Best Pr Campaign I've Seen From The Democrats
moultano
Creator of ns_shiva. Join Date: 2002-12-14 Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
Creator of ns_shiva. Join Date: 2002-12-14 Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
in Discussions
Comments
However if there was, I would be recieving around 19,000 under bush, or 27,000 normally. That hurts... a bit.
have a source for that? From what I've read at the moment the financial state of social security is that in 40 years we would have to cut benefits to 70%. How long from now do you intend on retiring?
have a source for that? From what I've read at the moment the financial state of social security is that in 40 years we would have to cut benefits to 70%. How long from now do you intend on retiring? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well Greenspan, you know the guy in charge of all our money, stated that if we do not cut back benifits currently offered by social security by 2018, that the program would begin to run out of money.
here is a link outlining it
<a href='http://www.ncpa.org/prs/rel/2003/nr110703.html' target='_blank'>link</a>
The social security calculator is misleading, as the above problems are not mentioned. Anyone born after the baby boomers will not get full benifits, if any. Bush's plan will not effect the baby boomers, so the comparison has no meaning
Specifically, I propose that we commit 60 percent of the budget surplus for the next 15 years to Social Security, investing a small portion in the private sector just as any private or state government pension would do. This will earn a higher return and keep Social Security sound for 55 years...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/states/docs/sou99.htm#socialsecurity' target='_blank'>Bill Clinton's State of the Union-1999</a>
Democrats are funny sometimes.
<a href='http://democrats.senate.gov/ss/images/ss-calculator_assumptions.pdf' target='_blank'>How the Social Security Calculator Works</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All numbers are annual benefits adjusted for inflation. Calculations are based on Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
economic assumptions. The President has said that individual accounts would do nothing to restore long-term solvency
and that further benefit cuts are necessary. <b>Since he has not made a specific proposal, these estimates assume that
benefits are “price indexed,”</b> a proposal made in Plan 2 of President Bush’s Social Security Commission.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh really?.....
How do Democrats describe Price Indexing?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Price indexing: Several leading administration officials have discussed a switch to “price indexing” starting in
2012. An annual cut in benefits that grows substantially over time, price indexing would result in 50 percent
benefit cut for Americans who are born this year. It would result in the same percentage cut in benefits for
everyone born in the same year, regardless of income.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Strange, how do economists describe price indexing?
<a href='http://www.techcentralstation.com/122904B.html' target='_blank'>The Trillion-Dollar Question</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
By William Sterling Published 12/29/2004
If President Bush pushes ahead with his proposal to privatize some portion of Social Security, politicians will almost certainly be forced to engage in a heated debate about a fairly obscure and technical topic: should Social Security's initial benefits be tied to future changes in consumer prices or wages?
This sounds like an issue that would matter only to economic policy wonks. But literally trillions of dollars are at stake in resolving the issue so a spirited debate is warranted. <b>Following a controversial act of Congress in 1977, the current system has generously tied future benefits to changes in overall wages. In contrast, The President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security proposes to tie future benefits to the consumer price index. It would use the substantial cost savings to assure the solvency of the system and to improve poverty protection for the lowest-income workers beyond what is provided by the current system.</b>
<b>Wage indexation of benefits is naturally more expensive to the government than price indexation because wages tend to rise more rapidly than prices over time. An ongoing rise in real wages is a welcome consequence of overall growth in productivity. If firms are able to produce more widgets per hour thanks to new technologies or better business processes, they can afford to pay more to workers and still earn healthy profits. The most widely accepted models of economic growth, which will be considered shortly, suggest that the observed link between real wage growth and productivity is far from accidental.</b>
<b>Price indexation should save the government trillions of dollars in the long run because of the magic of compound interest. Wage growth has historically outpaced consumer price inflation by about 1.1% per annum. That means that the real value of wage-indexed benefits will be twice as high as price-indexed benefits after 70 years. And that is why a seemingly modest technical change in the benefits formula is a potential "magic bullet" for putting Social Security on a sound financial footing.</b>
The debate about whether to move toward price indexation will have many facets that raise thorny philosophical and technical issues. Proponents of the current system argue that using the wage index is essential for two reasons. First, wage indexation ties future benefits to the general rise in living standards. Secondly, it allows workers to participate in the economy's productivity growth that they contributed to during their careers
Note that wage indexation ties future benefits not to rises in the "cost of living," but to productivity-driven rises in overall "living standards." In that sense, the current system does not just attempt to provide future retirees with a certain absolute standard of living; it also attempts to guarantee a relative standard of living, measured against a tide of rising real wages over time. Wage indexation ties future benefits not just to overall inflation but also to rising real wages and productivity. That essentially guarantees workers a pro-rata share of the economy's future output. It is the open-ended nature of that commitment that makes wage-indexed benefits so difficult for the government to afford.
