Letter to Charles Schwab

[b***@cruller.invalid]

Social Security is America's best-run, most successful family insurance
program. Millions of retirees, survivors and people with disabilities
rely on Social Security. President Bush's plan to move Social Security
funds into private accounts may be good for your business--but it would
hurt working families terribly.

Privatizing Social Security would force devastating cuts in benefits and
replace retirement security with retirement risk. I consider your
support of Social Security privatization a serious conflict of interest
and urge you to:

- Disclose your support for groups pushing Social Security privatization.

- Disclose what you have communicated to public officials in private
meetings about Social Security.

- And withdraw all support for privatizing Social Security.

Your corporate philosophy description says your goal is to offer
investors "useful, ethical services at a fair price." The most ethical
service you could provide for working families at this time is to
withdraw support for privatizing Social Security.

I would only add that handling this matter publicly in an above-board,
open and honest manner would be a startling and refreshing change for
the jaded American consumer. In that action, Charles Schwab would
definitely set itself apart from the perfidious pack. I urge your
brokerage to become an exemplar of rectitude in American economics, and
to reap the just rewards of the seed you now sow.

[Bert Hyman]

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
Social Security is America's best-run, most successful family insurance
program.

Hey! That's funny!

[dane]

<snip propaganda>

Social Security is nothing but a Ponzi scheme foisted upon the unknowing and
unquestioning public. Social Security has never been about the welfare of
the elderly, it has always been about the elderly being forced to be
dependent upon the whims of the central government.

Care to see a picture of the Social Security Trust Fund ? It is nothing but
a file cabinet in Parkersburg, WV filled with IOUs. Picture at :
http://columbialibertarians.blogspot.com/2005/01/who-knew-trust-fund-is-in-west.html .

[George Grapman]

Post by dane
<snip propaganda>
Social Security is nothing but a Ponzi scheme foisted upon the unknowing and
unquestioning public. Social Security has never been about the welfare of
the elderly, it has always been about the elderly being forced to be
dependent upon the whims of the central government.
Care to see a picture of the Social Security Trust Fund ? It is nothing but
http://columbialibertarians.blogspot.com/2005/01/who-knew-trust-fund-is-in-west.html .

Has it ever defaulted? Has it ever fled with retirees money? Ever
been run by the good people at Enron or Worldcom?

[Dennis M]

<snip right-wing dogma>

And Republicans used an imaginary budget surplus to foist infinite tax cuts
for the wealthy on an unknowing and unquestioning public.

[dane]

Post by Dennis M
<snip right-wing dogma>
And Republicans used an imaginary budget surplus to foist infinite tax cuts
for the wealthy on an unknowing and unquestioning public.

If there had been infinite tax cuts the maximum tax rate would be zero.
According to the IRS web site for 2005 income taxes
www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040es.pdf the top income tax bracket is still at
35%. And of course there are still the 10%, 15%, 25%, 28% and 33% brackets
below the maximum.

Don't forget that in the 1960's the top tax bracket was cut from 91% to 70%
by that right-wing conservative John F. Kennedy. Democrats have never
forgiven JFK for cutting taxes to help his wealthy friends.

[Dennis M]

Post by dane

Post by Dennis M
<snip right-wing dogma>
And Republicans used an imaginary budget surplus to foist infinite tax

cuts

Post by Dennis M
for the wealthy on an unknowing and unquestioning public.

If there had been infinite tax cuts the maximum tax rate would be zero.

I meant infinite as in permanent.

Post by dane
Don't forget that in the 1960's the top tax bracket was cut from 91%
to 70% by that right-wing conservative John F. Kennedy. Democrats
have never forgiven JFK for cutting taxes to help his wealthy friends.

The early 1960's were an entirely different situation. And the top brackets
have had even more cuts on top of those during Reagan's tenure.

JFK would have NEVER advocated the kind of irresponsible cuts GW Bush has
pushed through (as has been pointed out several times by his own brother),
although as your post demonstrates the right loves to cynically rob his
grave at any opportunity.

[b***@cruller.invalid]

Post by dane
Social Security is nothing but a Ponzi scheme

Blahblahblah.

From
<http://www.forbes.com/technology/ebusiness/feeds/ap/2005/01/28/ap178902
6.html>:

"In devising a structure for the private accounts, the Bush
administration is modeling its proposal after the Thrift Savings Plan,
a tax-deferred retirement investment plan similar to a 401(k). The idea
is to minimize risk for people at the outset by offering as few as
three to five diversified investment funds."

This fact alone should alarm anyone who knows about what the President
and John Ashcroft did to the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) during the first
Bush term.

The TSP was created (chartered) specifically to save taxpayers money by
partly relieving the government of pensioning Federal employees. It was
a very good idea and it worked well. The charter called for the
institution to be run responsibly and to be immune from political
influence. These factors were considered so important, they are among
the first requirements of the TSP charter.

Through the Administration's continuing corrupt and patently illegal
political manipulation to protect a thieving contracting firm (American
Management Systems, now defunct, absorbed by a company called CGI),
Bush/Ashcroft lost TSP shareholders over 1/3 billion dollars. I will,
upon request, provide links to articles on both the TSP website and
Federal news outlets showing all this to be quite true.

For instance, here's a 2003 Washington Post story about the ensuing
lawsuit with a synopsis of events:

<http://tinyurl.com/6ggfg>

Note that the lawsuit was brought by a former Reagan Administration
official, one Roger Mehle. Mehle was the longest-serving administrator
in the TSP's 16-year history.

If you dig a little deeper, you will find that conflicts of interest
overflow like a clogged toilet on the Administration's part, and on
that of its allies in this matter. One of AMS's most rigid
Congressional defenders, Congressman Tom Davis of Virginia, accepts
copious campaign contributions from AMS and its employees. Yet, he is
the Chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, the committee that
oversees the TSP.

Granted, the issue is complex. But it all happened in plain sight and
Congress took no preventative action. The media reported it. The public
yawned. The media dropped it. TSP accountholders lost gobs of
money--$350,000,000.

This is the stuff of mafia gangster stories. Except that it was
perpetrated against Americans by their own "elected" President and his
cabinet.

Before Bush's first election, the money in the TSP was invested
strictly in the fiduciary interest of its shareholders. All investments
were made for the benefit of TSP account holders. Now, TSP funds are
invested at the whimsy of a Bush-appointed board whose every breath is
subject to Presidential approval...although not officially. Why not
officially? Because the TSP charter calls expressly for the fund to
operate free from political influence.

John Ashcroft and George Bush broke that charter (thus delegitimizing
the entire institution). They forced Mehle out and turned the TSP into
their own $100 billion investment house for their corporate friends.

To think of this--or ANY--Administration doing the same thing to your
Social Security money should chill to the bone anyone concerned. It
means the money you are *forced* to pay into the SS fund would then be
completely subject to the political concerns of whoever is in charge.
If the political agenda of the party in power calls for you to
sacrifice that money--YOUR MONEY--as it did for the current TSP
participants, well, too bad. You have no recourse.

And, as in the TSP fiasco, you can't count on anyone in "authority"
doing anything to put it right; then as now, legislators as a group
have always been pretty much spineless. Now, with your retirement money
in their grasp, their greed may know no bounds.

[Dennis]

Post by b***@cruller.invalid

Post by dane
Social Security is nothing but a Ponzi scheme

Blahblahblah.

<even more blahblahblah snipped>

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
To think of this--or ANY--Administration doing the same thing to your
Social Security money should chill to the bone anyone concerned. It
means the money you are *forced* to pay into the SS fund would then be
completely subject to the political concerns of whoever is in charge.
If the political agenda of the party in power calls for you to
sacrifice that money--YOUR MONEY--as it did for the current TSP
participants, well, too bad. You have no recourse.

So tell me, where is the money in the current "Social Security
Lockbox" invested that takes it out of the hands of those eeevil
political concerns? I don't mean the pile of IOUs in the file cabinet
in Virginia. I mean where do the actual dollars (net those used to
pay current SS recipients) that come out of our paychecks every month
go? Do tell.

