Greenspan

[Secretariat]

First it was the fiscal debt of the Fannie Maes for which Greenspan was predicting doom, and NOW he's urging social security to be cut due to the Bush deficits.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=&e=2&u=/ap/20040225/ap_on_bi_ge/greenspan_budget_7

Amazing. Bush gives tax breaks to our wealthiest Americans, and corporations, but retired people on fixed incomes have to have thier social security cut. Add to that many retirees can face prosecution for attempting to buy cheaper drugs from Canada, because our government refuses to apply some pressure on drug companies here.

Frankly, this is shameful, and whether you're a Bush supporter or not, Greenspan is comments are a disgrace.

I thought according to Lefty that Bush's tax cuts were going to grow us out of these deficits. Doesn't sound that way from Greenspan's words in this speech. Sounds pretty ominous, according to him, not me.

[JustRalph]

You use Greenspan to bolster your case in one thread and then you call his comments and opinion a disgrace in another thread?

Come....on......which is it Sec? Is Greenspan Crazy Al or not?

[Suff]

Originally posted by JustRalph
You use Greenspan to bolster your case in one thread and

Ralph.

You support cutting SSI to the Elderly? Have you ever seen a 75 year old widow living on SSI?

Wild dogs live better.

[bettheoverlay]

Us Baby Boomers should have had more kids, or not lived into a time when heartlessness is becoming a virtue.

[Tom]

Greenspan has also reccomended that people get less money, later in life, and that those of us not there yet make alternate plans for retirement.
To me, this is a deal breaker with being an American.
Maybe it's time to re-think this whole government thing.
I don't thinkg the form of governemtn we now have is working and it may be time for a new constitutional convention. Let's re-write the whole dang thing, but this time, put some foot notes inthat explain EXACTLY what we mean so that future generations will not to rely on old fogey judges to interpret it.
Cheers to Pennsylvania for working on the nation's toughest legislation regarding businesses outsourcing jobs.
Time to circle the wagons.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Suff
Ralph.You support cutting SSI to the Elderly? Have you ever seen a 75 year old widow living on SSI?
Wild dogs live better.

no suff, I don't support that at all. I was just pointing out the duplicity of Sec.

I think there is a problem but I don't support taking a damn thing away from the old folks. they earned it.......and they paid for it already......many with the lives of their spouses etc.

But I do think that what Pres. Bush said is true. We have to change something down the road. Down the road is the key phrase here. I don't expect to get a damn thing from Soc. Sec.

I am 43....BTW..........

[John]

Greenspan sucks,He has been on that job for a hundred years.He is losing his marbles picking on the elderly. He should retire and let a younger mind do the job.

[Rpd]

I agree, he probably scared half of America's elderly today. Those getting benefits currently won't be affected but most elderly are living on the edge and any news like this is such a threat to their lives.

I think some statement should be forthcomming from the administration to ease their fears.

I'm 53 and I don't think I'll see SS either.

FYI - I'm neither Republican or Democrat :)

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by JustRalph
You use Greenspan to bolster your case in one thread and then you call his comments and opinion a disgrace in another thread?

Come....on......which is it Sec? Is Greenspan Crazy Al or not?

I don't think things are always black and white. Does that make me duplicitous? Bad AL, Good Al. That's too simplistic in today's world. I agree with Greenspan that the deficit of our economy and of the Fannie Maes poses a severe risk to our economy. I don't agree that cutting social security to seniors is the answer when you are giving tax breaks which has increased the deficit is the right message to seniors on fixed incomes. I also disagree with Greenspan on the unprecedented ten rate increases he pulled off near the end of Clinton's term which brought the markets down, followed by the multiple rate decreases after Bush was elected. I thought that action was politcally motivated. Supporters of Greenspan woudl asay he was trying to curb inflation, but many economists at the time said he was going way too far. The market crash echoed that and its been a difficult recovery.

I guess overall I find him Greenspan apolitcal creature who is well aware of the danger of huge deficits, but I don't agree that you pick one item such as Social Security to be your broad based strategy for recovering debt. It's simplistic, and punishing to middle class and poorer americans. Is that duplicitous? I don't think so, but you're welcome to your opinion.

[JustRalph]

I will give you a little on your response. It may surprise you that I agree with some of what you say about Greenspans handling of the economy.

Here is some of Greenspans Bio:

Dr. Greenspan was born on March 6, 1926, in New York City. He received a B.S. in economics (summa cum laude) in 1948, an M.A. in economics in 1950, and a Ph.D. in economics in 1977, all from New York University. Dr. Greenspan also has performed advanced graduate study at Columbia University.

From 1954 to 1974 and from 1977 to 1987, Dr. Greenspan was Chairman and President of Townsend-Greenspan & Co., Inc., an economic consulting firm in New York City. From 1974 to 1977, he served as Chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers under President Ford, and from 1981 to 1983, as Chairman of the National Commission on Social Security Reform.

Some Say that his degree and experience are out of date. He graduated from College in 1948. Many say that there is no better training than pure experience. He sure has that. But several economists have been approached about taking his place. Many with MBA's from Harvard and other Ivy League schools. They are considered more "up to date qualifed" but most make so much money they won't consider replacing Greenspan, it would be a huge pay cut. I would say that I would rather have a more recently educated individual with half the experience to take his place. As long as the experience is relevant to our more recent economies (yes I mean economies, there are sub economies within our country and business environment) and their ups and downs. I would root for a younger man with the right education. I am not the only one who believes this. I think Al is getting up there.

Now that we have actually found a little common ground, what do you think Sec? is younger Better..................?

