlooInBloo]

11. I dunno what that means, but it sounds like privatization, which is shitty...

I hope the details prove otherwise.

[depakid]

20. Also sounds like another tax dodge for the wealthy

As you said- I hope the details prove otherwise.

[tritsofme]

13. OMG!!1! A tax free account like a 401k or an IRA?

What are we going to do???

If you heard anything about privatization, you were hearing things.

Private accounts as a part of Social Security have been a part of the Democratic plank since the Clinton years.

[bottomtheweaver]

19. So then why is he saving the banks ?

Don't they offer universal savings accounts? Why is the SSA going to be pitted against them? SSA was established to do something entirely different and it's done a great job of it. It doesn't need to be "privatized."

[hfojvt]

49. they were also part of Bush's plan to backdoor privatize it

Bush: we'll just take 2-4% of the 15.3% of FICA taxes and put it in private accounts.

Me: Uh, sure, okay, but if we cannot pay benefits past 2024 with a 15.3% tax rate what is gonna happen with a 12% tax rate?

Bush: We're gonna slash benefits and/or raise the retirement age for people under 55. But it's okay because you all will make up for the lost benefits with your private accounts which will get much higher returns in the stock market.

Me: What if the market goes bad? What if some people make dumb choices with their private accounts, or have bad luck?

Bush: YOYO - You are On Your Own. The important thing is to divert trillions of dollars from the working class into the stock market. To push up stock prices, because 87% of stocks are owned by the top 20% and they naturally want higher stock prices. Uhm, I mean the important thing is that people are empowered to keep their own money in their own accounts.

[Cleita]

14. I thought we already had those, IRAs and 401Ks. n/t

[Demobrat]

22. Some people do.

If they're lucky enough to work for a company that offers them. It would be nice if they were available to everybody.

[bottomtheweaver]

23. This last year has shown that if you can't afford to lose the money in your 401k,

you can't afford a 401k. Private market investment is a basically a form of gambling. Social Security is a form of insurance. If the pension isn't lavish enough for some, let them risk their capital in the "financial services" industry. Privatizing SSA is completely ridiculous, unnecessary, and frankly dangerous.

[Demobrat]

26. Obama said nothing about privatizing social security.

And never has. He was talking about retirement accounts in place of pensions, which are basically gone, not social security. People need both. I have a 401k, and I lost nothing in the crash because I keep it all in cash. It's not necessary to keep those accounts in equity or bond funds.

[bottomtheweaver]

27. "Personal savings accounts" are privately (corporately) administered

investment accounts. The idea is to provide an "option" for workers to siphon some of their SSA payroll deductions into Wall Street. This idea has been kicking around in many versions since Ronnie's day. Wall Street "investment bankers" want to lose some of our cash for us directly, not doled out in boring old bailouts, and pukes like the idea of getting their claws into the trust fund so they can wreck it.

[Demobrat]

28. This is what W was pushing.

Obama is not talking about diverting SS funds.

[bottomtheweaver]

29. I know. That's what's alarming.

Obama didn't say "eventally we're going to have to figure out how to repay the SSA trust fund, but meanwhile it's healthy as an ox." He mentioned SS alongside Medicare and said it needed to be reformed. So it sounds much like the very propaganda Bushler was catapulting for several months at the start of his second term.

[Demobrat]

30. I have paid very careful attention to Obama's positons on SS

and I'm not worried. I really don't think he's the slightest bit interested in risking SS funds in the stock market. He's mentioned raising the cap on SS, but never ever, turning it over to Wall Street. I know you won't stop worrying about it because I tell you not to, but ... don't worry about it. Obama's definition of reform is very different from W's.

[bottomtheweaver]

31. I hope I'm wrong, but yeah I'm worried.

I thought he was bluffing about Afghanistan too but he wasn't. I don't remember too much detail of what he said about SS during the campaign, but since then he's been calling for fiscal responsibility and "entitlement reform" in a way that scares the shit out of me, mainly because he's not honestly representing the state of the SSA trust funds, which are hemorrhaging BLACK ink.

[muriel_volestrangler]

32. In Britain, 'savings' is normally used for interest bearing accounts

not money that gets invested in stock and shares. Have you a good reason for taking 'savings accounts' to mean stock market investment? Or are you jumping to conclusions?

[bottomtheweaver]

36. "Individuals would be able to choose ... broad-based investment options

similar to those offered in the TSP and in many private sector 401(k) plans."

This from a Clinton plan for "UNIVERSAL SAVINGS ACCOUNTS" rolled out in 1999 that apparently never went anywhere, praise be. The language is a little deceptive, but basically, if you plow through it, it's a way of diverting Social Security contributions into private investment rackets by giving workers a "choice" of where to "invest" their payroll deductions:

"Investment Choice. Individuals will have the option of investing
their accounts in a universal retirement plan similar to the Federal
Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), a 401(k)-type plan for federal government
employees. Individuals would be able to choose among a limited number
of broad-based investment options similar to those offered in the TSP
and in many private sector 401(k) plans. We look forward to working
with Congress and experts from the private sector to devise the best
way to administer the accounts, as well as to explore whether it would
be possible to provide account holders with the option of investing
directly with private sector fund managers."

http://www.network-democracy.org/social-security/bb/proposals/usa_accounts.html

[hfojvt]

47. IRAs have nothing to do with where you work

With an IRA you simply goto a bank or a broker and say "I wanna open an IRA account". Brokers will charge a $60 fee plus commission for whatever you buy or sell. Banks will do it for free but a) your money is in a CD that gets fairly low rates (but also much lower risk, especially in the bull market) and b) sometimes they ding you when you close the account and transfer it to another bank.

[earth mom]

21. I just asked this same question in another thread! Social Security is NOT broken

gawd damn it! :argh: :grr:

[bottomtheweaver]

24. No. It's a runaway cash cow.

Bringing it up cheek by jowl with Medicare to suggest that they both operate at a deficit is basically a version of the scam Bushler and the Reaganomic boys have been trying to put over on us for decades.

[MadHound]

25. Handing over the plum of Social Security

to his corporate masters on Wall St.

[ProfessorGAC]

33. Incredibly Stupid Idea

It will cause untold price inflation in securities. The intrinsic value of the equities and bonds in the market won't increase. Only the price will increase as huge amounts of money chase after the same volume of investment instruments.

One little dip in population growth and the value of those inflated holdings will plummet in one quarter.

This is a preposterously stupid idea.
GAC

[MiniMe]

52. How about to supplement social security?

I think that is the plan. It would be political suicide to reform it to private accounts, and I don't think they have any intention of doing that.

[mainer]

53. social security was never meant to be your ONLY retirement income

I think this is just to help us accrue pension funds in addition to SS.

[Occam Bandage]

54. In addition to, not instead of. SS shouldn't be your only retirement income. nt

[bottomtheweaver]

56. Fine, then let's call it that -- an unfunded mandate to solve a nonexistent problem.

Sure, we'd all like to retire richer than midas, but that isn't going to happen, and Social Security was devised to prevent us from dying in penury. Problem solved.

As for supplementary investment accounts, there are thousands of financial products already available that any person of any income can lose their shirt on. There's no necessity for the government to funnel payroll deductions to Wall Street and certainly no demand for it -- except, of course, from the brokers who stand to make a bundle by getting a cut of the Social Security action.

Cost and futility aside, what I object to is the duplicity. This is yet more welfare for Wall Street but it's being sold as a solution to a non-existent problem. Social Security is in no need of "reform" and to insinuate that it is -- and make no mistake, that's what the language in that speech did -- is a very serious breach of the public trust.