Dennis (evil)
--
"What government gives, it must first take away."
- John S. Caldwell

[b***@cruller.invalid]

Post by Dennis
So tell me, where is the money in the current "Social Security
Lockbox" invested that takes it out of the hands of those eeevil
political concerns?

It is untouchable by political animals. Whether you think it is dead or
not, it is not prey to political corruption.

Post by Dennis
I don't mean the pile of IOUs in the file cabinet
in Virginia.

I know you don't mean that, Dennis; you are smart enough to know there
are no such things. There are U.S. government bonds.

Post by Dennis
I mean where do the actual dollars (net those used to
pay current SS recipients) that come out of our paychecks every month
go?

Asked and answered. The bonds are an investment in the United States and
the the financial security of its retired people.

[Dennis]

Post by b***@cruller.invalid

Post by Dennis
So tell me, where is the money in the current "Social Security
Lockbox" invested that takes it out of the hands of those eeevil
political concerns?

It is untouchable by political animals. Whether you think it is dead or
not, it is not prey to political corruption.

Post by Dennis
I don't mean the pile of IOUs in the file cabinet
in Virginia.

I know you don't mean that, Dennis; you are smart enough to know there
are no such things. There are U.S. government bonds.

Post by Dennis
I mean where do the actual dollars (net those used to
pay current SS recipients) that come out of our paychecks every month
go?

Asked and answered. The bonds are an investment in the United States and
the the financial security of its retired people.

Knew you couldn't answer without dancing. The fact is, the money goes
right back into the general federal budget, where it is spent by
congress and the administration. Hardly "untouchable by political
animals". But you knew that.

Dennis (evil)
--
"What government gives, it must first take away."
- John S. Caldwell

[b***@cruller.invalid]

The fact is, the money goes right back into the general federal
budget, where it is spent by congress and the administration.

Actually, if that were so, the budget deficit would not be the size it
is today. George's war would have more funding than it needed, and the
Iraq conscripts would be sleeping on down.

In fact, one of the main reasons for the "crisis" is so politicians can
get their hands on the money.

[b***@cruller.invalid]

Post by Dennis
The fact is, the money goes

Reflecting on this, I find it sad that you have so little faith in the
future of this nation. Where will you go to promulgate your libertarian
beliefs when the only operating system on the planet strong enough to
allow them to even be spoken freely crashes in on itself?

Post by Dennis
The fact is, the money goes right back into the general federal
budget, where it is spent by congress and the administration.

Would you mind elucidating? What are the accounting procedures which
allow such looting of the Social Security surplus and who legitimized
them?

[Dennis]

Post by b***@cruller.invalid

Post by Dennis
The fact is, the money goes

Reflecting on this, I find it sad that you have so little faith in the
future of this nation. Where will you go to promulgate your libertarian
beliefs when the only operating system on the planet strong enough to
allow them to even be spoken freely crashes in on itself?

Right. Because your posts consistently reflect such unbridled
optimism over the government and the way it's heading. Uh-huh. PKB.

Post by b***@cruller.invalid

Post by Dennis
The fact is, the money goes right back into the general federal
budget, where it is spent by congress and the administration.

Would you mind elucidating? What are the accounting procedures which
allow such looting of the Social Security surplus and who legitimized
them?

Here's a few points to ponder:

Newsday
March 5, 1995

. . . [A] s this week's debate over the Balanced Budget Amendment
should have shown, Social Security taxes are being used to offset the
federal budget deficit. The Social Security trust fund is operating in
surplus, taking in $70 billion more this year than it is paying out.
The extra revenues are used to buy Treasury bonds that finance the
general operating costs of government.

Such use of Social Security revenues, as Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan
(D-N.Y.) once said, is theft.... By making the deficit appear to be
$70 billion smaller than it actually is, this "embezzlement" of your
FICA contributions (a word used by the late Republican Sen. John Heinz
of Pennsylvania) also reduces pressure to increase income taxes on
wealthier Americans.

The New York Times
March 18, 1991

If Congress had acted responsibly, it would have used the trust money
to lower the deficit, thereby pumping billions into private capital
markets, or to finance public investments. Either choice would have
sparked economic growth and raised the income of future taxpayers
which is the only way Congress can lighten the burden of paying future
retirees. But what Congress did instead was to use the trust funds to
pay ordinary bills. The Treasury has borrowed from the trust, in
effect masking a high and rising Federal deficit. Senator John Heinz
of Pennsylvania has labeled these loans "embezzlement," but his
accusation is hyperbolic. Come 2020, Congress will have to raise taxes
to pay off the loans. Ultimately, taxpayers, not the trust fund,
protect future retirees.

USA Today
May 30, 1996

"Should Social Security go private? . . . Its trust fund is a fraud
used chiefly to mask the size of the federal deficit . . . Social
Security surpluses now are spent immediately on other federal
programs. The trust fund's assets that opponents to change count on
are nothing but a pile of federal IOUs. Boomers will have to depend on
the generosity of workers to pay thousands more in taxes. Or of
lenders to loan the government trillions of dollars at reasonable
rates. Or they'll see their benefits slashed a third."

Speaker Newt Gingrich
April 7, 1995

In fact, the money the government has supposedly been putting aside
from the Baby Boomers' Social Security taxes is not there. The
government has been borrowing the money to pay for the budget deficit.
The Social Security Trust Fund is simply IOUs from the U.S.
Treasury.... [Social Security] would be fine if the government would
stop borrowing the money.

Senator Ernest "Fritz" Hollings (D-South Carolina)
Congressional Record
April 24, 1991

The truth is that the Social Security Trust Fund has already been
stripped bare. There is no trust and no fund.

It is a lot like the S&Ls. The savings and loans had a lot of real
estate on the books, a lot of property, a lot of shopping centers, a
lot of deposits, and everything else, until you looked inside and
found out there was nothing there. The assets were mostly on paper....
Meanwhile, the Social Security cupboard is bare.

And also...

http://www.house.gov/budget/press/sstask/6899hearing.htm

Dennis (evil)
--
An inherent weakness of a pure democracy is that half
the voters are below average intelligence.

[b***@cruller.invalid]

Post by Dennis
. . . [A] s this week's debate over the Balanced Budget Amendment
should have shown, Social Security taxes are being used to offset the
federal budget deficit. The Social Security trust fund is operating
in surplus, taking in $70 billion more this year than it is paying
out. The extra revenues are used to buy Treasury bonds that finance
the general operating costs of government.

Those bonds are part of the general indebtedness of the government, and
thus show up in general accounting figures. The government has
successfully financed its operations through bonds for many years. U.S.
government bonds are used around the world as a hedge against the
failure of private investments. They are backed by the stongest, most
dynamic economy in the world.

What's the problem?

Post by Dennis
Such use of Social Security revenues, as Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan
(D-N.Y.) once said, is theft

With all due respect to the Senator, if it was "theft" (and I tend to
agree with the sentiment, if not the reality of his characterization),
and Congress allowed it to proceed, then we need to indict them by
their voting record.

Still, I think the Senator was referring to how the funds were being
used, rather than that they were being used at all. I could be wrong.

Post by Dennis
By making the deficit appear to be $70 billion smaller than it
actually is, this "embezzlement" of your FICA contributions (a word
used by the late Republican Sen. John Heinz of Pennsylvania) also
reduces pressure to increase income taxes on wealthier Americans.

Perhaps in an immediate sense, but if we're talking long term then the
overall debt figures come into play. Those figures should certainly
counter any sanguine cupidity on the part of the wealthy as being safe
from increased taxation.

If President Bush can make crisis of a 40-year projection literally
filled with uncertainty, he can do the same for a national debt
financed out to indeterminate lengths to maintain government
operations. It all depends on his focus and emphasis.

Destroying a system that works so well as Social Security is not the
same as fixing it. At current and anticipated rates of growth, and
barring the disasatrously bleak figures used by the Administration to
arrive at its "bankrupt by 2018" date, Social Security could easily
maintain itself into the forseeable future by the simple expedient of
raising the exemption ceiling on income by $10,000 annually. That's a
fix so small, so unnoticeable, it's a wonder that it isn't done
automatically.

