State of the Union

[Tom]

I wanted to hear what he did about our broken borders.
I wanted to hear what he did about the millions of iiegals already inside our borders.
I wanted to hear what he did about China's illegal trade activities, it's flagarant disregard of trade laws coming at the expense of American jobs.
I wanted to hear what he did about Mexico's disregard to for our laws, our borders.
I wanted to hear what he did about outsourcing and the loss of good manufacturing jobs.

But then, That was silly because he has done.......nothing about any of those things.

Actions speak louder than words, but I at least wanted to hear what he was going to do about theses problems, but I guess that was silly, too. He is going to do....... nothing.

When you get down to it, I guess he is more interested in representing Iraq and Palestine than he is America. More oney for this, more oney for that, 350 million for Palestine, yada yadda yadda.

At home, all we get is foolish ideas about SS, Aids, and tort reform.
Mr. Bush, SS is noting compard to trade imbalance.
Mr, Bush, Aids is 100% preventable. Zero dollars are needed for Aids research.
Mr. Bush, frivolous lawsuits are best handled by the judical branch of government, no the executive branch.

Mr Bush, you did a good job in Iraq, but that is not your only purpose as President.
For your report card, you get: A,F,F,F,F,F,F,F,F

Please, get your head out of your arse and start addressing the real porblems here at home. Your speech tonight might have been more impressive if you had talked a little about our country and less about Iraq. Who gives a rat's ass about some Iraqi voter as your guest...why didn't you bring out an American voter - preferably one who had lost his job to illegal Chinnese trade
violations.

Mr Bush, you sounded like an idiot tonight. You failed the people who elected you to this office. Miserably.

I only wish you had half the resolve towards American as you do towards Iraqis. Perhaps you should have run in that election. :mad:

[Tom]

As bad and lacking as Bush's speech was, the democratic "response", I heard, was written before the speech. Duh?

[boxcar]

Tom wrote:

As bad and lacking as Bush's speech was, the democratic "response", I heard, was written before the speech. Duh?

The Dems' strategy is called a preemptive strike.

Boxcar

[Tom]

Here is what i got out the speech on SS:

It will cost 754 billion dollars
It will raise the retirement age
It will reduce benefits

I have no doubt that noting more than this will ever emerge from this stupid idea.
Hey George, try this on for size.....stop putting all the SS oney withheld into the general fund and put it in a "locked box!"

I am solidly in the dem camp on this one - fillabuster this moronic idea into oblivioin.

George, you are supposed to represent us who do want big brother type government - read you republican manifesto again.

Guest workers? This is treason in my book.....you dems better get the impeachment ball rolling....it is now time to bring down this guy.

The dems are calling for open borders, the prez is calling for amnesty, and homeland security nominee is fine with the whole thing!
Yikes! Have they all gone mad?
Private citizens are already taking things into thier own hands along the border. This could be the begining of the next civil war?

[Doc]

Bush wants workers to put aside money into "private savings accounts" to benefit businesses that have given him big campaign contributions. Plain and simple.

I don't want anyone tinkering with my retirement money. I'm 17 years away from retiring, have paid into the system 30 years, and I want a check from the government when I kiss my lousy job goodbye, dammit. I don't want to be bothered with "investing."

[PaceAdvantage]

Sigh.

[Doc]

Double sigh. And I might cry. :(

[Lefty]

Doc, the privatization plan is VOLUNTARY. And it will go into a private acct where the Govt CAN'T get at. Right now, it's up for grabs and guess what, if the mess isn't fixed you WON'T get any AT ALL! Pay ATTENTION!

[Tom]

I am PAYING ATTENTION. The plan sucs. It is just more big governemnt.
The reduced benefits are not voluntary. The new retirement age is not voluntary. The billions of dollars to do this are not voluntary.
If this was such a crisis, why did Bush not use som eof the surplus to do something four years ago. It is not the crisis he claim it is. It needs fixing, but no this way. And there are far more important things that are a crisis right now that need immediate attention. And he is doing NOTHING about them.

[schweitz]

www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20050129-095130-1559r.htm

[schweitz]

www.cnsnews.com//viewnation.asp?page=\nation\archive\200502\nat2005 0203a.html

[boxcar]

Doc wrote:

Bush wants workers to put aside money into "private savings accounts" to benefit businesses that have given him big campaign contributions. Plain and simple.

No chance that he just wants us to see a positive return on our money for a change, instead of a negative one?

I don't want anyone tinkering with my retirement money. I'm 17 years away from retiring, have paid into the system 30 years, and I want a check from the government when I kiss my lousy job goodbye, dammit. I don't want to be bothered with "investing."

Great Socialist mindset you have! You're too lazy or too apathetic or too indifferent or just too busy to take the trouble to be a good steward over your own personal property (read: $$$)...so just let Nanny Fed do it, heh?

Unbelievable...

Boxcar

[boxcar]

schweitz provided the following:

b]www.cnsnews.com//viewnation.asp?page=\nation\archive\200502\nat2005 0203a.htmll[/b]

Thanks for providing this link. I knew there was some muncipality in the country doing this and that it is a smashing success -- but couldn't remember for the life of me which one it was.

But this paragraph says it all with respect to the opposition to success:

Amid growing enthusiasm for an alternative to Social Security, the Democrat-controlled Congress voted in 1983 to end the provisions giving municipal workers the option to leave the federal system.

Why am I not surprised!? Liberals can't stand it when private citizens can make smarter decisions that produce superior results to what the government can do. The Libs back then were scared to death that this kind of good news would spread far and wide and catch on -- just as they are now. Why are they scared? Because the one sure way Socialism can take root in this country is for the government to control more and more of our property -- so that in reality it becomes the government's property -- since the Feds are the one in control.