Aside from the philosophical question of whether the government should be in the business of guaranteeing relative living standards, policy makers need to consider a key technical question as well: if the public demands a system that links future benefits to relative living standards, how can it be funded on a fiscally sound basis? This question is fundamental to the debate over both wage indexation and the proposed move to private accounts.
When the question is framed this way, economic theory suggests that investing some portion of Social Security taxes into the stock market makes eminent good sense. Whether individuals should be permitted to do so in private accounts or whether the government should do it on their behalf is another question that needs to be considered separately.
To think about issues like this, economists invariably fall back on models of long-term economic growth put forward in the 1950s by economists like Robert Solow and Trevor Swan. These models argue that in the long run, or "steady state," real wages must grow in line with productivity. If that were not the case, then virtually all of the economy's output would eventually go to either workers or to the owners of capital -- and neither of those outcomes is consistent with sustainable growth. So economists can make a strong theoretical case, supported by a good deal of hard evidence, that the share of output going to workers and the owners of capital must be relatively constant in the long run.
This insight from growth theory has profound implications for the wage indexation debate. If long-run economic stability dictates that the shares of output going to workers and to the owners of capital are relatively constant, how can the government guarantee that it will provide a pro-rata share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to retired workers? Only by guaranteeing to extract an equivalent share of GDP from the owners of capital!
Accordingly, indexing future retirement benefits to wages is analytically equivalent to indexing them to the overall returns experienced by the owners of capital. Those returns will basically depend on a weighted average of the returns to "risk-free" short-term government bonds and riskier assets like long-term government bonds as well as stocks and bonds issued by private companies. Under a system of entrepreneurial capitalism, a good portion of the return to owners of capital is presumably compensation for undertaking risky ventures -- i.e., the ventures that generate productivity gains for both individual companies and the overall economy.
From a balance sheet perspective, the government faces a massive quandary if it tries to guarantee relative living standards via wage indexation while funding the program with less risky investments like short- or intermediate-term government bonds. In doing so, its financial structure essentially becomes that of a doomed hedge fund -- perpetually "short" the stock market and "long" low-yielding government bonds. If stocks continue to provide higher returns than bonds over the next 100 years -- as has been the case over virtually all long-term historical periods -- that financial structure is almost certain to fail.
In a move that may have Karl Marx spinning in his grave, George Bush's vision of an "ownership society" would secure the Social Security system by explicitly making workers the owners of capital. The catch is that only by accepting some degree of high-risk stock market investments will workers receive the benefits of higher returns.
Of course, if standard economic growth theory is correct, the current system of wage indexation means that workers are already implicitly the owners of capital because they are effectively guaranteed a fixed share of GDP in the future. But instead of facing the risk of a market collapse, they instead face the risk of a fiscal collapse -- or a drastic cutback in future benefits -- because the system is not fiscally sound.
Indeed, the controversy surrounding the enactment of wage indexation in 1977 was not due to fundamental objections to the idea of indexing initial benefits to the cost of living. The idea of indexing benefits to the cost of living enjoyed broad bipartisan support then, as it does now. Rather, the controversy was due to the fact that Congress enacted wage indexation despite the findings of its own special commission that clearly rejected wage indexation as unaffordable in the long run.
As is often the case, economics tends to reinforce one basic point: there's no such thing as a free lunch. It remains to be seen how ardently President Bush will pursue his vision of an ownership society. But he has already performed a valuable service by prompting a genuine debate about the sustainability of current guarantees to future retirees
William Sterling is Chief Investment Officer of Trilogy Advisors. The opinions expressed in this article reflect his personal views and do not represent the view of his firm. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bah! Why should I listen to a profesional financial advisor when I can log on to the Dems website and push a button? iNTeRNeTS aRe FuN!!!111
EDIT: played with the cat a bit and returned a bit less snide.
We have 4 non-exclusive choices:
1. Reduce the amount given out at retirement.
2. Increase SS taxes.
3. Continually raise the retirement age.
4. Do nothing and hope nobody notices.
Hopefully, anyone my age (30) or younger understands that relying on SS when you retire is akin to hoping someone gives you a money tree for your next birthday. Anyone 18 or older, who isn't a full time student, should be investing some money somewhere (401k, Employee Stock Purchase, IRA, real estate, etc).