And that's just one means of fixing the "crisis"; there are many others.

BTW, for those who are concerned about raised retirement ages (yet
another problem that could be easily fixed by ignoring the avarice of
the wealthy), note that Bush's privatization plan also calls for such
increases. Bush wants to allow withdrawls from these "private accounts"
no earlier than age 70.

[Dennis]

Post by b***@cruller.invalid

Post by Dennis
. . . [A] s this week's debate over the Balanced Budget Amendment
should have shown, Social Security taxes are being used to offset the
federal budget deficit. The Social Security trust fund is operating
in surplus, taking in $70 billion more this year than it is paying
out. The extra revenues are used to buy Treasury bonds that finance
the general operating costs of government.

Those bonds are part of the general indebtedness of the government, and
thus show up in general accounting figures. The government has
successfully financed its operations through bonds for many years. U.S.
government bonds are used around the world as a hedge against the
failure of private investments. They are backed by the stongest, most
dynamic economy in the world.
What's the problem?

Ah, so now you change your tune. You admit that the money is not
safely put away somewhere, waiting to be paid back to those who
contributed it. It is nothing but a set of entries on a ledger -- the
actual cash collected today is spent as congress and the
administration pleases. Hardly safe from political forces, corrupt or
otherwise. And when it comes time to pay it back, the payments will
be taken out of the general tax revenue, i.e., our pockets, as well as
yet more borrowing. Very different from what you were trying to
portray earlier.

Dennis (evil)
--
"What government gives, it must first take away."
- John S. Caldwell

[b***@cruller.invalid]

Post by Dennis
Ah, so now you change your tune.

Please show where I said *any* of the following statements, except in

Post by Dennis
You admit that the money is not safely put away somewhere, waiting to
be paid back to those who contributed it.

I never made any such claim. AFAIK, the is NO government agency in any
country that has such a disposition.

Post by Dennis
It is nothing but a set of entries on a ledger

Dennis. That's what MONEY is. Revenue and expenditures alike.

Post by Dennis
the actual cash collected today is spent as congress and the
administration pleases.

Little more than entries on a ledger, as you noted previously.

Post by Dennis
Hardly safe from political forces, corrupt or otherwise.

Untrue. Protected from use other than its original purpose. The funds
used for political programs are not Social Security funds. I agree that
agencies should be prohibited from borrowing on the fund, but that's
another discussion.

Post by Dennis
And when it comes time to pay it back, the payments will be taken out
of the general tax revenue, i.e., our pockets, as well as yet more
borrowing.

You seem to think that this is some kind of great revelation. It's how
government works. It's how government funds itself.

Post by Dennis
Very different from what you were trying to portray earlier.

Well, your view of it, anyway.

[Dennis]

Post by b***@cruller.invalid

Post by Dennis
Ah, so now you change your tune.

Please show where I said *any* of the following statements, except in

Post by Dennis
You admit that the money is not safely put away somewhere, waiting to
be paid back to those who contributed it.

I never made any such claim. AFAIK, the is NO government agency in any
country that has such a disposition.

You say it again right below this. You seem to be very confused. Or
perhaps, just invested in some transparent accounting fantasy.

Post by b***@cruller.invalid

Post by Dennis
It is nothing but a set of entries on a ledger

Dennis. That's what MONEY is. Revenue and expenditures alike.

Post by Dennis
the actual cash collected today is spent as congress and the
administration pleases.

Little more than entries on a ledger, as you noted previously.

Post by Dennis
Hardly safe from political forces, corrupt or otherwise.

Untrue. Protected from use other than its original purpose. The funds
used for political programs are not Social Security funds.

Here is the silliness that you seem to cling to. Are you really that
naive? It all goes into the same trough and it all comes out of the
same trough. The SS surplus just brings the level up a bit more. The
whole notion of "Social Security Trust Fund" was just a fiction that
was introduced back in the '30s to head off exactly the kind of
questions that are being asked again today. People bought it for a
while, but it remains to be seen if the public still is so gullible.
Apparently, some are.

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
I agree that agencies should be prohibited from borrowing on the fund, but that's
another discussion.

No, that is exactly the discussion. And it's not as contained
"agencies borrowing" implies. The money is dumped directly into the
general budget and spent on anything and everything (as government
does), including everyone's favorite political pork. There is
absolutely no regard for the repayment in the future.

Post by b***@cruller.invalid

Post by Dennis
And when it comes time to pay it back, the payments will be taken out
of the general tax revenue, i.e., our pockets, as well as yet more
borrowing.

You seem to think that this is some kind of great revelation. It's how
government works. It's how government funds itself.

Well, at least you seem to understand that much, if not the future
ramifications for SS. If only you could get past your precious
political biases, you might see the looming problem.

Dennis (evil)
--
"What government gives, it must first take away."
- John S. Caldwell

[b***@cruller.invalid]

Post by Dennis
Here is the silliness that you seem to cling to. Are you really that
naive? It all goes into the same trough and it all comes out of the
same trough.

In that case, we aren't talking about Social Security at all, we are
talking about the overall finances of the United States, and we need to
include a great deal more territory, including the wages paid to you
and me and dividends and corporate earnings, and "private accounts" and
all of a sudden, things aren't quite so cut and dried, isn't that
right?

Post by Dennis
The SS surplus just brings the level up a bit more. The whole notion
of "Social Security Trust Fund" was just a fiction that was
introduced back in the '30s to head off exactly the kind of questions
that are being asked again today.

That is such nonsense. Social Security is just another division of
money. The whole notion of a defense fund is no different, yet look
what we've "accomplished" in Iraq.

I'd say Social Security is worth much more than most other government
programs, including Bush's insane tax cuts (which would more than cover
*any* projected Social Security shortfall).

Post by Dennis
People bought it for a while, but it remains to be seen if the public
still is so gullible. Apparently, some are.

Your definition of gullible is odd. Social Security works. It has
worked better than most other government agencies since its inception.
No wonder it covers more ground now than it did originally.

Post by Dennis

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
I agree that agencies should be prohibited from borrowing on the
fund, but that's another discussion.

No, that is exactly the discussion.

If so, start another thread. The topic of this thread isn't borrowing
from the fund. I'm sure you can find lots of commiseration on that
thread. I wrote a letter to Charles Schwab and wanted to offer it to
other consumers. That is the topic.

Post by Dennis
And it's not as contained "agencies borrowing" implies. The money is
dumped directly into the general budget and spent on anything and
everything (as government does), including everyone's favorite
political pork. There is absolutely no regard for the repayment in
the future.

Well then, *that's* a problem, isn't it? It however, is NOT an excuse to
dismantle or destroy a system that has kept American elderly from
poverty for seventy years and replace it with a system that promises
nothing.

Post by Dennis
Well, at least you seem to understand that much, if not the future
ramifications for SS. If only you could get past your precious
political biases, you might see the looming problem.

More nonsense. The economic fixes are simple and easily implemented.
There is no crisis. There is nothing political about wanting to preserve
a system that has supported so many so well for so long.

[Dennis]

Post by b***@cruller.invalid

Post by Dennis
Here is the silliness that you seem to cling to. Are you really that
naive? It all goes into the same trough and it all comes out of the
same trough.

In that case, we aren't talking about Social Security at all, we are
talking about the overall finances of the United States, and we need to
include a great deal more territory, including the wages paid to you
and me and dividends and corporate earnings, and "private accounts" and
all of a sudden, things aren't quite so cut and dried, isn't that
right?

I have no idea what you are blathering about here.

This is what you wrote and then conveniently snipped and what my

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
Protected from use other than its original purpose. The funds
used for political programs are not Social Security funds.

You just don't seem to get it (or maybe you really do, but realize
that admitting it will blow your whole position). Today's funds from
the SS surplus are fed into the general federal budget and spent
today. They are not protected in any way shape or form. All there is
are some entries in a ledger that say that (somehow, means TBD), when
they are needed, the government will raise the money to replace what
has already long been spent.