I just can't believe how many people can't see this --can't understand why it is that any of our elected representatives are actually opposed to something that would succeed far better than the ill-concieved, idioitic, illegal Ponzi Scheme invented by a Liberal to boot! Read my lips everyone: It's all about Power! It's all about keeping citizens as dependent as possible on the Government. These Libs don't care one wit about the little guy. They just care about staying in power and keeping their constituients perpetually knocking on the Door of Entitlements.

Wake up already, and smell the coffee!

Boxcar

[DJofSD]

I seem to recall the proposal for private savings accounts would be for new workers under the age of 25, i.e. if you're half way to decrepitude you're not part of the pool.

Beyond that, here's a question: if having a private savings plan and being able to opt out of Social Security is good enough for all federal employess including members of Congress, why isn't it good enough for every one else?

I dare those on the left side of the aisle to answer the question.

DJofSD

[Equineer]

We should convert all entitlement retirement funding to a consumption tax and phase out payroll funding. Presently, both the employees and employers in our most vulnerable economic sectors bear a disproportionate funding burden, and all non-government taxpayers pay additional income taxes to support the huge existing government retirement programs.

Our companies and jobs are going to countries where domestic consumption taxes primarily fund social programs. The way we do it here artificially inflates the production costs for all of our products/services for both the domestic and export markets, and our massive consumption of their cheaper foreign products and services contributes nothing to our social programs.

[boxcar]

Equineer wrote:

We should convert all entitlement retirement funding to a consumption tax and phase out payroll funding. Presently, both the employees and employers in our most vulnerable economic sectors bear a disproportionate funding burden, and all non-government taxpayers pay additional income taxes to support the huge existing government retirement programs.

Our companies and jobs are going to countries where domestic consumption taxes primarily fund social programs. The way we do it here artificially inflates the production costs for all of our products/services for both the domestic and export markets, and our massive consumption of their cheaper foreign products and services contributes nothing to our social programs.

Are you suggesting that we eliminate another government-invented mess -- the income tax!?

Boxcar

[chickenhead]

I think we have to wait and see what the final plan is...if done right I think personal savings accounts are a great idea.

I took a look at the recently expanded health savings accounts you can get, and I think they are a fantastic option to have, I'm busy trying to get this setup at my company. For young people it makes a whole lot of sense. If it catches on (don't know why it's not being hyped more) it should help increase the savings rate all by itself.

[so.cal.fan]

In a written statement to Congress in 1935, Roosevelt said that any Social Security plans should include, "Voluntary contributory annuities, by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age," adding that government funding, "ought to ultimately be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."

[Lefty]

Boxcar, DJ, right on the money guys, right on the money.

[boxcar]

so.cal.fan wrote:

In a written statement to Congress in 1935, Roosevelt said that any Social Security plans should include, "Voluntary contributory annuities, by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age," adding that government funding, "ought to ultimately be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."

Hey, SCF, you should drop a line to those hopelessly-stuck-in-the-past sentators who demonstrated yesterday in fron of the FDR memorial to remind them of FDR's speech. Not only are they stuck in the past, but they have conveniently forgotten FRD's historical words.

It seems that FDR knew that his Ponzi Scheme was eventually doomed to fail, which would account for his sentiments.

Funny...he didn't seem to think that "self-supporting annuity plans" were nearly as much of a "gamble", as the Senate Minority speaker Reid does.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Gotta love livin' in this Information Age -- something which must surely grate, however, on all lying Libs.

Someone on Free Republic published the complete statement by FDR, but here are the salient parts to which SCF alluded:

FDR:
At this time, I recommend the following types of legislation looking to economic security:

1. Unemployment compensation.

2. Old-age benefits, including compulsory and voluntary annuities.


Then he continued:
In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, noncontributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps 30 years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.

I rest my case. The lowlife politicans in Washington simply don't want to do the right thing with our money...our future...our retirement.

Boxcar

[JustMissed]

In a written statement to Congress in 1935, Roosevelt said that any Social Security plans should include, "Voluntary contributory annuities, by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age," adding that government funding, "ought to ultimately be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."

To name a few, we already have these alternative retirement plans:

Traditional IRA
Roth IRA
401K Plans
403B Plans
Keoughs
SEPs

Bush is just trying to "pay back" the financial services industry for their past support-nothing more.

JM

[boxcar]

JustMissed wrote:

To name a few, we already have these alternative retirement plans:

Traditional IRA
Roth IRA
401K Plans
403B Plans
Keoughs
SEPs

Bush is just trying to "pay back" the financial services industry for their past support-nothing more.

So, this is the excuse you Do-Nothing-Stuck-in-the-Past Libs are going to use? Pretty lame, if you ask me.

Consider this: All the plans you listed above are far superior to FDR's Ponzi Scheme, as would those self-supporting annutities, which FDR himself saw as ultimately being necessary. Why are you opposed to a much better mousetrap? Why are you "progressives" standing in the way of real progress?

You Libs better move fast and get out of the way, or you'll get run down by the FACTS!

Boxcar

[lsbets]

JM,

Not everyone who works can afford to fund an IRA or alternate account, yet almost everyone who works if forced to fund SS. Guess where the higher returns come in?

I do not know the details of Bush's plan, so I can't comment on it, but I think that a plan that allows people to divert into some form of a guranteed annuity, that has a minimun guaranteed 5-7% annual return would make sense. Who gives a rat's ass if a financial services company makes money off of it? The individual will be getting 2.5 to 3 times the return that they do now. That is pretty damned substantial. If you go the guaranteed annuity route, you take away the risk of someone being clueless about investing and losing all their money. I can't see how sticking with the staus quo could possibly be preferable. If sound investing is good for Congress and the wealthy, why is it not good for everyone?

[JustMissed]

Why are you opposed to a much better mousetrap? Why are you "progressives" standing in the way of real progress?


OK Wiseguy-show me the money.