[Rick]

Facts on the problems facing Social Security:

http://www.ssab.gov/NEW/Publications/Financing/actionshouldbetaken.pdf

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by JustRalph
I will give you a little on your response. It may surprise you that I agree with some of what you say about Greenspans handling of the economy.

Now that we have actually found a little common ground, what do you think Sec? is younger Better..................?

Tom and JR in the same day...there is hope for all of us.....

I would like to see the Fed. Chairman have less power, and it be more in the hands of three people rather than one. The influence the fed chairman has is enormous, particularly when interest rates are higher. It's a tough job. I certainly beleive there are other qualified individuals out there, and I have no objections to someone younger providing they've some track record. It'd be interesting to hear HOW they'd move the economy in different directions than that proposed by Greenspan. I guess my question is how do you get the politics out of the job?

[Derek2U]

Yeah he is getting rusty but he talks sooo smooth. Just a point:
Economic Policy vs Monetary Policy. Greenspan's job is MP, NOT
EP --- outsourcing, tax cuts, trade agreements etc etc etc are
all Bush's EP ---- Greenspan may comment or bless an EP move,
but its NOT his job.

[Lefty]

sec, SS in trble cause of Bush tax cuts? Give me a blankin brk. SS in trble long time because it was originally setup like a Ponzi Scheme. Republicans have been saying SS in trble for yrs and the system must be changed, must be partially privatized. Something must be done, but that doesn't necessarily mean the old liberal agenda of tax taises. Once again Dems will try to use Greenspan's words to scare senior citizens and that;s unconscionable. The system must be fixed and Republicans have been crying this for at least fifteen yrs and the Dems won't go along with a fix because they want to keep the problem as an issue to divide grandparents and their kids, and get the senior votes because the seniors a bigger voting block than the kids. It's disgraceful.
When SS started the burden of supporting 1 retiree was spread over 300 workers. Now it's spread over only 3 workers and won't be long it'll be 2-1. I've said this in other threads.
Greenspan's saying, yes tax cuts are in trble if something drastic not done with SS.
PRIVATIZATION MUST START NOW. Get the hell out of the way you senior scaring, fear mongering dems and libs and let the Republicans fix this Ponzi scheme or it will be your grandkids in trble as well as mine.

[Rick]

Lefty,

But, the trouble with privatization is that it takes money out of the current funding. We're only running something like a 1% surplus right now, so if you took out 2-5% as has been suggested, you'd have to borrow the difference in order to pay current benefits. The math just doesn't add up. Somebody's going to get hurt and I hope it's not me. They can't ignore this thing forever. I agree that it has mostly to do with how they set up the system, but unfortunately we're stuck with what we've got and have to find a way out without bankrupting everyone. SS surplus can be invested in something other than Treasury bonds but that's a drop in the bucket compared with the overall amount required to pay current benefits.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
sec, SS in trble cause of Bush tax cuts? Give me a blankin brk. SS in trble long time because it was originally setup like a Ponzi Scheme. Republicans have been saying SS in trble for yrs and the system must be changed, must be partially privatized. Something must be done, but that doesn't necessarily mean the old liberal agenda of tax taises. Once again Dems will try to use Greenspan's words to scare senior citizens and that;s unconscionable. The system must be fixed and Republicans have been crying this for at least fifteen yrs and the Dems won't go along with a fix because they want to keep the problem as an issue to divide grandparents and their kids, and get the senior votes because the seniors a bigger voting block than the kids. It's disgraceful.
When SS started the burden of supporting 1 retiree was spread over 300 workers. Now it's spread over only 3 workers and won't be long it'll be 2-1. I've said this in other threads.
Greenspan's saying, yes tax cuts are in trble if something drastic not done with SS.
PRIVATIZATION MUST START NOW. Get the hell out of the way you senior scaring, fear mongering dems and libs and let the Republicans fix this Ponzi scheme or it will be your grandkids in trble as well as mine.

Yes, Bush's tax cuts have increased the size of the deficit, thereby increasing the amount of "interest" having to be paid on the debt, and it is substantial interest. You can't take money that was going to go into federal coffers, (the tax cuts), and not increase the size of the deficit (regardless if your intention was to stimulate the economy, intially that dough is gone). That money could have gone into helping reduce the deficit thereby reducing the size of interest payments, and making social security more solvent a little longer. This was one of Gore's themes with the SS lock box which never got across to voters.

I agree something has to be done about SS, but for those of us who have paid in thirty plus years we've been told it was a contract with people. Imagine breaking a thirty year plus contract overnight. The concept of privatization cannot work for the reasons outlined in the article below:

Why privatizing Social Security is insane
by Christian Weller

Social Security provided retirement benefits for 44 million workers and their families in 1997, and provided most of the retirement income for two-thirds of retirees. But projections say that by 20 years or so from now, Social Security will begin to face a shortage of funds, unless changes in the system are made.

Wall Street investment companies, and many conservatives, want to privatize Social Security, allowing these companies to make huge amounts of money managing workers' retirement savings. Under privatization, savings could be invested in the stock market, rather than government bonds, where they are now. But privatization would be a terrible idea for most workers. Here are six reasons why:

1. Social Security is crucial for low-income workers.
While Social Security benefits provide only 29 percent of the retirement income for the wealthiest fifth of retired workers, they provide 80 percent of the retirement income for those in the bottom fifth. In 1994, Social Security kept 42 percent of all its recipients out of poverty.