Post by b***@cruller.invalid

Post by Dennis
The SS surplus just brings the level up a bit more. The whole notion
of "Social Security Trust Fund" was just a fiction that was
introduced back in the '30s to head off exactly the kind of questions
that are being asked again today.

That is such nonsense. Social Security is just another division of
money.

No. It was sold to the public, and remains in most people's minds,
as a Trust Fund. The Social Security Amendments of 1939 renamed
Section 201 of the Social Security Act, "Old-Age Reserve Account " to
"Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund." Along with a
few other mostly cosmetic changes, this was in reponse to mounting
controversy at the time over how Social Security was managed. And the
public largely bought it in spite of the fact that it has none of the
distinguishing characteristics of an actual trust fund.

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
The whole notion of a defense fund is no different, yet look
what we've "accomplished" in Iraq.

Non sequitur.

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
I'd say Social Security is worth much more than most other government
programs, including Bush's insane tax cuts (which would more than cover
*any* projected Social Security shortfall).

More non sequiturs.

Post by b***@cruller.invalid

Post by Dennis
People bought it for a while, but it remains to be seen if the public
still is so gullible. Apparently, some are.

Your definition of gullible is odd. Social Security works. It has
worked better than most other government agencies since its inception.
No wonder it covers more ground now than it did originally.

They are gullible about the notion that todays surplus will be
available to pay future recipients.

Post by b***@cruller.invalid

Post by Dennis

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
I agree that agencies should be prohibited from borrowing on the
fund, but that's another discussion.

No, that is exactly the discussion.

If so, start another thread. The topic of this thread isn't borrowing
from the fund. I'm sure you can find lots of commiseration on that
thread. I wrote a letter to Charles Schwab and wanted to offer it to
other consumers. That is the topic.

I'm only responding to your statement that the current SS money is
somehow protected from political interests. As I have shown several
times now, it clearly is not.

Post by b***@cruller.invalid

Post by Dennis
And it's not as contained "agencies borrowing" implies. The money is
dumped directly into the general budget and spent on anything and
everything (as government does), including everyone's favorite
political pork. There is absolutely no regard for the repayment in
the future.

Well then, *that's* a problem, isn't it? It however, is NOT an excuse to
dismantle or destroy a system that has kept American elderly from
poverty for seventy years and replace it with a system that promises
nothing.

I've made no comment to that effect. Only that there is a big problem
facing us down the road with the current system that needs to be
addressed sooner rather than later.

Post by b***@cruller.invalid

Post by Dennis
Well, at least you seem to understand that much, if not the future
ramifications for SS. If only you could get past your precious
political biases, you might see the looming problem.

More nonsense. The economic fixes are simple and easily implemented.

The one you have vaguely suggested is clearly not going to fix
anything. Adding more money to the surplus to be spent immediately
won't help anything.

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
There is no crisis. There is nothing political about wanting to preserve a system that
has supported so many so well for so long.

You are so blinded by your hatred for the opposition party that you
would deny that the sun comes up in the east if they said so.

Dennis (evil)
--
An inherent weakness of a pure democracy is that half
the voters are below average intelligence.

[b***@cruller.invalid]

Post by Dennis
You just don't seem to get it (or maybe you really do, but realize
that admitting it will blow your whole position). Today's funds from
the SS surplus are fed into the general federal budget and spent
today. They are not protected in any way shape or form. All there
is are some entries in a ledger that say that (somehow, means TBD),
when they are needed, the government will raise the money to replace
what has already long been spent.

You're right, I don't get the problem with that. Those "IOU"s are bonds
backed by the United States Government.

You seem to think that business operates differently. I would point to
the amazing, incredibly extensive disappearing shareholder money of the
eighties and nineties. When questioned about where all that money went,
most "conservatives" excused it as gains lost on "paper". Is that
different from what you are talking about? We're both talking about the
same thing: ledger entries.

The difference is that unlike private business, the government's first
commitment is to make good on its debts, whatever that requires.

Default is unthinkable; it would throw global financing into chaos. If
the U.S. defaulted on its bond debt, it would very likely bring world
finance to a screeching halt, perhaps causing the collapse of economies
in many friendly nations. Confidence in the United States' obligation
to pay its debts underlies a very basic foundation of contemporary
national and international trade. Deliberate, unilateral, unnegotiated
failure to pay when due would heavily undermine that confidence with
disastrous results.

Were economics to decline to that extent, Social Security would be the
least of anyone's concerns.

The government CANNOT default on the "IOU"s in the trust fund, ergo,
the trust fund surplus not only exists, but is extremely secure.

[Dennis]

Post by b***@cruller.invalid

Post by Dennis
You just don't seem to get it (or maybe you really do, but realize
that admitting it will blow your whole position). Today's funds from
the SS surplus are fed into the general federal budget and spent
today. They are not protected in any way shape or form. All there
is are some entries in a ledger that say that (somehow, means TBD),
when they are needed, the government will raise the money to replace
what has already long been spent.

You're right, I don't get the problem with that. Those "IOU"s are bonds
backed by the United States Government.
You seem to think that business operates differently.

<blahblahblah snipped>

There you go again, trying to change the subject. Sorry, no comment
on strawmen.

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
The government CANNOT default on the "IOU"s in the trust fund, ergo,
the trust fund surplus not only exists, but is extremely secure.

Nope. It is spent. On bombs and highways to nowhere in powerful
congressmen's states and new golf courses for air force bases ad the
like. So now, when it comes time to draw upon this mythical "trust
fund" (and I also believe that there is at least some vague intention
to pay the obligations, BTW), where is the difference made up? More
taxes? More debt? Reduced benefits? Sell off federal assets? Who
knows? Given that we know the day is coming, doesn't it seem like
there should be some kind of firm plan in place? Does to me.

Dennis (evil)

[b***@cruller.invalid]

Post by Dennis
No. It was sold to the public, and remains in most people's minds,
as a Trust Fund. The Social Security Amendments of 1939 renamed
Section 201 of the Social Security Act, "Old-Age Reserve Account " to
"Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund." Along with a
few other mostly cosmetic changes, this was in reponse to mounting
controversy at the time over how Social Security was managed. And
the public largely bought it in spite of the fact that it has none
of the distinguishing characteristics of an actual trust fund.

You know, I might even agree with your position if the bonds securing
the trust fund were private--*real* IOUs--and could be easily cancelled
by going out of business or bankrutpcy protections. Lets see a show of
Usenet hands: how many think the United States will be going out of
business by 2018? How many think it will go bankrupt by 2048?

U.S. bonds are not so revocable. They are as good as the dollars they
secure. Bush's plan would indeed expose those retirement funds to such
unrequited loss, even ignoring the massive transition and maintenance
costs. You and the other privatizers are pushing hard, and I give you
credit for that. But you aren't gaining many yards among people I hear,
and you still have most of the field to go.

The reason is that the suggestion is unreasonable. It is hugely
expensive not only to the Social Security beneficiaries, but to the
rest of the taxpaying nation as well. By some accounts, it would cost
more to establish private accounts than it would to simply supply the
system with the funds needed to keep it solvent into perpetuity.

Again, I have NOTHING against people using the government to invest (or
lose) their money, if that's what they want to do. Just do it on a
voluntary basis, separately from the REAL retirement security fund.
Don't force me to contribute (I already have individual accounts,
separate from Social Security), and don't reduce my SSI benefits for the
satisfaction of business interests.

[Dennis]

Post by b***@cruller.invalid

Post by Dennis
No. It was sold to the public, and remains in most people's minds,
as a Trust Fund. The Social Security Amendments of 1939 renamed
Section 201 of the Social Security Act, "Old-Age Reserve Account " to
"Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund." Along with a
few other mostly cosmetic changes, this was in reponse to mounting
controversy at the time over how Social Security was managed. And
the public largely bought it in spite of the fact that it has none
of the distinguishing characteristics of an actual trust fund.