I'd love to see the math.

Show me the future value for a 25 year old minimun wage earner's private ss plan. Please do remember that Bush said the plans would be "safe", which means an annual yield of 2% or less.

The fees that will be raked off the top by Merrill Lynch and Dean Witter will probably be more than the damn yield.

The ball is in your court Boxcar, let us see the numbers.

JM

P.S. Did it ever dawn on you that it is mighty peculiar that the Social Security crisis is 40 years away and all of a sudden Bush thinks it needs to be addressed "Right Now". Don't you think something like this needs to be studied and debated more than a few weeks?

[lsbets]

JM,

I refer you back to my post. There are plenty of insured investment vehicles that offer a minimum 5 to 7 % annual return. They are safe investments. They do a hell of a lot better than SS does. Why would you want to lock someone in to t-bill investing when that is the worst choice they could make, but the only option they have right now? Because someone might make money on it? Are you that opposed to "big business" that you would rather see people get virtually no return on their investment than a "big company" make money?

[JustMissed]

JM,

I do not know the details of Bush's plan, so I can't comment on it, but I think that a plan that allows people to divert into some form of a guranteed annuity, that has a minimun guaranteed 5-7% annual return would make sense.

Isbets, where did you read about "guaranteed annuity" and "minimun guaranteed 5-7% annual return". I would like to see your source.

Hey, the Government has already borrowed(taken) all the money out of the SS Trust Fund and secured it with a Treasury note.

If your know where you can get 7% guaranteed why doesn't the government just repay the Trust Fund money and turn around and buy one of those annunities you are so hot about. That should solve the problem don't you think??

Isbets, I have been a supporter of Bush but after the Medicare prescription drug fiasco, I realized that Bush needs watching very closely.

The Rx plan is nothing but a government give away to Big Pharm, period. It is not going to help the people at all.

Just yesterday I heard they are going to cover Viagra under the Bush plan. Can you imagine that. Old people are having to cut their pills in half so they can afford their medicine. Some have to do without food or heat just to pay for those overpriced medications and then Bush goes and approves payments so some old gezzer can get a hard on.

Bush claims he is a Christian and hears from God, then he turns around and gives our hard earned money to the Viagra company fat cats and some poor old lady in Brooklyn has to eat cat food so she will have enough money to pay for her life saving medication.

If you can figure it out, let me know.

JM

[JustMissed]

Fund name Annualized 30-day SEC yields*
as of November 30, 2004
A B C F
Growth-and-Income Funds
American Mutual Fund 1.73% 1.06% 0.97% 1.73%
Capital World Growth and Income Fund 1.85% 1.19% 1.11% 1.86%
Fundamental Investors 1.44% 0.79% 0.70% 1.46%
The Investment Company of America 1.69% 1.01% 0.93% 1.68%
Washington Mutual Investors Fund 1.91% 1.25% 1.16% 1.92%

Hey, With yields like this when you retire with your private social security account you will be able to afford to take your old lady to Taco Bell for Valentines Day.

With your employee discount, hey, you can let her have sour cream on her burrito!hehehe.

Show me the money,

JM

[Equineer]

As usual, neo-cons buckle and quake like weak knees when Bush and Cheney wave their Scepters of Fear Politics.

Understand that Social Security payroll and self-employment taxation are the failing mechanisms that feed fears of Social Security insolvency and penalize us in a global free-trade economy. We need to join the rest of the world in the 21st century by taxing consumption rather than production to fund investments in retirement entitlements.

And Bush is certainly pandering to financial industry special interests if they are allowed to profit from Personal Security accounts. Our leading economists, including administration advisors, did not propose that investing retirement funds in the private sector would reward Wall Street financial service companies.

Under the Personal Security System (PSS) plan (http://econ.bu.edu/kotlikoff/How%20to%20Fix%20Taxes%20and%20Social%20Security.p df), all personal account balances are: "invested in a single, global, market-weighted index fund, providing all workers the same fully diversified portfolio and rate of return. The government fully guarantees the downside; workers can only gain from investing in the market. At retirement, balances in this Personal Security System are gradually sold off and converted to inflation-indexed pensions. The Social Security Administration handles all paperwork, investing, and pension conversions. Wall Street plays no role and collects no fees."

Furthermore, "contributions to PSS accounts are compulsory, but the accounts themselves are private property. If workers feel they are already saving enough on their own, they are free to reduce their non-PSS saving. Thus, the PSS system provides a floor for their retirement saving." So, like today, individuals could seek to amass extra retirement funds through discretionary private savings and/or Wall Street investment channels.

This Personal Security System plan recognizes that Congress will never pass legislation that would enable millions of unsophisticated workers to take foolhardy individual risks that could result in a massive public welfare problem among senior citizens... while the sharks on Wall Street would always benefit whether these individual workers gained or lost money.

[Lefty]

jm, Bush showed you the numbers how this Ponzi scheme gonna go broke if nothings done.
EQ, a few yrs ago Clinton and Gore both was telling us that SS in jeapardy, so hardly think it's fear tactics on Bush's part but you libs are for keeping issues alive and doing nothing. I think the pipples have finally awakened to that.

[JustMissed]

jm, Bush showed you the numbers how this Ponzi scheme gonna go broke if nothings done.
EQ, a few yrs ago Clinton and Gore both was telling us that SS in jeapardy, so hardly think it's fear tactics on Bush's part but you libs are for keeping issues alive and doing nothing. I think the pipples have finally awakened to that.

Hey Lefty, I must have gone to put some KY Jelly on my bung hole to get ready for my next screwing and missed the part where Mr. Wizard(George Bush)explained "the numbers".

Would you mind posting "the numbers" for us?

JM

[Secretariat]

Still no mention of Bin Laden or Omar by Bush.