2. Social Security provides death and disability insurance.
When a worker becomes disabled or dies Social Security provides for their families. This insurance system takes tax money and redistributes it from those who are fortunate enough to work until retirement to those who suffer accidents or illnesses. A private system, in which each person is responsible for their own retirement savings, would reduce or eliminate this insurance.

3. Advocates of privatization lie in comparing Social Security to the stock market.

Projections that Social Security will run out of money several decades from now assume that economic growth will be slow, much slower than in the past. If this happens, wages will grow slowly and Social Security tax revenues will, too. But privatization advocates project high returns on stocks, which only happen during times of fast growth. If growth is slow, then stocks will not do well. On the other hand, if growth is fast, Social Security will have enough money to pay for all its obligations to workers.

4. Private companies charge huge administrative costs.
Social Security is a very efficient system, spending a mere 0.8 percent of contributions on administration. Little money is spent on managing investments, since all the funds are used to buy U.S. Treasury Bonds. In contrast, private companies would charge five percent to seven percent of workers' money to manage the investments and to guarantee definite monthly payments once a person retires. And the percentage fees would be highest on low-income workers, since the companies would make less money on them.

5. The stock market is a wild gamble.
Advocates of privatization love to argue that stocks provide much higher returns than Treasury Bonds. But, as recent months have shown, the stock market can swing wildly from gains to losses. Workers can lose out either if the whole market does badly, or if their individual investments do worse than the average. By one estimate, a worker who retires after 35 years faces a one-in-four-chance that she will have only 25 percent as much money in the bank as she had anticipated.

6. There are better alternatives than privatization.
There are several ways of providing more money for the Social Security system which would serve employees better than privatization. First, the government could invest part of Social Security taxes in the stock market. Second, the cap above which high-wage workers do not have to pay Social Security taxes -- currently set at $68,400 -- could be raised or eliminated, thus bringing more money into the system.

(This article is adapted from "Wall Street's Fondest Dream: The Insanity of Privatizing Social Security," Christian Weller, Dollars and Sense, Nov/Dec 1998.) "

And this article was when the Nasdaq was hovering around 5000. Imagine if Clinton had advocated this notion in the mid-90's. Retirees would have lost about 60% of their retiree savings. Lefty, you're not looking at the administrative costs involved in this. If you're a forklift operator or Walmart greeter in the new Bush economy, you don't have the dough or the time to hire a financial manager to get the best bang for the buck, you're just praying your health insurance doesn't run out, and you can keep your copay down to 100.00 a doctor visit.

And part of the reason the SS has been screwed up is because our government put the SS revenues into the general fund, rather than keeping it seperate. Perot hit hard on that issue, and he was right.

The two ideas in item six of the writer above have some merit. Government investment, and eliminating the SS cap. Imagine, the government knows we're going to war and are going to use lots of cruise missles. A little call to the SS adminstrator, and we put that SS money into Raytheon or Lockheed, and clean up. Talk about insider information, and everybody in SS benefits.

The government decides to hire Micrsoft to put in a massive computer system for the government. We call the SS adminstrator, and put tons into Microsoft, and voila, SS goes up.

Talk about insider info and a big portfolio. Screw individual investment. We got one hell of a money manager who could influence the market to boot.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Tom and JR in the same day...there is hope for all of us.....



Of course. Contrary to several other posters beliefs, we are reasonable people who look at facts and make informed decsions.
We are not Bush's pastsies.
Unlike the Bush bashers who never move off of their basic premise, convservatives and thoughtful liberals do.
Everything is not black and white, amazin as it may seem! ;)

Perhaps if both side could put aside their stupid arguments we could collectively do something about it. The current government is not working and it need to be changed in major ways.
Anyone up for a 10 million man/woman march on Washington this spring? maybe a DC tea party? I would love to p*** in that big pool! Me and a few thousand of my friends. hehehe!

[Lefty]

Rick, you can whine all you want about the contract. It's not gonna be fulfilled if the SS system collapses. Don't you get it at all?
Do you even know what a Ponzi scheme is?
Republicans want to fix it and you whine and the dems in congress don't want it fixed because it's a real nice "wedge issue" for them. If it's not partially privatized now it's gonna go away and all your whining won't help. You just can't keep raising taxes forever. It's gotta be fixed. 300 workers used to suuport 1 retiree. Now 3 workers support one retiree. LET THAT SINK IN.
This has been a mess for yrs and now you rush at the chance to blame GW. That's not even half rational.

[Lefty]

rick, would take no more administrative costs than the current system if done right. About that separate fund. You know who started tapping into that don't you? Non other than Johnson.
But tell you what, keep electing Dems and keep raising taxes and watch the whole damn thing go right down the drain.

[ljb]

Lefty,
Hate to burst your bubble but there was a surplus when W took office.

[Lefty]

lbj, that's not got a damn thing to do with SS. Get these nos in your mind 300-1, 2-1, does that tell you something? Hint: Ponzi scheme known as SS collapsing under its own wght.
Stay on point.

[ljb]

Lefty,
Oh i see the fact that the gubmnt is borrowing money up the wazoo from the ss fund with no intention of paying it back has nothing to do with it going broke. Must be some of that fuzzy math W is so fond of. Or maybe it is just voodoo economics. You make the call.

[Lefty]

It was Johnson that started the practice of taking the money from SS fund not Bush. Bush been in 3 yrs and all this stuff being going on forever and now you unthinking Bush Bashers see it as a reason to blame GW?
Look, 300 people once supported 1 retiree. Now 3 people support 1 retiree. It will soon be 2. If these numbers mean nothing to you then just reside in your own little Bush Bashing World. Dems have reisted fixing SS for yrs.