You know, I might even agree with your position if the bonds securing
the trust fund were private--*real* IOUs--and could be easily cancelled
by going out of business or bankrutpcy protections. Lets see a show of
Usenet hands: how many think the United States will be going out of
business by 2018? How many think it will go bankrupt by 2048?
U.S. bonds are not so revocable. They are as good as the dollars they
secure. Bush's plan would indeed expose those retirement funds to such
unrequited loss, even ignoring the massive transition and maintenance
costs. You and the other privatizers are pushing hard, and I give you
credit for that. But you aren't gaining many yards among people I hear,
and you still have most of the field to go.

There ya go again, putting words in my mouth. Nowhere have I
advocated privatization. But of course, it's easier to jump into the
well-worn grooves of the standard party lines if that's what you're
arguing, isn't it?

Dennis (evil)

[b***@cruller.invalid]

Post by Dennis
They are gullible about the notion that todays surplus will be
available to pay future recipients.

Actually, although I'm not really interested in criticizing you
personally, in my view people who believe such nonsense are those
swallowing the hook, line and sinker.

[b***@cruller.invalid]

Post by Dennis
I've made no comment to that effect. Only that there is a big problem
facing us down the road with the current system that needs to be
addressed sooner rather than later.

That's fine, then address it realistically and not as some crisis or
doomsday prophecy, as the current Administration is attempting.

[Dennis]

Post by b***@cruller.invalid

Post by Dennis
I've made no comment to that effect. Only that there is a big problem
facing us down the road with the current system that needs to be
addressed sooner rather than later.

That's fine, then address it realistically and not as some crisis or
doomsday prophecy, as the current Administration is attempting.

Once again, putting words in my mouth. Nowhere have I suggested
support for the current administration (save for the similar notion
that something must be done and sooner is better than later).

You're so caught up in your vituperative political rhetoric that you
can't keep you head on the issue being discussed.

Dennis (evil)

[b***@cruller.invalid]

Post by Dennis
You are so blinded by your hatred for the opposition party that you
would deny that the sun comes up in the east if they said so.

I haven't said anything against the "opposition party", whatever that
is, since Bush's election. I understand that a man has to work with the
tools he's got.

You, OTOH, seem incapable of addressing others' arguments without
resorting to ad hominems. That's a tool qualifying you for the killfile,
Dennis.

[Dennis]

Post by b***@cruller.invalid

Post by Dennis
You are so blinded by your hatred for the opposition party that you
would deny that the sun comes up in the east if they said so.

I haven't said anything against the "opposition party", whatever that
is, since Bush's election. I understand that a man has to work with the
tools he's got.
You, OTOH, seem incapable of addressing others' arguments without
resorting to ad hominems. That's a tool qualifying you for the killfile,
Dennis.

Perhaps that is for the best. It seems like it upsets you when I
introduce ideas that challenge your comfortable little dogma.

Dennis (evil)

[b***@cruller.invalid]

Post by Dennis
Perhaps that is for the best. It seems like it upsets you when I
introduce ideas that challenge your comfortable little dogma.

You actually post messages that I like to read because they are mostly
well-thought-out and intellectually challenging. Whether written by you
or others, it is those kinds of messages that profit me because they
cause me to look deeper into the subject. Sometimes, I find out
information that causes my view to alter.

OTOH,

It's when you start mischaracterizing me (and others with whom you
discuss opposite ends of an issue) and spewing personal insults that
your messages become tiresome and your arguments worthless and petty.

I'm not now nor have I ever in this thread accused you personally of
standing cheek-by-jowl with this Administration's policies vis-a-vis
SSI. However, those policies are what I'm arguing against. The
solutions to long-term Social Security solvency are many and varied,
and include everything from increasing revenue (raising the cap on
wages subject to SS deductions, for example) to limiting benefits. You
brought up a few yourself, regardless of how distasteful you may find
them. They are all simple to implement because they don't alter the
program in any substantial way.

The bonds in the trust fund are no different from cash, Dennis, just
like savings bonds held by individuals or T-bonds held by banks (as a
secure hedge against losses in the private market). Yes, it's an
uncertain world we live in. But some things are more reliable than
others. One of the most reliable is, this country will always do
whatever it takes to meet its financial obligations. Because of this,
the Social Security trust fund is quite secure --barring any economic,
political or military disasters that would essentially make Social
Security a trivial concern.

And don't forget, without exception, *all* optimistic projections (such
as slightly increased average U.S. economic growth sometime over the
next 40 years) not only keep Social Security solvent, but actually
*increase* its surplus. Why is that fact ignored?

All projections employed in the current Social Security discussion
expect economic doldrums, little or no economic growth, and an
essentially flat or even diminishing GDP. Minus those factors, there
would be virtually no chance of alarming the public about a Social
Security "crisis".

[b***@charter.net]

Post by b***@cruller.invalid

Post by Dennis
Perhaps that is for the best. It seems like it upsets you when I
introduce ideas that challenge your comfortable little dogma.

You actually post messages that I like to read because they are mostly
well-thought-out and intellectually challenging. Whether written by you
or others, it is those kinds of messages that profit me because they
cause me to look deeper into the subject. Sometimes, I find out
information that causes my view to alter.
OTOH,

Come on guys, just bow out and let this thread die. No shame in doing
that.

[Dennis]

Post by Dennis

Post by b***@cruller.invalid

Post by Dennis
Perhaps that is for the best. It seems like it upsets you when I
introduce ideas that challenge your comfortable little dogma.

You actually post messages that I like to read because they are

mostly

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
well-thought-out and intellectually challenging. Whether written by

you

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
or others, it is those kinds of messages that profit me because they
cause me to look deeper into the subject. Sometimes, I find out
information that causes my view to alter.
OTOH,

Come on guys, just bow out and let this thread die. No shame in doing
that.

Fine by me. It's getting pretty repetitious anyway. Ho Hum.

Dennis (evil)

[b***@charter.net]

Post by Dennis

Post by Dennis

Post by b***@cruller.invalid

Post by Dennis
Perhaps that is for the best. It seems like it upsets you when I
introduce ideas that challenge your comfortable little dogma.

You actually post messages that I like to read because they are

mostly

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
well-thought-out and intellectually challenging. Whether written by

you

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
or others, it is those kinds of messages that profit me because they
cause me to look deeper into the subject. Sometimes, I find out
information that causes my view to alter.
OTOH,

Come on guys, just bow out and let this thread die. No shame in doing
that.

Fine by me. It's getting pretty repetitious anyway. Ho Hum.

For us too!

[Mike M.]

Post by b***@charter.net

Post by Dennis

Post by Dennis

Post by b***@cruller.invalid

Post by Dennis
Perhaps that is for the best. It seems like it upsets you when

I

Post by Dennis

Post by Dennis

Post by b***@cruller.invalid

Post by Dennis
introduce ideas that challenge your comfortable little dogma.

You actually post messages that I like to read because they are

mostly

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
well-thought-out and intellectually challenging. Whether written

by

Post by Dennis

Post by Dennis
you

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
or others, it is those kinds of messages that profit me because

they

Post by Dennis

Post by Dennis

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
cause me to look deeper into the subject. Sometimes, I find out
information that causes my view to alter.
OTOH,

Come on guys, just bow out and let this thread die. No shame in

doing

Post by Dennis

Post by Dennis
that.

Fine by me. It's getting pretty repetitious anyway. Ho Hum.

For us too!

Speak for yourself. While it's true that most run-of-the-mill <yawn>
pissing contests (boring poster #1 yells at boring poster #2, then it's off
to the races) can grow tiresome rather quickly, it can be entertaining when
one or both parties put forth valid arguments - regardless of whether you
agree or disagree with the poster's (or posters') opinion/point of view.

Good debate: Neither party resorts to calling the other a Nazi. Bonus
points awarded to both sides. Thread usually dies on its own before growing
stale.

Bad/boring debate: "Oh yeah? Is that what you think? Well then go f*ck
yourself - and your mother too, asshole!" Personal attack/insults returned
in kind. No bonus points awarded to either side. Thread will go ON and ON
forever - or until one party finally gives up and mercifully puts a bullet
in it...