As to the Social Security stuff...I can barely talk about it. He simply wants to change the FDR "New Deal" into a GWB "Raw Deal".

If you think we have deficits NOW, the CBO is estimating TRILLIONS added onto the deficit with these ideas. Does he realize the ramifications to the economy with that type of deficit. Greenspan has been warning about this, and now he wants to blow it all to hell. Fortunately, even many GOP seantors are speaking about the madness of this, and the Wall Street Journal has spoken against it as well as AARP. 90% of retirees rely on Social Security as their major retirement. Even if nothing was done full benefits could be paid to 2042 at which time 75% of benefits could be payable to the end of the century.

I agree things have to be done, but to create a panic about it is disingenious. I do beleive in a graduated age increase, and a higher level of base pay in. I do not agree with price indexing, but Bush at this point has no real plan, just a generality of this privatization idea. You don't mess with a SS until you've actually got a complete plan that addesses all the issues. Seems he's more interested in polticizing it than in actually dealing with Congress.

And Doc, I don't consider you a socialist for wanting social security to remain as is. Ignore those who would elect Joe McCarthy in 2008 if he was still alive.

[Equineer]

Originally posted by Lefty,
EQ, a few yrs ago Clinton and Gore both was telling us that SS in jeapardy, so hardly think it's fear tactics on Bush's part but you libs are for keeping issues alive and doing nothing. I think the pipples have finally awakened to that.I have posted several times that I support the Personal Security System reform as it was formulated by respected economists and originally favored by Bush until he was overruled by special interest groups.

There seems to be a sudden reading comprehension disability that is spreading among neo-cons.

Related to this, I noticed that you reported a mysterious transient problem with your computer. Let me suggest that you probably tried to use it while the Heritage Foundation was automatically updating their Remote Audit software and downloading new Subliminal Hypnotic Patterns and Policy Opinion Directives. However, as you later reported, it appears that they now have both you and your computer running smoothly again.

I understand some bloggers are reporting that reading comprehension can be severely impaired by the latest Heritage Foundation software and data updates.

[Tom]

I am all for private accounts to take care of my retirement needs. Just let me invest ALL of the oney the way I want to invest it. If I fail, it is my problem when I get too o ld to work. As it stand right now, I will NEVER get out of SS what I have put ito it. That sucs big time. Now they want ot raise my retirement age and cut what pathetic benefits I will get.
Here is another suggestion to help SS - stop outsourcing and there will be hundreds of thousand more jobs wtih people putting money into the sytem.
Stop deficit spending completely. Maybe if all the national parks are closed, and nop money is given to the arts and NPR, and ALL non-essential spending is frozen, people will start to understand what a budget is all about and force our goverment "reprehnsitives" to make better descisions as to what we spen money on in the fist place.

No matter what the SS good points might be on paper, in reality, when the governemtn gets invlovled, they will not materialize and the down side will sink even lower. The government can do nothing efficiently or effectively.

The system might be broken, but don't let any old huckleberry under the hood to tinker with it.

[lsbets]

JM,

Virtually every annuity company offers a guarantee of some sort, usually in the 5-6 % range, but I know of one that offered 7 percent. THe internal fees are slightly higher, but that pays the insurance on the money. I did not refer to mutual funds. I suggest you look at all of the big annuity companies - Hartford, Allstate, Travellers, ING, etc......... Insured investing - as with any insurance there is a cost involved, but the return is after fees. A hell of a lot better than what you get from SS.

And remember - I know nothing about the Bush plan and am not commenting on it - I am commenting on how to get a better return for everyone.

[boxcar]

Equineer wrote:

As usual, neo-cons buckle and quake like weak knees when Bush and Cheney wave their Scepters of Fear Politics.

Yes, sir...let the expert tell us all about "Fear Politics". You libs invented this strategy. Don't you remember? It's part 'n' parcel of Negative Politicking, which Libs are sooo good at.

But during the Clinton Admin, when he had the SS Trustees conduct their investigations into the solvency of the system, and they issued their not-so-glowing reports, were you yelling "fear politics" back then?

Read and weep the following taken from:

www.socialsecurityreform.org/history/index.cfm

"1996 - The Social Security Trustees' Report stated that the Social Security system would start to run deficits in 2012, and the trust funds would be exhausted by 2029. All members of the Advisory Panel agreed that some or all of Social Security's funds should be invested in the private sector. To keep the unchanged system actuarially sound, payroll taxes would have to be increased 50%, to 18% of payroll, or benefits would have to be slashed by 30%."

"1997 - All members of the presidentially-appointed Social Security Advisory Panel agreed that some or all of Social Security's funds should be invested in the private sector. To keep the unchanged system actuarially sound, payroll taxes would have to be increased 50%, to 18% of payroll, or benefits would have to be slashed by 30%."

"1999 - The Social Security Trustees' Report stated the Social Security Retirement System's unfunded liability increased by $752 billion since the 1998 Trustee Report was published. This brings the total long-term unfunded liability to more than $19 trillion."

Did you catch this, turkey? All the members of the SS Advisory Panel were appointed by the president. And who was the prez during these years? (Wasn't it the lowlife who didn't understand what the definition of "is" was? But I digress) Now weren't all his hand-picked members in unanimous agreement that some or even ALL of SS funds should be invested in the private sector?

Yes, indeed, fear mongering at its worse. The only reason Slickster didn't get around to creating a real legacy for himself by fixing something that is about to break soon is because he was too busy becoming embroiled in one scandal after another, fighting impeachment, etc.

So, please spare us of your lying rhetoric that Bush is engaging in "fear politics". It's been known for quite some time now that it is inevitable that the system is going to sink faster than the Titanic in less than a decade from now.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

JustMissed wrote:

OK Wiseguy-show me the money.

I'd love to see the math.

How can you expect to see anything when you have your head stuck up your butt?