[Tom]

I am sure I am one of the three!
And I am getting little tired of it.

[Secretariat]

Lefty,

Read it.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2093707

[Lefty]

sec, i'm tired of the drivel. You'd think the man destryed the world in 3 short yrs. This SS thing been building for yr, and yrs. Republicans been crying for a fix for yrs. 300-1 to 3-1 didn't happen in 3 yrs.
And i'm sick of hearing about the deficit.
Plug in this no. GNP 11 TRILLION.
Stop the spinning and reelect Bush, give Congress a decent Republican majority and they'll fix the SS problem. Otherwise, bye, bye SS...

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
sec, i'm tired of the drivel. You'd think the man destryed the world in 3 short yrs. ...
And i'm sick of hearing about the deficit.


We're all tired of the drivel Lefty, and we're all tired about the deficit, but it's not going away with wishful thinking.

I posted that last post about the deficit and SS because it is from primarily conservative MSNBC.

Has Bush destroyed the world in 3 years? No, but he's certainly made a mess of things.

[Lefty]

sec, when you quote me don't be like the media libs and leave things out. You conveniently left out the part about the 11trillion GNP. I think that puts the deficit in perspective.
GW has chased terrorists to the ends of the earth. Got Saddam and getting close to Bin Laden. You libs have no idea how great this man is. And you completely dismiss the notion that everybody in this world said Saddam was a danger and needed to be gotten. Even the flipfloping John Kerry.
A mess? I think not. He's the cure for the mess the Democrats have caused.
The SS has went from 300 workers to one retiree to 3 to 1because the Dems have refused to let anything be done about it. They used it for political gain while we suffered.
But hell with it, just bash Bush. It's how you get your jollies.

[Rick]

Lefty,

What I've said has nothing to do with Bush or Kerry. I'm saying that if we use part of the SS taxes collected now for privatization we won't have enough to pay current benefits. That's a problem that needs to be solved and is probably the biggest reason that nothing's been done so far. They'd have to raise the SS tax rate or borrow or cut current benefits to make the privatization thing work. I can't understand why you call that "whining". Yes, I know what a Ponzi scheme is and you've repeated it 1000 times. You're point is so obvious that I didn't feel the need to comment on it before. You're right, it is a "Ponzi" scheme. Are you happy with that?

I'm not in the crowd that blames Bush for everything that's gone wrong. He's not the brightest guy but he's also been very unlucky. I'd more likely blame Congress for not doing anything about Social Security. What's the holdup? Republican Congress and Republican President. Why haven't they done what they say they want to do? Could it be that "privatization" as they've described it before just doesn't add up as I've pointed out? Or is it because the idea is just very unpopular with voters who view the Stock Market as too risky now?

[Secretariat]

Forget it Rick. Lefty will defend this man to the ends of the earth.
Of course we all know what a Ponzi scheme is,how hard does it take to type Ponzi scheme in a search engine to find out. Give us a break. But Lefty has never once addressed the points in the article I posted "Why Privatization is Insanity" or your salient points.

I still would like to hear his reply to this one:"When the Nasdaq was hovering around 5000. Imagine if Clinton had advocated this notion in the mid-90's. Retirees would have lost about 60% of their retiree savings."

Can you imagine people in the street, the panic, if their only retirement savings were tied up in that collapse?

But for Lefty, if the Almighty Bush says it, it must be so. He's the Pied Piper.

[Rick]

Sec,

Well, isn't that what the biggest problem in our government is now? Most of our politicians stubbornly defend the principles of either the left wing or the right wing and refuse to compromise in order to get anything useful done. Throw the bums out.

[Lefty]

sec, and you'll knock down every argument for privatization till SS collapses. So I guess your solution is best, let the damn thing collapse.
Your argument when stocks were low is pure utter nonsense. Over the yrs ever since its inception stocks have generated a consistent gain of over 10%. That;s through the highs and the lows. It's not a short term game, it's long range especially as it pertains to reitirement. And it's only partial, not full privatization, so nobody loses everything and people hang on through proper diversification and they make a bundle on retirement instead of the pitiful checks they get now. The arguments against partial privatization are fear mongering nonsense.
The dems answer always the same, raise taxes. Well, what do you do when you can't raise them anymore? It's toime for bold new thinking and not the tax raising fear mongering of the past.
There's an old saying: If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got.

[Rick]

Lefty,

The following is from the government analysis in the document I referenced before. I repeat, if you implement privatization there isn't enough money to pay current benefits without raising taxes. Surely you don't want that.


Any plan that establishes individual accounts and increases pre-funding would involve
additional costs to workers during the decades when the plan was being phased in. These costs
would be incurred because workers would have to pay for two retirement systems at the same
time, both the system that is making payments to current beneficiaries, and the new individual
account system that would pay for some or all of their own retirement. These transition costs
would increase if the transition start date is delayed, particularly if it were to be delayed to the
time when the baby boomers enter retirement.
The total contribution for workers during the transition will depend on when the new system
starts. For example, if nothing is done until 2038 when the Trust Funds are exhausted, it would
require a payroll tax of 17.8 percent (8.9 percent each for employees and employers) just to pay
the following year’s Social Security benefits, plus the additional amounts that would be needed
to pay for the new system. If changes were made as early as 2002, a payroll tax of about
10.4 percent (5.2 percent each for employees and employers) would initially be sufficient to pay
the next year’s benefits, plus the additional amounts needed to pay for the new system.

[Rick]

Since current contributions are at 6.2% each, it looks like privatizing 2% might work but most proposals are for levels higher than that.