For those that refuse (because anybody within earshot of a television or a radio should have heard this conversation at least once in their life) we have to decide if they've thrown away their own future or if we're going to baby them for the rest of their lives.
Politicians are more than happy to increase payments (or "benefits" as they love to call them) for elderly who happen to be the largest voting bloc. Elderly are typically more than happy to take the money because, in theory, they've earned it.
Though we do run into a problem when people who haven't paid into the system are receiving payments. And that happens alot. Not to mention the increase in the average life span since the inception of this program. Fewer people are dying prematurely and we keep reproducing. The program gets ever more expensive.
Can and will the United States maintain or even improve an inherently socialist system that redistributes wealth from the young to the old (or incapable/unwilling)?
Personally, I don't plan on waiting to find out. If I'd known sooner that I could, I'd have become a minister and opted out of this Ponzi scheme. In the meantime, I'll be trying to find as many places as I can to hide my money from the tax man untill the day I retire.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All numbers are annual benefits adjusted for inflation. Calculations are based on Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
economic assumptions. The President has said that individual accounts would do nothing to restore long-term solvency
and that further benefit cuts are necessary. <b>Since he has not made a specific proposal, these estimates assume that
benefits are “price indexed,”</b> a proposal made in Plan 2 of President Bush’s Social Security Commission.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Heh, I was wondering about that. I could've sworn that the proposal to privatize Social Security was still just that, a proposal. As in, no numbers have been determined yet. <!--emo&::marine::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/marine.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='marine.gif' /><!--endemo-->
It's obvious that it's quite a stupid system today rather than it was 70 years ago.
I would eliminate it entirely and let the people who don't bother to save money just commit suicide, but here's the worst thing of all about Social Security:
Each generation is being paid by the generation succeeding it. There will be one generation that will pay social security and receive none.
Which generation will that be?
And here in lies the problem...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Hopefully, anyone my age (30) or younger understands that relying on SS when you retire is akin to hoping someone gives you a money tree for your next birthday. Anyone 18 or older, who isn't a full time student, should be investing some money somewhere (401k, Employee Stock Purchase, IRA, real estate, etc).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
SS has always been a supplemental benefit system, with the difference that it is guaranteed by the federal government. People have always ALSO had other retirement savings, and been encouraged to have them.
You've also already been paying into the system if you've been working. And the fact is, there is no reason that SS can't continue to pay out benefits. As quoted, even if we did nothing, all that would happen is that the currently expected benefits would be reduced by 3/4s: which is a far cry from it disappearing.
And the whole crisis is a shell game anyway. Bush's private accounts plan has nothing, litterally nothing, to do with fixing the SS deficit (which he basically created in the first place, remember). In fact, it makes things worse. If you want to fix Social Security, you can eithr raise payroll taxes or cut benefits: private accounts simply take money out of a system that people have already paid into, and they trade a guaranteed benefit for one where all the risk is placed on you personally instead of ensured by the government, thus destroying the whole idea of a final, rock-bottom safety net to prevent elderly poverty (which is the main purpose of SS, and something it has been extremely effective at).
In conclusion, it would be fairly easy to fix the system. The easiest way would be to means test the system so that those who have no need of SS don't get it or get a reduced amount. But because people want to sell private accounts, they have to lie about what the crisis really is, how bad it really is, in order to make people buy into this program which has absolutely nothing to do with fixing the existing problem (that people who paid into the system deserve their guaranteed benefits, and that guaranteed benefits are a GOOD idea to have along with a mix of other investments)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Each generation is being paid by the generation succeeding it. There will be one generation that will pay social security and receive none.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Except not. The current crisis is caused by a huge bulge in the population caused by the baby boomers, which means that there will be more retirees for the several payees. But this is an temporary anomoly. Another population boom and the problem all goes away again.
And, ironically, if the economy is as good as Republicans have to claim it will be in order for private accounts to provide more (though riskier) retirement income, then the SS system in that case will automatically become fully solvent again anyway. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Good then. All we have to do is let the government decide who gets it and who doesn't then convince all those who don't get it that they wanted to flush a good percentage of their entire career's earnings down the toilet.
Welcome to socialist America. Do as your told.
Specifically, I propose that we commit 60 percent of the budget surplus for the next 15 years to Social Security, investing a small portion in the private sector just as any private or state government pension would do. This will earn a higher return and keep Social Security sound for 55 years...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/states/docs/sou99.htm#socialsecurity' target='_blank'>Bill Clinton's State of the Union-1999</a>
Democrats are funny sometimes.