This stuff isn't rocket science, you know? It's a well known fact that the longer you leave funds in an investment, the safer they'll be. Sure, they'll weather some storms here and there, but overall the yield will be very reasonable 20 to 30 years down the road.

A friend of mine works for a large corporation (which shall remain unamed), and when the recession hit in 2000 (when Slickster was still in office, I might remind you), he wisely shuffled his 401K nvestments that was managed by T. Rowe Price out of various higher risk Funds into a the most conservative fund they offered his company which they called the "Interest Income Fund". This is how Price described the Fund:

"The Interest Income Fund is designed for the most conservative investor seeking principal stability and an attractive level of income."

The brochure he has that describes this Fund goes on to say in part:

"The Fund invests primarily (approximately 85% to 95%) in stable value investment contracts issued by insurance companies and banks."

It then basically goes on to say that that the 5% to 15% that is not invested the areas described above will be invested in other low, but slightly higher risk Funds, and for this reason the investor will experience some fluctuation in value as interest rates change.

But now to the meat and taters part: From 1988 thru 1993, the average annual return was a very generous 10.26%! The worst year had a yield of "only" 8.3%. While the best year during this period 13%. (And remember: T. Rowe Price billed this particular Fund "for the most conservative investor"!)

It's no wonder at all that all the employees of that county in Texas chose to opt out of the SS plan! Even if those employees are getting half of the above return (what LSBETS suggested in the 5 to 7%), it is far, far better than what the current system is returning.

Never forget this: Nanny Fed can never manage someone else's personal property better than most people can manage their own. It will never, never, never happen.


[b]P.S. Did it ever dawn on you that it is mighty peculiar that the Social Security crisis is 40 years away and all of a sudden Bush thinks it needs to be addressed "Right Now". Don't you think something like this needs to be studied and debated more than a few weeks[b]?

You have a reading comp problem, too, don't you? Someone else posted earlier that this issue was studied by the Clinton Admin. I posted more on this
in my response to EQ.

Boxcar

[Lefty]

It gets tiresome to keep explaining the obvious. Do you libs know what a Ponzi scheme is? SS fits the description. When it started about 16 to 20 workers supported 1 retiree. I think it's now dn to about 8 and will fall dramatically. One day it will be 1-1. Goodbye SS long before then. It would seem to me that you guys that are not retired yet would be interested in saving it, but you fall for the same old liberal crap. As an investment the return is a minus. A partial privatization would let you invest in a positive investments. If you don't feel you're smart enough to do this(an evidently, many of you don't) IT"S VOLUNTARY!
Amazes me you libs give women the choice to kill their unborn but don't want to give people the choice to invest a portion of their SS.
Even FDR, said there would come a time where privatization is necessary but you guys only see and hear what you want and your argument is to try and deride by using the lrftist "buzzwords a" such as neocon.
I'm retired on a very small SS and privtization will not help me, but i'm interested in helping the young folks such as my kids and grandkids.

[Secretariat]

I am all for private accounts to take care of my retirement needs. Just let me invest ALL of the oney the way I want to invest it. If I fail, it is my problem when I get too o ld to work. As it stand right now, I will NEVER get out of SS what I have put ito it. That sucs big time. Now they want ot raise my retirement age and cut what pathetic benefits I will get.
Here is another suggestion to help SS - stop outsourcing and there will be hundreds of thousand more jobs wtih people putting money into the sytem.
Stop deficit spending completely. Maybe if all the national parks are closed, and nop money is given to the arts and NPR, and ALL non-essential spending is frozen, people will start to understand what a budget is all about and force our goverment "reprehnsitives" to make better descisions as to what we spen money on in the fist place.

No matter what the SS good points might be on paper, in reality, when the governemtn gets invlovled, they will not materialize and the down side will sink even lower. The government can do nothing efficiently or effectively.

The system might be broken, but don't let any old huckleberry under the hood to tinker with it.

Tom,

First, you already have a Private account. It's called a Treasurey Bond, the most "secure" investment money can buy. And if it isnt we got real problems.

You say if you fail to invest properly then it is your problem. Well, SS is an insurance plan, not an investment plan. And it is not just your problem. In the same way when people smoke to excess, it is not just thier problem. A moral or a religious society doesn't just turn away from people because they made a bad investment or poor health choice. It attempts to help them. Box knows the story of the prodigal son who is always welcome back no matter his transgressions.

The truth is Tom, you will get out of SS what you put into it and more unless you die early. One of the problems is people are living longer than the orginal projections, and most collect MORE than they put in. Even at 75% of today's benefits you would collect MORE than you paid in if you lived into your 80's. Our parents certainly made much more than they paid in.

I agree we must stop deficit spending, but can't immediately. That is difficult because it would mean (a) an immediate withdrawal from Iraq (b) a cut in defense spending and (c) cuts in Medicare and (d) elimination of Bush's Social Security privatization idea since that would add TRILLIONS to the debt, as well as an across the board cut on No Child Left Behind, cuts in veteran benefits, welfare, etc.. You need to look at a pie chart of where our money currently goes. A slither you could barely see goes to national parks and arts, etc. Cutting those things more may make you feel better but does nothing to addressing the deficit. But if you'd like to shut down all national parks for a few years, maybe that isn't a bad idea. it might wake up a few people. As to arts the NEA has already been trimmed down to about the size of the purchase of one helicopter.

The problem with SS is not as bad as Bush has protrayed. That's why they've already changed the rhetoric form "crisis" to "serious problems". If Bush had not racked up these massive dieficits we wouldn't even be having this conversation for another decade or so.

[Secretariat]

Lefty,

Leave the fundamental Social Security insurance program alone. I'm all for raising the age limits a bit to extend viability. You can already VOLUNTARILY invest all you want. SS is a minimum insurance plan, not an investment plan.