[Lefty]

Ok, guys. I give. Let's do nothing and see what you get. If I were in my thirties i'd start taking every spare dime and putting it in stock market. Cause with dumbass fear and trepidation i'm getting on this subject you're to scared to progress so regression and bankrupt SS looms on the horizon.
If you guys are horseplayers, you must all be show bettors.

[Rick]

Lefty,

I'm not against some privatization as long as there are some limits on the types of investments, but I want to make sure that current benefits aren't lost for those close to retirement. According to what I've seen, 2% would work in the short run without changing benefits, until 2016. Then, we have to either reduce benefits or raise taxes. If they reduced benefits only for those who had been saving the 2% for long enough then it might work out. I'd like to see how the numbers work out.

One thing's clear though, the longer we wait the less options there are. That analysis I provided the link to was based on starting in 2002. Well, it's 2004 now and still nobody has a plan. If they wait too long, they'll have no choice but to either raise taxes a lot or reduce benefits a lot. Either one would probably cause a recession.

The real problem has to do with the previous generation not paying as much in as they took out. That's why we have the "Ponzi" scheme, as you call it. When SS was first started, people who'd paid absolutely nothing into it were getting full benefits. So, we paid for them and now there's not enough people to pay for us. Not exactly a fair situation.

[Lefty]

Rick, to do nothing is sheer disaster; with privatization(partial)there's a chance. Which is better, reduced benefits(maybe, maybe not) or NO BENEFITS? Tell me which one you prefer. Republicans have a plan but democrats demigog the issue and scare people such as yourself. What's wrong with a few good mutual plans for part of it and ultrasafe money mkts for part of it? Taxes can only be raised so long and for so much. To start with, take the taxes that Clinton raised on SS(remember that?)and put those SS taxes into the pruivatization fund for a start. Sec don't like it cause Ginnie Mae and Freddi Mac taking on too much debt so cut back on those plans and put that money in a privatization fund. I'm sure there's a lot of ways to do it, but to do nothing, except raise taxes again, is sheer stupidity.
Do what you've always done and you'll get what you've always got. Is it enough?

[Rick]

Lefty,

As I said before, I don't mind doing it in a responsible way and as soon as possible. But, we can't commit more than 2% to privatization now because we don't have the money to pay for it. What part of this don't you understand?

[Derek2U]

Lefty ur a rascal at heart ... 2% is kinda tame imho... but as the
nexT DeliLama, what could i be, xcept Humble? RE: SS its just my
take but theres at least the Social & Financial parts .... in real acctg terms I think --- well ... if the SS $$ HaD been handled right,
IT would be maybe ~~3 times larger. But it was raided & devalued by a lotta peeps & so, guess what, ITS overExtended!!
wow .... as about as revealing as Britney Spears lyrics. What
do we expect when financial abuse happens? yet, in all fairness,
our leaders gotta make incredible $$ decisions on scales that
anyone would F-UP --- maybe our leaders actually did some good
if they just pass the baton on & Stop trying 2 be gods. hehe ..
just some thoughts. Socially I agree with Suff ... and its Criminal
2 change the rules NoW. Wheres the safety nets 4 the oldtimers?
If i gotta make a mistake let it help the poorer guys.

[Lefty]

Rick, you're in a car, going off a cliff, but you won't apply the brakes, cause what if they fail.
Just whine. I hate whiners. Scream as you hurtle into oblivion...

[Lefty]

derek, actually it's criminal if we don't change the rules now. Cause then there's nothing. But you guys can't see it and so.....

[Derek2U]

whats worse than whiners? I'd saY BrownNosers. what a combo
just an Opinion.

[Lefty]

derek, you make no sense. What's new?

[Derek2U]

what must i do? IF I HAD THE SS FUND I could, with 100% certainty, RETURN that fund ~9% PROFIT every year. so what
happened? our govt should practice what it tell us to do. INVEST.

[Lefty]

Derek, damn boy, now you've got it. That's what I've been saying, but the Dems have prevented privatization of SS(Investing)for yrs. They even got Rick afraid it won't work; nevermind that the ship,is sinking anyways.
Congratulations, go to the head of this class.

[Tom]

There is more than enough money to completely fix SS today.
And give everyone in this country the same healthcare program the congress is hoarding for itself.
The elected morons just are spending it for other things.
Liike the tourist center in DC.
Airport security that doesn't work. Somehow, they measure security in term of dollars instead of success.
Pork projects for every political hack out there.
Perks for every nitwit in government.
We have the way - just not the will.
And that is because we are governed by thieves, liars, murderers
and other assorted bottom feeders. The congress is a house of shame.

[Secretariat]

You got it Tom. I saw on NOW tonight that even during the market crash to today that senators are outperforming the market by 12%. I guess maybe insider info doesn't just go to the Martha Stewarts, or certain jockeys and trainers.

[Rick]

Lefty,

If you're just choosing a different way of going off the cliff, I don't see how that's fixing the problem. It's not "whining" to ask questions about the feasibility of different solutions. You're still not getting it. I WANT to change things. Show me something that will work and I'll go for it.

[Rick]

Nobody seems to understand that nearly all of the money we bring in for Social Security is already earmarked for benefits. We CAN'T invest the vast majority of it in anything else because of that. Right now, until 2016, 2% could go to something else but that's it. Anything beyond that requires increasing SS taxes or SS borrowing money. Read the facts people. Stop blaming it on me if you're pipe dream isn't coming true.