Mike

[SoCalMike]

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
Those bonds are part of the general indebtedness of the government, and
thus show up in general accounting figures. The government has
successfully financed its operations through bonds for many years. U.S.
government bonds are used around the world as a hedge against the
failure of private investments. They are backed by the stongest, most
dynamic economy in the world.
What's the problem?

stronger than the EU? japan? china?

[Rod Speed]

Post by SoCalMike

Those bonds are part of the general indebtedness of the government, and thus
show up in general accounting figures. The government has successfully
financed its operations through bonds for many years. U.S. government bonds
are used around the world as a hedge against the failure of private
investments. They are backed by the stongest, most dynamic economy in the
world.
What's the problem?

stronger than the EU? japan? china?

Yep, all of the above. The Jap economy in spades.

[b***@cruller.invalid]

Post by SoCalMike

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
Those bonds are part of the general indebtedness of the government, and
thus show up in general accounting figures. The government has
successfully financed its operations through bonds for many years. U.S.
government bonds are used around the world as a hedge against the
failure of private investments. They are backed by the stongest, most
dynamic economy in the world.
What's the problem?

stronger than the EU? japan? china?

So far. Globalization may change that; whoever owns the most slave labor
wins.

[Sam Jones]

Post by b***@cruller.invalid

Post by SoCalMike

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
Those bonds are part of the general indebtedness of the government, and
thus show up in general accounting figures. The government has
successfully financed its operations through bonds for many years. U.S.
government bonds are used around the world as a hedge against the
failure of private investments. They are backed by the stongest, most
dynamic economy in the world.
What's the problem?

stronger than the EU? japan? china?

So far. Globalization may change that; whoever owns the most slave labor
wins.

More utterly mindless pig ignorant silly stuff.

It clearly aint how the US won so far.

[Bob Ward]

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:28:21 +1100, "Sam Jones"

Post by Sam Jones

Post by b***@cruller.invalid

Post by SoCalMike

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
Those bonds are part of the general indebtedness of the government, and
thus show up in general accounting figures. The government has
successfully financed its operations through bonds for many years. U.S.
government bonds are used around the world as a hedge against the
failure of private investments. They are backed by the stongest, most
dynamic economy in the world.
What's the problem?

stronger than the EU? japan? china?

So far. Globalization may change that; whoever owns the most slave labor
wins.

More utterly mindless pig ignorant silly stuff.
It clearly aint how the US won so far.

You can take the troll out of Australia, but you can't take australia
out of the troll.


'

[b***@cruller.invalid]

Post by Dennis
And also...
http://www.house.gov/budget/press/sstask/6899hearing.htm

Here's a more recent look:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2112796/

[Ida Slapter]

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
- Disclose what you have communicated to public officials in private
meetings about Social Security.

YOU BET I did. Most won't see THEIR money that was taken from them
by the point of a gun.

My accounts have done much better than socialist security.

[b***@cruller.invalid]

Post by Ida Slapter

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
- Disclose what you have communicated to public officials in private
meetings about Social Security.

YOU BET I did. Most won't see THEIR money that was taken from them
by the point of a gun.

Do you think the means of raising revenues will change? No. It will
still be taken out of paychecks or demanded quarterly, just as it is
today. The only difference will be in the amount of exposure to risk.

There are good reasons to minimize risk, when you are talking about
money needed for retirement.

Post by Ida Slapter
My accounts have done much better than socialist security.

Good for you. Congratulations. So what?

[Ida Slapter]

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
Do you think the means of raising revenues will change? No. It will
still be taken out of paychecks or demanded quarterly, just as it is
today. The only difference will be in the amount of exposure to risk.

I faced the fact thirty years ago and I would never see FICA money.
That is when I discovered that my private investing would be MY only
hope...and all the money is mine.

[timeOday]

Post by Ida Slapter

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
- Disclose what you have communicated to public officials in private
meetings about Social Security.

YOU BET I did. Most won't see THEIR money that was taken from them
by the point of a gun.
My accounts have done much better than socialist security.

There's no question SS is socialist, the question is whether SS is good
or bad. I say it's good. Letting poor old people starve in the streets
is not really an option, and giving money to the elderly only if they're
destitute punishes those who saved when they were younger. That only
other option is to pay all the elderly, which requires some sort of
forced savings (or a pyramid scheme, or a combination of both, which is
what SS currently is.)

Since SS is compulsory, it should pay out just enough to live
reasonably. If choice and luck become factors, most will do better,
some will do worse. That means some will not have enough to live
reasonably, meaning SS will not be fulfilling its original purpose.
We'll be right back to the dilemma of what to do with desparately poor
elderly people with very little earning potential.

[Rod Speed]

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
- Disclose what you have communicated to public officials in private
meetings about Social Security.

YOU BET I did. Most won't see THEIR money that was taken from them by the
point of a gun.
My accounts have done much better than socialist security.

There's no question SS is socialist, the question is whether SS is good or
bad.

Bad the way its currently structured.

I say it's good.

More fool you.

Letting poor old people starve in the streets is not really an option,

No one ever said it was. The question is whether that is best
funded out of taxation or some bogus scam that purports to
collect money from those who are working to pay back to
the tiny subset who are likely to ever end up like that.

and giving money to the elderly only if they're destitute punishes those who
saved when they were younger.

Yes, but thats inevitable with ANY form of welfare, it
ALWAYS penalises those who make their own provision
for the circumstances in which its paid out, whether thats
old age, between jobs, not being able to find a job, unable
to work because of a medical problem, etc etc etc.

There aint any other way.

That only other option is to pay all the elderly, which requires some sort of
forced savings

THAT is mindlessly socialist, paying everyone
regardless of their personaly circumstances, with a
forced savings scheme. Many can get much better
returns on their savings by saving in other ways.

(or a pyramid scheme, or a combination of both,

Those aint the only alternatives. Another obvious alternative
is to encourage or force some level of saving but allow that
to be invested how the owner of the savings prefers instead.

And its generally better to encourage by the tax
system rather than to just mindlessly force, too.

Essentially because some can get a better return if they
dont put their savings into any of the approved funds etc
and are prepared to sacrifice the tax incentive for that.

which is what SS currently is.)

It isnt either. Its just a labelled form of tax that isnt 'saved' at all,
just spent on the qualified recipients in the current financial year.

Since SS is compulsory, it should pay out just enough to live reasonably.

Easy to say, hell of a lot harder to quantify.

And any scheme should at least be encouraging the profligate to
make provision for a better quality of life once they stop working too.

If choice and luck become factors, most will do better, some will do worse.

Waffle.

That means some will not have enough to live reasonably, meaning SS will not
be fulfilling its original purpose.

Who cares what the original purpose was ?
What matters is what makes sense now.

We'll be right back to the dilemma of what to do with desparately poor elderly
people with very little earning potential.

A properly designed system should avoid that.

[b***@charter.net]

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
Social Security is America's best-run, most successful family

insurance

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
program. Millions of retirees, survivors and people with disabilities
rely on Social Security. President Bush's plan to move Social

Security

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
funds into private accounts may be good for your business--but it would
hurt working families terribly.

Be more truthful and add "President Bush's plan to let people have the
option" (*option* being the key word). After all, it's MY money too
and I should have the choice made available to me. Why are YOU trying
to take that choice away from me?

[b***@cruller.invalid]

Post by b***@charter.net
Be more truthful and add "President Bush's plan to let people have the
option" (*option* being the key word). After all, it's MY money too
and I should have the choice made available to me. Why are YOU trying
to take that choice away from me?

Are you saying that without the money you pay into Social Security, you
have no other choices? Is that the "truth"?

People already have the option to open brokerage accounts, and that's a
good thing.

*I* am not trying to take choice away from anyone. In Bush's plan, you
still wouldn't have any choice but to pay in.

The only thing that changes under Bush's plan is the exposure of those
retirement funds to risk of LOSS. And that, quite frankly, is not only a
dereliction of fiduciary duty, but a revealing view into the economic
vacuity of this Administration.