SS is not about "who can invest better?" and screw the poor Enron investor who made a poor investment decision. if one wants to risk, fine, just don't do it with the minimum insurance program for retirees. Box, good for your friend, for everyone like him there are thousands that lost money in the market during that time.

[Kreed]

SEC ... i couldn't agree more with you. SS is NOT an investment plan.
Someone mentioned a T. Rowe Price investment fund pulling in a very good
return --- as "proof" of what I'm not sure. YES, there are VERY conservative
investment funds that can safely return 6-7% -- with "VIRTUALLY NO RISK."
And, Yes, funds based on banking & insurance industries, were once very
popular, but not as much anymore. But RISK is the game --- and, a good
rule is this: As soon as your Return EXCEEDS the USA growth rate, you're
taking a Risk. Our growth is ~3% now (some would say less) --- so that means what? And, aside from a few major USA companies, and a few Sectors, this economy is Tepid. Most mutinationals are doing well because they can Hide their profits abroad & make their own subsidiaries do the labor, Cheap. etcetc.
There are some good plans to make SS even better --- and maybe Bush might promote one eventually, but so far this privatization "plan" is hollow. One LAST POINT: What about the disability payments that fall under the SS funds?
The # of USA citzens dependent on SS pay outs is staggering --- and many
thousands of them are children & teens. The 3 main areas are HEALTH CARE,
EMPLOYMENT, SAVINGS --- and I think they are all related.

[Tom]

Sec says:
"The truth is Tom, you will get out of SS what you put into it and more unless you die early. One of the problems is people are living longer than the orginal projections, and most collect MORE than they put in. Even at 75% of today's benefits you would collect MORE than you paid in if you lived into your 80's. Our parents certainly made much more than they paid in."

It will not continue that way. Itwill run out of money eventually. My complaint is that the money should be not used for anything other than SS benefits - it should be invested and allowed to grow ralistically. There is no way I would not have TONS more money is I had had all the money I have put in so far invested by me instead of letting the gov'nt handle it.

[Lefty]

And nothing is done and you younger guys don't get it at all or don't get it for very long. Will you blame the dems who have once again changed their tune or will you just look back and blame Bush or any handy Repub that is around at the time? One more time: IT'S A PONZI SCHEME!
Not veryone has the the wherewithall to invest in a IRA or not everyone is with a co. that has a 401K. When I was younger there were no IRA's or 401k's. My wife is in her 50's and her co. just got a 401k a few yrs ago. You libs always profess to want to help the poor yet when it comes down to a real life plan that will help them in their old age you are against it. Let's face it, libs are about lip service and Repubs are about SOLUTIONS!

[boxcar]

I don't get it with you Libs. First, as Lefty already said, you wingnuts are all for free choice when it comes to a woman deciding whether or not to murder her unborn, but when it comes to a person's personal property, somehow Nanny Fed is going to be the better steward of it?

And then I thought the Democratic Party was the Party of the POORRRRRR. Isn't this the way you Libs dearly love to portray yourselves? But your beloved Social(ist) (In)Security Plan barely pays enough for the poor -- for the downtrodden, for the undeducated or undereducated -- that would qualify as a bare bones subsistence, let alone a retirement nest egg! Where is your compassion for these POORRRRR? And....for the POORRRR's heirs when they die, since the heirs, presently, get nothing under your beloved plan? Why are you opposed to giving the poor a real opportunity to work toward building a real retirement fund -- something they own, they manage and have a vested interest in?

Ahh...I heard some Lib cut one out there, which is a sign someone was trying to say something that remotely resembled a semi-intelligent rebuttal. Oh...yeah...you say but the poor will blow their money because they're too stupid and dumb and ignorant to take care of their own money? Do I have that right? Well, permit me to borrow one of Liberalism's favorite refrains when it comes to social issues: EDUCATION. How's this for starters? Plus why couldn't privatizing have some fairly rigid rules attached that would prohibit careless people from blowing their money away?

And this nonsense about your beloved Social(ist) (In)Security not being an investment plan, but an "insurance" plan is pure hogwash. If this is the case, then this is, yet, another reason to ditch this stupid, socialist Ponzi Scheme. For those of us who do have the wherewithal to invest in retirement-related accounts, we don't put our bucks into "insurance plans", do we!? We invest our money, basically, into very low risk accounts for long periods of time and watch it grow, year in year out. Either SS is a retirement plan or it isn't. If it isn't, then Libs need to tell all of us, but most especially the POORRRR, just what SS is all about. What was FDR's original intention for SS? Was the design for SS benefits to amount to nothing more than chump change -- enough to buy some cigs and candy for a month at a time, or was the design that it's benefits could actually amount to something on which people could retire? (Be careful, Libs, how you answer this 'cause back in FDR's day, there were far fewer rich people around than there are today.)

Boxcar

[Equineer]

Modern Weddings

When you think about family finances, in addition to retirement planning, medical expenses, and education costs, also consider the potential for whopping modern wedding expenses.

When I was young, we didn't have free long distance calling, instant messaging, and the convenience of email correspondence where any note or letter can instantly be sent to globally dispersed groups of friends and relatives.

As a result, by the time you reached your late twenties or turned thirty, many past friendships had typically waned or become disconnected, and you were no longer in frequent and familiar contact with every "old" friend from secondary school, college, and several career stopovers.

If you travelled frequently, you might still be very "tight" with one or two "old" friends in the major cities and many of the smaller ones, but it wasn't commonplace to have so many "must see" friends at every destination that your major challenge was carving out time for business.

However, modern networking has spawned a generation that maintains and nurtures friendships on an unprecedented scale. While this is laudable, Catch-22 will shock you when it becomes your turn to pay for a wedding and all the associated festivities.

Because modern networking eventually creates extensive friendship webs, an astounding number of RSVP invitations must be sent in order to avoid slighting anyone. Even more amazing is the positive response rate among far-flung friends from far-away places.