[Derek2U]

Question: Do You Have CONFIDENCE in how the feds keep track
of the SS Fund? Like bank statements which are EZ to watch,
do U really think that anyone is keeping tabs? Right now the SS
funds "makes" ~6% a year in working for our gov't in bonds ---
but I recall from a finance course I took that at some point Alan
G. (before congress in the 80's I Think) reported a 1.8 TRILLION
surplus in SS. Now, whats up, and why is everyone saying that
SS has been failing for years? Just curious because I have NO
plans for SS in my reckoning (nor my wife) cause wtf its gonna
be useless by then im sure.

[Rick]

There are NO government bonds that make 6% now and, I repeat, most of the fund can't be invested because it's required to pay current benefits. Anything they invested that part in would have to have a very short time horizon, like in the months instead of in the years. Three and six month Treasurys have a yield of less than 1%. Check the facts.

[Lefty]

No, i'm not choosing a diff way to go off the cliff. We are heading off the cliff now. What's the harm trying something that may work. You don't know that partial privatization don't work; never been tried. So handwringing and closing your eyes doesn't work, take a chance on fixing the problem. I'm done. Just reread my posts as needed. Prob take forever.
It is whining when you know you have a problem but won't try to fix it cause you think the fix might not work.
I say if you're in an elevator that gets loose and starts plummeting to the bottom floor try time your jump so you're in the air when it hits. Might not work but better than doing NOTHING.

[Rick]

Lefty,

I SAID, MAYBE PRIVATIZATION WILL WORK IF IT"S 2% OR LESS! This Off Topic area is just such a waste of time. Even when you partially agree with someone they keep calling you names and claim that you're saying something different. It's just so juvenile. I'm seriously considering not participating in any of these discussions any more. Maybe I'll just communicate via Private Message and e-mail and leave the public posting to those who like to stir up trouble.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
No, i'm not choosing a diff way to go off the cliff. We are heading off the cliff now. What's the harm trying something that may work. You don't know that partial privatization don't work; never been tried. So handwringing and closing your eyes doesn't work, take a chance on fixing the problem. I'm done. Just reread my posts as needed. Prob take forever.
It is whining when you know you have a problem but won't try to fix it cause you think the fix might not work.
I say if you're in an elevator that gets loose and starts plummeting to the bottom floor try time your jump so you're in the air when it hits. Might not work but better than doing NOTHING.

Whats the harm trying something that "may" work? Thank you Lefty, you said it right there. Retirement savings are based on security, not speculation, not mays. Solutions should not just be random "hopes" but based on SOLID research and be able to address ALL the questions that Rick or anyone else ask for that matter. We don't want a worse fiasco than it already is. You don't provide answers to Rick's questions or mine for that matter. You simply say, damn liberals, or Clinotn's fault, or whatever. You don't address the questions. Without being able to do so is not going to convince Americans to give up their sole retirement for something you say might work. And if you ask Americans to just jump before the elevator hits the ground as a solution, they're gonna look at you as a nutcase. Most of here already do.

[Derek2U]

just 4 those guys who might be interested: in 2002, the SS
fund had an Extra 165 Billion after paying all benefits. The
Treasury then converted that "profit" into special T-bonds & in '02
it paid 7% interest. why is this? Well simply because the feds used that 165B to run things. No free rides. If it had to go to the open market to borrow it would affect the Money Supply etc .... inflation, interest rates, money supply --- all kinda related stuff. Now, with LESS jobs, theres LESS SS money at the same time its MORE expensive with Medicare-Medicaid etc. This isnt a great scenario. But, if we increase the SSTax base by legalizing
Mexicans, por ejemplo, then that would help. No new jobs, but
Tax existing ones. Or raise the Max SS-Taxable income from
$87K to say $150K -- that would help. Theres a lotta strategies
left so really I dont think anyone should panic, but this president
could do some tricky things to get his way, including defaulting
on the T-Bonds. (but thats far removed even 4 #43.)

[Rick]

Derek,

What percentage of the total taxes collected would that 165 Billon be? Damn, if they'd pay me 7% I'd probably invest in it.

[Tom]

We had a TRILLION dollars.

In our hands.
A trillion DOLLARS!
.
We could have salvaged the current SS system to protect everyone over the age of 37,
We could have had enough left to try new things, like privatization (but based on the recent years of corporate greed, stealing, lying, getting away with it, why the hell would we trust private investments?).
Now it is gone.
We have no SS.
We have no jobs.

WE had a trillion dollars.

Many of us have no health care.
George Bush is still rich - probably richer.
Kerry is richer, got a nice new house.
Corporate America is recording record ebitda.
The price of gas goes up and up and up for no apparent reason.
Jobs keep crossing the borders.
Al Qeda is not dead, may be growing.
Bin Laden is at large.
The war on terror is going nowhere.

We HAD a trillion dollars.

And I got 300 of them.
And used 8% of it in sales tax.

:confused:

[Hammerhead]

I can not remember when I posted a very simple statement I believe a month or so ago . OIL rules and for years the technolegy to replace it has been known for years. It will not happen until the people in all branches of government are replaced with people that will take into consideration ALL the people and not just the silver spooned idiots that bought them there elections. Listen to any federal, state, municaple, county, or town worker and they will tell you how little they have to do to make a payday. Most union workers only do 1 job for there employer, and most are prohibited from doing something else. But they must be paid for the time thy sit there with there finger stuck where the sun do'nt shine with guarenteed time.
If I without a high school education can support myself comfortably for 45 + years so can everyone else. Bring back the draft so these young people can get some dicipline and hopefully enough backbone to make it on there own without demanding huge wagers for no work because there union officials (politics) need the money.
Help the people you work for, put in a extra 15 minutes for the outfit. If you do not you are the people driving business out of the country, most need that little bit to keep them ahead of greedy unions and government. VOTE

[Rick]

Hammer,

I agree with most of your points, but the problem with oil is more complex. Yes, there are replacements for it, but it's still relatively inexpensive compared to other sources of energy so we keep using it. We're taking a big chance by depending on it too much now, but no politician will tell us that spending more on energy is good for us in the long run.