There is no reason for it. Social Security was never intended to be
gambling money.

Your claim on YOUR money (as taxes) is a little specious, at least until
such time as I can withdraw MY tax payments from supporting any Bush
plan to fund religious schools, censor artistic content or invade
foreign countries with public dollars.

Anarchy is all well and good until *your* house is burning.

[b***@charter.net]

Post by b***@cruller.invalid

Post by b***@charter.net
Be more truthful and add "President Bush's plan to let people have the
option" (*option* being the key word). After all, it's MY money too
and I should have the choice made available to me. Why are YOU trying
to take that choice away from me?

Are you saying that without the money you pay into Social Security, you
have no other choices? Is that the "truth"?

I'm saying I should have some say and control over the money that's
being
taken from me.

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
People already have the option to open brokerage accounts, and that's a
good thing.
*I* am not trying to take choice away from anyone. In Bush's plan, you
still wouldn't have any choice but to pay in.

But you would have the option to excercise some choice in what that
money
will do for you over the years.

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
The only thing that changes under Bush's plan is the exposure of those
retirement funds to risk of LOSS. And that, quite frankly, is not only a
dereliction of fiduciary duty, but a revealing view into the economic
vacuity of this Administration.

And a risk of gain. Let me make that choice.

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
There is no reason for it. Social Security was never intended to be
gambling money.

And it was never intended to support people that are now living longer.
When implemented, there were 17 workers for 1 social security
recipient. Today there are 3.3 workers for every recipient. I doubt
that was their
original intention either. Times change and we need to change with
them. The system is outdated.

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
Your claim on YOUR money (as taxes) is a little specious, at least until
such time as I can withdraw MY tax payments from supporting any Bush
plan to fund religious schools, censor artistic content or invade
foreign countries with public dollars.

You are welcome to join those familes and individuals who pay no
federal and state taxes if those issues are your top priority.

[b***@cruller.invalid]

Post by b***@charter.net
I'm saying I should have some say and control over the money that's
being taken from me.

Agreed, but as unrealistic as saying you don't want your tax money to
go to the military. And every bit as threatening.

Post by b***@charter.net
But you would have the option to excercise some choice in what that
money will do for you over the years.

Read the plan as published by the Administration today. Your choice
would be about as narrow as it is today (and by some definitions, even
more restricted), but it would be much less secure...unless you believe
that the United States is just as unsafe an investment as P&G or GE.

How about this instead: leave Social Security as it is, and increase
taxes on a VOLUNTARY basis to pay for this idea? Social Security
deductions continue as they are now, and if you want the government
investing your tax dollars, you can choose to have an increased amount
deducted for that purpose. Would that make you feel better? More secure
in your future financial security? Don't forget though, your voluntary
taxes would also have to pay the overhead and maintenance costs of your
account, so your actual investment would be somewhat less than the
deduction.

Post by b***@charter.net
And a risk of gain. Let me make that choice.

First of all, to "gain" is not a risk. Try not to obfuscate, it pulls
the rug out from under your position.

Secondly, you already have that choice, that's the great thing. So does
every American. There is absolutely no need to dismantle a secure
retirement system for others to accomplish what already exists.

Post by b***@charter.net
And it was never intended to support people that are now living longer.

Perhaps not, but certainly not the absolute you seem to think. First,
longevity has begun to decline in this country within the last few
years. Secondly, your assertion is belied by the very existence of
Social Security's vast accounting surplus.

Post by b***@charter.net
When implemented, there were 17 workers for 1 social security
recipient.

Thus the surplus.

Post by b***@charter.net
Today there are 3.3 workers for every recipient. I doubt that was
their original intention either.

Maybe not, but neither is it the disaster Chicken Little is fussing
about.

Post by b***@charter.net
Times change and we need to change with them. The system is outdated.

The system is built to accept changes, not destruction.

Post by b***@charter.net
You are welcome to join those familes and individuals who pay no
federal and state taxes if those issues are your top priority.

As are you.

[Jim]

Post by b***@cruller.invalid

Post by b***@charter.net
I'm saying I should have some say and control
over the money that's being taken from me.

Agreed, but as unrealistic as saying you don't
want your tax money to go to the military.

Corse its not, its just more like a 401 etc.

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
And every bit as threatening.

Wota fucking wanker.

Post by b***@cruller.invalid

Post by b***@charter.net
But you would have the option to excercise some choice
in what that money will do for you over the years.

Read the plan as published by the Administration today. Your choice
would be about as narrow as it is today (and by some definitions, even
more restricted), but it would be much less secure...unless you believe
that the United States is just as unsafe an investment as P&G or GE.

Wota fucking wanker.

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
How about this instead: leave Social Security as it is,

No point, its a complete dud that cant fly.

Just like the stupid approach to medical insurance is.

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
and increase taxes on a VOLUNTARY basis to pay for this idea?

Mindlessly stupid.

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
Social Security deductions continue as they are now,

No point, its a complete dud that cant fly.

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
and if you want the government investing your tax dollars,
you can choose to have an increased amount deducted
for that purpose. Would that make you feel better?

He obviously wants what he is currently slugged for SS done like that.

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
More secure in your future financial security?

Corse it would be.

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
Don't forget though, your voluntary taxes would also have to pay
the overhead and maintenance costs of your account, so your
actual investment would be somewhat less than the deduction.

Not a clue, as always.

Post by b***@cruller.invalid

Post by b***@charter.net
And a risk of gain. Let me make that choice.

First of all, to "gain" is not a risk. Try not to obfuscate,
it pulls the rug out from under your position.

Wota fucking wanker.

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
Secondly, you already have that choice, that's
the great thing. So does every American.

They dont have the choice of having what they
are slugged for SS done like that, fuckwit.

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
There is absolutely no need to dismantle a secure retirement
system for others to accomplish what already exists.

Wota terminal fuckwit.

Post by b***@cruller.invalid

Post by b***@charter.net
And it was never intended to support people that are now living longer.

Perhaps not,

Corse it wasnt.

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
but certainly not the absolute you seem to think.

Wota terminal fuckwit.

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
First, longevity has begun to decline in
this country within the last few years.

Like hell it has with those not stupid enough to get AIDS.

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
Secondly, your assertion is belied by the very existence
of Social Security's vast accounting surplus.

Wota terminal fuckwit.

Post by b***@cruller.invalid

Post by b***@charter.net
When implemented, there were 17
workers for 1 social security recipient.

Thus the surplus.

There is no surplus.

Post by b***@cruller.invalid

Post by b***@charter.net
Today there are 3.3 workers for every recipient.
I doubt that was their original intention either.

Maybe not,

Corse it wasnt.

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
but neither is it the disaster Chicken Little is fussing about.

Wota terminal fuckwit.

Post by b***@cruller.invalid

Post by b***@charter.net
Times change and we need to change with them. The system is outdated.

The system is built to accept changes, not destruction.

Wota terminal fuckwit.

Post by b***@cruller.invalid

Post by b***@charter.net
You are welcome to join those familes and individuals who pay
no federal and state taxes if those issues are your top priority.

As are you.

Wota terminal fuckwit.

[b***@cruller.invalid]

In article

Post by Jim
Corse its not, its just more like a 401 etc.

Killed.

[b***@charter.net]

<snip opinions that are not going to change each others mind and
that's ok)

Post by b***@cruller.invalid

Post by b***@charter.net
You are welcome to join those familes and individuals who pay no
federal and state taxes if those issues are your top priority.

As are you.

I already did. Feels good to write "exempt" on my W4.

[b***@cruller.invalid]

Post by b***@charter.net
<snip opinions that are not going to change each others mind and
that's ok)

Post by b***@cruller.invalid

Post by b***@charter.net
You are welcome to join those familes and individuals who pay no
federal and state taxes if those issues are your top priority.

As are you.

I already did. Feels good to write "exempt" on my W4.

Well, terrific! Then you have no stake in Social Security's loss.