Ka-ching... Ka-ching... love is a many splendored thing... but to your wallet, Mendelssohn's "Wedding March" may sound more like Nazareth's "Love Hurts."

[boxcar]

JustMissed wrote:

OK Wiseguy-show me the money.

I'd love to see the math.

Show me the future value for a 25 year old minimun wage earner's private ss plan. Please do remember that Bush said the plans would be "safe", which means an annual yield of 2% or less.

The fees that will be raked off the top by Merrill Lynch and Dean Witter will probably be more than the damn yield.

The ball is in your court Boxcar, let us see the numbers.

JM, you must think that I’m made out of the fluff that you Libs are. For all Liberalism consists of nothing less than a large population of shrinking violets, who only know how to cower in dark corners in fear and anxiety, biting their fingernails down to the bone while simultaneously listening to the knocking of their trembling knees.

You Libs don’t have the first clue on what made this country we call America great. What has made this country the powerhouse that it has become (especially economically) is that we are and always have been a nation of risk-takers. We are a nation of entrepreneurs, with an entrepreneurial spirit that knows no bounds. We are a can do people, not a can’t do nation. We are a people who are guided by more noble and virtuous ideals that are all but unknown to Liberals – ideals such as personal responsibility, accountability, dignity, self-confidence, self-esteem and self-respect. These are the foundational ideals upon which this nation was founded, and accounts for why we’re such great nation.

We have not become what we are by letting others do for us what we can do for ourselves. Nor by letting others do for us what we can do so much better for ourselves. All Nanny Fed’s entitlements can do to us (for they can do nothing for us) is squelch our entrepreneurial spirit, lower our self-esteem, shatter our self-confidence and greatly diminish our self-respect and dignity because the ultimate goal of Big Government is to condition the masses to think and believe that the government can do everything better than an individual can do for him or herself.

Liberalism is truly and ideology that has its roots planted in the dark pits of hell, which is precisely why it’s devoid of any redeeming virtue whatsoever! It’s a monstrous, hideous looking Siamese Twin: One is called Fear Mongering, and its twin is named Can-No-Do. Fear-mongering is a favorite strategy of you Libs because you want to strike fear and terror into the heart of the masses to get the people to believe that we [/b]can’t do[/b] nearly as good a job as Big Government. This is how Liberals gain power and control over the masses.

Now, JM, you wanted to “see the math” – to “see the numbers”, right? Well, below are a few excerpts from an incredibly successful alternative to your precious Social(ist) (In)Security Plan. As you’re about to see a few counties in Texas soon discovered that their plan was a much Better Deal that FDR’s New Deal. And if this fact strikes fear and terror into your heart, so be it! The cowardly are never at a loss find things to fear irrationally. (All the emphases below are mine.)

Texas Judge Ray Holbrook (ret.) wrote:

“Twenty-one years ago, three Texas counties – Galveston, Brazoria and Matagorda, plus two cities and an appraisal district – developed an alternative to Social Security. Despite initial fear and anxiety, the details were explained and debated and workers approved the plan by a 3 to 1 margin. The results have been extraordinary. Our plan provides better retirement, survivorship and disability benefits than Social Security. Our plan provides a better rate of return – between 7% to 8% per year, compared to less than 2% under the current Social Security system. And our plan uses no stock market investments, only commercial banking products, annuities and bonds that provide guaranteed fixed interest rates and no risk.

Okay, Libs, what’s not to like about this approach? LSBETS hit the bull’s eye dead center when he said a few days ago that the ROI would be in the 7% to 8% range. What’s not to like, Libs, about this no-risk plan?

There are only two reasons a Lib wouldn’t like this plan: a) Because this much needed SS reform is Bush-driven; and b) because this kind of reform would strike a crushing blow to Liberal (Socialist) Ideology, which depends entirely on the control of people’s private property.

The Judge continued:
“Now, I’m not against allowing people to chose some form of conservative investments, such as stock index funds and a range of good, strong mutual funds. And one of our counties is beginning to allow its workers more freedom, some more options when it comes to such conservative investments.”

The judge, said, “more freedom”!? That concept is anathema to Liberalism; for Liberalism wants to rob the people of its freedoms.

And the alternative to Social(ist) (In)Security proved to be so successful, so popular with the people, that it stirred up the latent entrepreneurial spirit within many to desire even bigger and better things! Big Government will never in a million years do this to any indiviudual. It’s only as people think and do for themselves, can this happen.

The judge again:
“Harris county and some 50 other counties were ready to join but were blocked from doing so by what Congress did in 1983 when they raised taxes, raised the retirement age and closed the door on local governments developing BETTER DEALS of their own.

This little “experiment” went so well, that it was starting to catch like wildfire across the Texas Plains. Other counties in the state wanted in on the Better Deal. But what did the Democratically-controlled Congress do in ’83? They not only closed the door tightly shut to local governments from coming up with their own Better Deal that would suit their localities, but Congress, to add even more insult to injury, raised taxes and the retirement age. Real creative (not!) and short-sighted! (Why Regan didn’t veto this plan is beyond me.) But I certainly can understand why all Libs and Lib-sympathizers would not welcome competition from anyone! If Texas, in essence, became a maverick state with respect to Social(ist) (In)Security, then you know it would spread to other states, as well. FDR’s New Deal would have eventually found its way to the stinking garbage heap where all stupid Ponzi Schemes belong!

For the full story, here is the link:

http://www.csss.gov/meetings/sandiego/Judge_Ray_Holbrook_Statement.pdf+

Boxcar

[schweitz]

Don't know about other states, but Texas teachers ( over 1,000,000) belong to the Teacher Retirement System of Texas instead of paying into Social Security. Retirement benefits in this plan far exceed those in Social Security.