[Hammerhead]

Just going to toss this out for the hell of it. Not to many years ago oil was in the 15-20 dollar a barrel range. Now foreign imports are being held back so as to encourage our current 35 dollar per barrel for profit reason only. Alaska was a bust due to inferior pipe line construction by our highly paid unions Shorehem Nuclear was put down by our not in my back yard idiots. BUT all were constructed to the MAX and all workers (I use the term litely) paid to the max. WHY were'nt these projects halted before completion.? Why were they started in the first place?
My mindset is to many politicaly connected idiots were investers, as well as the political jerks that let it go to completion. They reaped the bennys and left the taxpayers Holding the Bag. I am sure there are many more of these projects going on right know.

[Derek2U]

That Expression "BENNYS" --- can u please Explain that 2 me.
My parents got a home in Belmar NJ (which they despise but keep
cause I loVE it there) and 1 day, gettin eats on a sunday, some
guy referred 2 me as a Benny type. I was gonna slug him but
then i thought "WTF is a Benny?" ;;;; is it a term w/out meaning?
im 1/2 russian & we got many such terms for others.

[Rick]

Derek,

He might have meant Jack Benny type although I have no idea why he would refer to you that way and I'm not old enough to know Jack Benny that well anyway.

But, I ask again, what percentage of the total Social Security taxes was that 165 Billon surplus you were talking about? It's important because they tax workers plus employers at 12.4% and I want to know if 2% of that to go toward privatization is a feasible amount.

[JustRalph]

The name "bennies" is an old street name for benzedrine.
However, real benzedrine is quite rare today, especially considering the ease with which cheap meth can be manufactured. If you are a hyper person......you may get this tag. I used to hear cops use the term in California in the early 80's and in Maine in the Mid 80's. It was generic for "Speed" users mostly..........

Some people would get this term if they looked very "haggard" or wild in appearance. It comes from the street persons who used to traffic in bennies and most of them were using them too. They would be up for days at a time selling their product.

Not sure this is what your name caller was referring to, but possible.

[Lefty]

sec, you and some of these guys are truly hardheaded. The stockmarkert a tried and true vehicle for growth. An avg 10% growth rate since its inception. The elavator was an analagy you apparently didn't get. You insist on security where there is none and you'd rather go down with the ship than try a new type of lifeboat. Incredible!
Continue to do what you've always done and you'll continue to get what you've always got. And brother, you deserve it.

[Hammerhead]

Benifits large returns on investment etc.

[Rick]

JR,

I think you've got the correct answer to the "benny" thing. Seems to fit very well.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
sec, you and some of these guys are truly hardheaded. The stockmarkert a tried and true vehicle for growth. An avg 10% growth rate since its inception. The elavator was an analagy you apparently didn't get. You insist on security where there is none and you'd rather go down with the ship than try a new type of lifeboat. Incredible!
Continue to do what you've always done and you'll continue to get what you've always got. And brother, you deserve it.

Once again Lefty you offer no refutation to Rick's or my concerns, but supply simplistic answers.

Privatization has already been tried, and has been touted by Jose Pineras from the Pinochet administration (remember Pinochet) to the Bush administration. He has been trying it on Tony Blair as well and in Spain where there was almost a riot. Chalabi sold our nation on Iraq, let's not get fooled twice with this Privatization scheme. Large corporations and Wall Street interests are going to tout this thing because it will mean large sums of dough coming into their coffers. So you must listen to the outsourcers with great skepticism. It's our money, not thiers.

Below are two links about Chile's actual change to privatization. Change is not always a good thing, and the let's just try it argument or let's see what happens is the wrong way to go with SS until we have a more solid basis.:

http://www.globalaging.org/pension/world/chilesec.htm

http://www.umwa.org/journal/VOL113NO4/jul4.shtml

[Secretariat]

btw..Lefty, your rate on longterm stocks doesn't account for inflation.

http://www.policyanalysis-inc.com/OPTIONS.htm

Not that much more than a secure Tbond (On 4/23/2003, a 20 Year Treasury Bond rate of return was 4.89%. See the Federal Reserve Board's H15 update for current rates.)

Also the Dow jones has shown a massive growth ONLY over the last 20 years making it difficult to forecast long term trends.

1966 – Dow Jones was 1000
1980 – Dow Jones was 1000
1990 – Dow Jones was 3000
1999 – Dow Jones was 11000

Notice the Dow lost to inflation from 1966 to 1980. Fourteen years of stagnant growth. Your privatization Ponzi scheme promoted by the Pinochet government has been a failure. I think people would feel more secure in a something fixed in interest rather than speculative such as equities. with continual outsourcing and massive debt and high PE's it is difficult to project an expanding market.

[Lefty]

Sec, you guys are all excuses as to why something won't work and no action. I can see why you're democrats.
Larry, and Jr was right. This is useless.

[Rick]

Lefty,

All I can say is that you're pathetically ignorant. But, I don't mean that in a bad way.