[b***@charter.net]

Post by b***@cruller.invalid

Post by b***@charter.net

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
In article

<snip opinions that are not going to change each others mind and
that's ok)

Post by b***@cruller.invalid

Post by b***@charter.net
You are welcome to join those familes and individuals who pay no
federal and state taxes if those issues are your top priority.

As are you.

I already did. Feels good to write "exempt" on my W4.

Well, terrific! Then you have no stake in Social Security's loss.

What does being exempt from federal and state income tax have to do
with
Social Security?

[b***@cruller.invalid]

Post by b***@charter.net
What does being exempt from federal and state income tax have to do
with Social Security?

Sorry, I was assuming that you were talking about being over the income
limit for SS deductions.

[b***@charter.net]

Post by b***@cruller.invalid

Post by b***@charter.net
What does being exempt from federal and state income tax have to do
with Social Security?

Sorry, I was assuming that you were talking about being over the income
limit for SS deductions.

No problem.

[SpammersDie]

Post by b***@cruller.invalid

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
Social Security is America's best-run, most successful family

insurance

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
program. Millions of retirees, survivors and people with disabilities
rely on Social Security. President Bush's plan to move Social

Security

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
funds into private accounts may be good for your business--but it

would

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
hurt working families terribly.

Be more truthful and add "President Bush's plan to let people have the
option" (*option* being the key word). After all, it's MY money too
and I should have the choice made available to me. Why are YOU trying
to take that choice away from me?

Because he wants your money funding his retirement, not yours.

[Ida Slapter]

Post by SpammersDie
Because he wants your money funding his retirement

Gawd...........YOU are stupid.

[SoCalMike]

Post by b***@cruller.invalid

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
Social Security is America's best-run, most successful family

insurance

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
program. Millions of retirees, survivors and people with disabilities
rely on Social Security. President Bush's plan to move Social

Security

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
funds into private accounts may be good for your business--but it

would

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
hurt working families terribly.

Be more truthful and add "President Bush's plan to let people have the
option" (*option* being the key word). After all, it's MY money too
and I should have the choice made available to me. Why are YOU trying
to take that choice away from me?

thing is, its going to be either one way, or the other. so no choice
there, either. i have a 401k at work, and contribute to social security.
bush wants to get rid of SS, period.

[b***@charter.net]

Post by SoCalMike

Post by b***@cruller.invalid

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
Social Security is America's best-run, most successful family

insurance

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
program. Millions of retirees, survivors and people with

disabilities

Post by SoCalMike

Post by b***@cruller.invalid

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
rely on Social Security. President Bush's plan to move Social

Security

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
funds into private accounts may be good for your business--but it

would

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
hurt working families terribly.

Be more truthful and add "President Bush's plan to let people have the
option" (*option* being the key word). After all, it's MY money too
and I should have the choice made available to me. Why are YOU trying
to take that choice away from me?

thing is, its going to be either one way, or the other. so no choice
there, either. i have a 401k at work, and contribute to social

security.

Post by SoCalMike
bush wants to get rid of SS, period.

And Bush made this statement when?

[Jon von Leipzig]

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
Social Security is America's best-run, most successful family insurance
program. Millions of retirees, survivors and people with disabilities
rely on Social Security. President Bush's plan to move Social Security
funds into private accounts may be good for your business--but it would
hurt working families terribly.
Privatizing Social Security would force devastating cuts in benefits and
replace retirement security with retirement risk.

Just wondering why there's so many naysayers on this topic. Seems all
I've ever heard/read on privatizing SSI was positive. I've heard, from
time to rime, of the "success" in Chile.

Very sad, imo, when Bush and the corporate waterboys at Cato have to
resort to outright *Lies* to peddle this.
Surely there's got to be a sucess story somewhere, but I haven't found
one sofar.
In the meantime, here's a few snippettes for the privateers: enjoy


Commentary: You Trust This Man With Your Social Security?

Having first looted the University of Texas,
Bush now aims to loot Social Security.

By Frederick Sweet

-----------------------------------------------

http://tinyurl.com/69qq2

Bush' Social Security Privatization—Foot In the Door For Fascism
December 28, 2004

I. The Chile Story
Interview: Chilean Leader Tells Americans:
Say No to Fascist Pension Plan
------------------------------------------------------------------

Looting of Nations by Pension Privatization
http://tinyurl.com/676hy

----------------------------------------------------------------

Executive Intelligence Review
Vol 31, No.49, Dec 17, 2004

Privatizing Social Security Is ‘Enron II’
by Richard Freeman
<snip>
On July 21, 2004, the CBO released its evaluation of the Bush CSSS
privatization plan. It found that this indexation change would trigger
cuts in benefits by 25%-40%.
<snipped>
On Dec. 9, Steven Goss, the chief actuary of the U.S. Social Security
Administration, admitted to the Oregonian newspaper, that this indexing
change hidden within privatization, would slash $18 trillion over 75
years from the current law’s benefits
(in so-called constant 2004 dollars; in current dollars,
the cut would be more than twice as large).

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cato Institute: Anti-Capitalist Clique
Leads the Attack on Social Security

http://tinyurl.com/3pygo
<snipped>

Wall Street's claim that it has no vested interest in privatization is
shattered merely by the "Who's Who" list of elite financial institutions
which, during the past decade, have poured big bucks into the Cato
Institute, and more especially, its Project on Social Security
Privatization: J.P. Morgan Chase; Citicorp/Salomon Brothers; Fidelity
Investments (mutual funds); the American International Insurance group
of dirty money-linked Maurice "Hank" Greenberg; American Express;
Prudential Securities; the Chicago Mercantile Exchange; the Bond Market
Association; the Economist of London; and others.

According to a 2004 study by University of Chicago Business School
Professor Austan Goolsbee, financial firms that manage the workers'
Individual Accounts that would be set up by privatization, could rip off
management and other fees equal to 15-25% of the value of the
accounts—an immense windfall.

[b***@cruller.invalid]

I've heard, from time to rime, of the "success" in Chile.

Look into Argentina's privatization plan, too.

[Chloe]

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
Social Security is America's best-run, most successful family insurance
program. Millions of retirees, survivors and people with disabilities
rely on Social Security. President Bush's plan to move Social Security
funds into private accounts may be good for your business--but it would
hurt working families terribly.
Privatizing Social Security would force devastating cuts in benefits and
replace retirement security with retirement risk.

Just wondering why there's so many naysayers on this topic. Seems all I've
ever heard/read on privatizing SSI was positive. I've heard, from time to
rime, of the "success" in Chile.

It took me quite a few years of quite a bit of time and effort to figure out
a successful investing strategy after I inherited a stock portfolio from my
mom. I think the concern is that stock investing is far from a no-brainer
and that if given the chance a lot of people will screw up, and then we'll
end up with a lot of people without even the small safety net that the
current system provides. And the issues of difficulty don't even take into
account all the increasingly commonplace Enron type situations, where
shareholders are lied to and cheated.

It's really just a matter of opinion about what level of risk is suitable
for this kind of program.

[Rod Speed]

Post by b***@cruller.invalid
Social Security is America's best-run, most successful family insurance
program. Millions of retirees, survivors and people with disabilities rely
on Social Security. President Bush's plan to move Social Security funds into
private accounts may be good for your business--but it would hurt working
families terribly.
Privatizing Social Security would force devastating cuts in benefits and
replace retirement security with retirement risk.

Just wondering why there's so many naysayers on this topic. Seems all I've
ever heard/read on privatizing SSI was positive. I've heard, from time to
rime, of the "success" in Chile.

It took me quite a few years of quite a bit of time and effort to figure out a
successful investing strategy after I inherited a stock portfolio from my mom.
I think the concern is that stock investing is far from a no-brainer and that
if given the chance a lot of people will screw up, and then we'll end up with
a lot of people without even the small safety net that the current system
provides.

Easily avoided by restricting what the money can be invested in.

And the issues of difficulty don't even take into account all the increasingly
commonplace Enron type situations, where shareholders are lied to and cheated.
It's really just a matter of opinion about what level of risk is suitable for
this kind of program.

Sure, but the consumer's choice can be restricted by legislation.