[so.cal.fan]

I'm not positive, but I believe State Employees of California get better retirement than SS.
Anyone know for sure?

[JustRalph]

Don't know about other states, but Texas teachers ( over 1,000,000) belong to the Teacher Retirement System of Texas instead of paying into Social Security. Retirement benefits in this plan far exceed those in Social Security.

In Ohio, Police and Fireman and most other government employee's are exempt from participating in Social Security..............

[Kreed]

Of course, Police & Firemen, in a lot of places, are Exempt from SS.
First, who is their Employer? Because, if you ID that corporation, and
IF they were subject to the usuall SS rules, that Employer would have to
match the SS deductions. No wonder they are not like most of us, and
what's the issue anyways, since they get such OverLucrative retirement
packages. SS would be toilet tissue money to them.

[boxcar]

Kreed wrote:

SS would be toilet tissue money to them.

Ahh...yes, I'm sure the lower income folks, who can't opt out of SS, can relate nicely to what you compare our mighty fine Social(ist) (In)Security Plan.

Bravo, for a great analogy!

Boxcar

[Tom]

So some people can get out of it while the rest of us get screwed over. Really fair system. I am going to sign up for welfare and food stamps when I retire. It's the American way. :mad:

[doophus]

So some people can get out of it while the rest of us get screwed over. Really fair system. I am going to sign up for welfare and food stamps when I retire. It's the American way. :mad:Be careful, Tom. The Dem's will love you.

[Equineer]

In one way or another, society at large ends up footing the bill when benefit programs get abused.

The one thing that the Social Security Administration does better than most alternative schemes is to discourage and combat benefits fraud.

Occupation groups that are exempt from Social Security are all represented by labor organizations that finance political lobbying at the local, state, and federal levels. And especially at the local and state levels, financially strapped governments are often poor overseers of benefit programs that are alternatives to Social Security.

There are bad apples in every occupation, but the level of benefits fraud is highest among occupation groups exempt from Social Security because of their strong labor organizations and lobbies, and because of a relatively weak commitment to administrative oversight by local and state governments.

In particular, disability benefits are often easier to abuse in occupation groups that are exempt from Social Security.

[boxcar]

The following says it all.

Boxcar

Congressman: Democrat Leadership Threatening 'Retribution' for Dems Who Cooperate with White House

by Allan H. Ryskind
Posted Feb 10, 2005

Rep. Paul Ryan (R.-Wis.) was asked at a CATO conference in Washington yesterday whether he had persuaded any Democrats to back his plan to rescue Social Security from its financial troubles. Under his legislation (HR 4851), no new taxes would be needed to pay for "transition costs," participation in the new system would be voluntary and individuals would be allowed to divert a portion of their payroll tax into a mutual fund.

A questioner from the audience, stressing his own Democratic credentials, said he believed Ryan's plan should attract members of his own party and wondered whether the Wisconsin lawmaker had secured any Democratic sponsors. Ryan said he had been working with friends on the "other side of the aisle" who were favorable toward his solution, but he faced an enormous problem: intense pressure on his colleagues from the minority leadership.

"We were in planning stages [with friendly Democrats]," said Ryan. But each essentially told him: "I like what you're doing. I like this bill. I think it's the right way to go. But my party leadership will break my back. The retribution that they are promising us is as great as I have ever seen. We can't do it."

Ryan said he believed the only thing that can assure passage is an outpouring from America's grassroots.

Mr. Ryskind, HUMAN EVENTS Editor at large, is writing a book on Communism in Hollywood.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=6564

[Equineer]

Boxcar,

Ahhh yes... Allan H. Ryskind, Hollywood's senior muckraker, who still sounds like he's wearing a Senator Joe McCarthy campaign button.

Isn't Ryskind most famous for campaigning to censor and ban Woody Guthrie's song "This Land Is Your Land" and also Marlon Brando's 1954 movie "On The Waterfront?"

Hollywood insiders have long speculated whether Ryskind was the "tabloid" source for a sensational rumor started during the 1960s, alleging the screenplay for "On The Waterfront" was a plagiarized translation of an unpublished screenplay by a Russian writer who was both a Soviet drama teacher and a mistress of Joseph Stalin.

Of course, everyone in Hollywood remembers Ryskind denouncing "This Land Is Your Land" as a communist anthem... obviously, just as subversive as the civil rights anthem "We Shall Overcome." :rolleyes:

In 2003, Accuracy In Media (?:)?) conducted an Internet letter-writing campaign, based on Ryskind's "investigative" reporting, which was aimed at forcing left-wing Fox News extremist Bill O'Reilly (!:)!) to recant statements critical of the McCarthy era. Now that was funny!

All that said, Ryskind has written some thoughtful book reviews when he was not writing from a partisan pulpit.

[46zilzal]

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/index.htm

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/10/911commission.faa.ap/index.html

[PaceAdvantage]

I don't understand that second article. "The FAA had repeated warnings of al-Queda's desire to attack airlines"

Well DUH?!?! I think the FAA's main concern always has been a hijacking or some other attack on an airline. It's always been this way, and I don't think it matters WHO is actually doing the attacking, correct?

So, what's your point on the second article?

[boxcar]

After all is said and done, EQ, it wont change the fact that the Libs will remain to be the Party of the Status Quo when it comes to Social(ist) (In)Security. The last thing Libs want to do is relinguish any control over our personal property. Their idea of "reform" is to raise taxes and/or raise the bar for retirement age. In this manner they can keep the current Ponzie Scam as insecure as possible so as to have an excuse in the future to "fix" things once again, thereby justifying their miserable, pathetic existence to the blind sheeple who allow themselves to be led around by the nose by these pack of wolves.

Shooting the messenger (Ryskind) won't change these facts.

Boxcar
P.S. Of what material is your nose ring made?