[Lefty]

Rick, spoken like a true Dem. No solutions just whining "what if it don't work. Typical. The dems offer problems, the Repubs solutions, but it's hard to get by the "it won't work crowd." That's why we need a big majority in Congress as well as the Presidency. Only then will some of these problems start to be solved.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
Rick, spoken like a true Dem. No solutions just whining "what if it don't work. Typical. The dems offer problems, the Repubs solutions, but it's hard to get by the "it won't work crowd." That's why we need a big majority in Congress as well as the Presidency. Only then will some of these problems start to be solved.

Lefty,

A bad idea is not a solution. Just an enhancement to the problem.

[Lefty]

Just can't get through to you guys. The SS ship is going dn and you guys don't want to try to save it because the solution might fail. You boggle my mind. And you're so blanken wise, smarter than everyone who says privatization will work. There is no other solution. You can't raise taxes forever. Anybody home? You're un****blvlbe. Good thing you guys weren't around when the Wright Bros. were building their airplane. "It won't work" you scream. What kills me is everyone, including you guys are taking to Greenspan's words like this problem just came up while the Republicans been telling everyone for 15 yrs or longer.
What's Kerry's plan?
I know, "I'm John Kerry, i'm a war hero. Nothing else matters."

[Rick]

This thread is proof positive that presenting the facts is only confusing to those who've already made up their mind. Therefore, this is my last post. Enjoy your pissing contest folks.

[Lefty]

rick, you're right. I tell you SS is dying and has been for a longtime and you're still afraid to try something diff. There ya go.

[Secretariat]

Lefty,

I think Rick and the rest of us are aware SS is in trouble. However, we have tried time and again to explain various reasons why a comeplete privatization scheme is a recipe for disaster. Your answer is always, "Well, let's try something different." We've posted articles detailing problems in Chile, and the reluctance of the people of other countries to buy into this privatization idea. You've addressed NONE of the issues either Rick or I brought up. We're in agreement that something needs to be done, we just disagree that the idea "just try it" is a sound reason to mess with 85% of the people's only source of retirement.

In other words your argument that the current system is not working is NOT justifcation to take on a risky scheme such as privatization. Bush bought into this idea from Jose Pineras from Chile and the results there after the market tanked have been disastrous for many on the poorer scale. American Express funded a study by the conservative Cato Institute to help justify privatization because it would mean gobs of money pouring into the market. However, you fail to address many of Rick's questions, specifically the one on how you maintain two systems at once. You fail to address the inflation issue I raised versus securer Tbonds. You fail to address the collapse of the market in a speculative situation rather than the fixed rate SS members get with inflation built in. You fail to address the SS Chile problems started by Pinochet's economic advisor Pineras. You only like this privatization thing because Bush pushed it. If Clinton pushed it you would say it was from the devil.

You believe that the average Joe can make responsible investments in the stock market. Let me ask you one thing. Do you think all bettors at the track make responsible investments on the horses, or do you think that some are throwing their money away unwisely? This is not spare money. This is retirement, and Lefty, I don't want SS privatized because I don't want you losing your SS dough at the races.

[Lefty]

sec, the Pres is not advocating complete privatizarion but partial, but you guys evidently negative because it's a republican plan. The Dems plan, raise taxes or do nothing. I'm sick of doing nothing and getting my taxes raised.

[Lefty]

sec, and there you go denigrating the "average Joe." That's the trble with Dems they have no faith in the American People that's why they believe so much in Govt. and not personal responsibity. I have faith i can handle my money better than the govt. and this "average Joe" demands the chance.

[ljb]

Lefty said
"That's the trble with Dems they have no faith in the American People that's why they believe so much in Govt. and not personal responsibity.
Would the decision to get married be a govenrment responsibility or a personal responsibility?
Just curious.;)

[ljb]

Lefty,
SS was never intended to be a retirement program. It was intended to be an aid to the elderly. People have had the ability to provide for their retirement for ever. Why do you want the government to take over this personal responsibility?

[Lefty]

lbj, yes, the SS was supposed to be an aid but through the yrs too many people have looked at it as a given and expect it. Don't look now but the govt makes the workers pay into it so don't you think it would be nice if working people had the ability to invest part of their money and make it grow? First sec says we can't trust people to do the right thing with their money and you wionder why I want the govt involved. Well, lbj, the govt's already involved with the money and I want my kids and grandkids to be able to invest at least part of this money the Govt TAKES from their paychk.

[ljb]

Lefty said
" Don't look now but the govt makes the workers pay into it so don't you think it would be nice if working people had the ability to invest part of their money and make it grow?"
And what part of the payroll tax law says people cannot invest part of their money and make it grow?
As you know the payroll tax is a regressive tax putting more of a burden on the middle class folks. And as you also know the ss would be in the black for the next 40 years or so if, the government hadn't raided it to pay for their other pork barrel projects. (Makes no difference which party, they are both guilty) Now the Bush regime wants to push ss further into bankruptcy by decreasing the amout of this payroll tax that supports SS. Sound financial advise would be to stop robbing the ss tax, increase it to 100 percent of income and use other taxation methods to support all the other boondogles those fools get into.
But that flys against the borrow and spend philosopys of the Republicans, so little chance of this until we change regimes in
D.C.

[Lefty]

lbj, one more time, the money you pay into SS is confiscated by the govt to pay current retirees. The worker HAS NO SAYSO over this money. The only way SS will be saved is to be at least partially privatized where part of that money stays in the workers acct and can be made to grow through investment.
You can take anty other monies you have and invest but that is not what this thread is about. This thread is about SS dying because instead of the burden being spread over 300 workers as it did at the start, the burden now spread over only 3 workers for 1 retiree. Don't know why you can't understand. If SS isn't radically changed now, it will end, collapsing under its own wght like any other Ponzi scheme.