<a href='http://democrats.senate.gov/ss/images/ss-calculator_assumptions.pdf' target='_blank'>How the Social Security Calculator Works</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All numbers are annual benefits adjusted for inflation. Calculations are based on Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
economic assumptions. The President has said that individual accounts would do nothing to restore long-term solvency
and that further benefit cuts are necessary. <b>Since he has not made a specific proposal, these estimates assume that
benefits are “price indexed,”</b> a proposal made in Plan 2 of President Bush’s Social Security Commission.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh really?.....
How do Democrats describe Price Indexing?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Price indexing: Several leading administration officials have discussed a switch to “price indexing” starting in
2012. An annual cut in benefits that grows substantially over time, price indexing would result in 50 percent
benefit cut for Americans who are born this year. It would result in the same percentage cut in benefits for
everyone born in the same year, regardless of income.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Strange, how do economists describe price indexing?
<a href='http://www.techcentralstation.com/122904B.html' target='_blank'>The Trillion-Dollar Question</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
By William Sterling Published 12/29/2004
If President Bush pushes ahead with his proposal to privatize some portion of Social Security, politicians will almost certainly be forced to engage in a heated debate about a fairly obscure and technical topic: should Social Security's initial benefits be tied to future changes in consumer prices or wages?
This sounds like an issue that would matter only to economic policy wonks. But literally trillions of dollars are at stake in resolving the issue so a spirited debate is warranted. <b>Following a controversial act of Congress in 1977, the current system has generously tied future benefits to changes in overall wages. In contrast, The President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security proposes to tie future benefits to the consumer price index. It would use the substantial cost savings to assure the solvency of the system and to improve poverty protection for the lowest-income workers beyond what is provided by the current system.</b>
<b>Wage indexation of benefits is naturally more expensive to the government than price indexation because wages tend to rise more rapidly than prices over time. An ongoing rise in real wages is a welcome consequence of overall growth in productivity. If firms are able to produce more widgets per hour thanks to new technologies or better business processes, they can afford to pay more to workers and still earn healthy profits. The most widely accepted models of economic growth, which will be considered shortly, suggest that the observed link between real wage growth and productivity is far from accidental.</b>
<b>Price indexation should save the government trillions of dollars in the long run because of the magic of compound interest. Wage growth has historically outpaced consumer price inflation by about 1.1% per annum. That means that the real value of wage-indexed benefits will be twice as high as price-indexed benefits after 70 years. And that is why a seemingly modest technical change in the benefits formula is a potential "magic bullet" for putting Social Security on a sound financial footing.</b>
The debate about whether to move toward price indexation will have many facets that raise thorny philosophical and technical issues. Proponents of the current system argue that using the wage index is essential for two reasons. First, wage indexation ties future benefits to the general rise in living standards. Secondly, it allows workers to participate in the economy's productivity growth that they contributed to during their careers
Note that wage indexation ties future benefits not to rises in the "cost of living," but to productivity-driven rises in overall "living standards." In that sense, the current system does not just attempt to provide future retirees with a certain absolute standard of living; it also attempts to guarantee a relative standard of living, measured against a tide of rising real wages over time. Wage indexation ties future benefits not just to overall inflation but also to rising real wages and productivity. That essentially guarantees workers a pro-rata share of the economy's future output. It is the open-ended nature of that commitment that makes wage-indexed benefits so difficult for the government to afford.
Aside from the philosophical question of whether the government should be in the business of guaranteeing relative living standards, policy makers need to consider a key technical question as well: if the public demands a system that links future benefits to relative living standards, how can it be funded on a fiscally sound basis? This question is fundamental to the debate over both wage indexation and the proposed move to private accounts.
When the question is framed this way, economic theory suggests that investing some portion of Social Security taxes into the stock market makes eminent good sense. Whether individuals should be permitted to do so in private accounts or whether the government should do it on their behalf is another question that needs to be considered separately.
To think about issues like this, economists invariably fall back on models of long-term economic growth put forward in the 1950s by economists like Robert Solow and Trevor Swan. These models argue that in the long run, or "steady state," real wages must grow in line with productivity. If that were not the case, then virtually all of the economy's output would eventually go to either workers or to the owners of capital -- and neither of those outcomes is consistent with sustainable growth. So economists can make a strong theoretical case, supported by a good deal of hard evidence, that the share of output going to workers and the owners of capital must be relatively constant in the long run.
This insight from growth theory has profound implications for the wage indexation debate. If long-run economic stability dictates that the shares of output going to workers and to the owners of capital are relatively constant, how can the government guarantee that it will provide a pro-rata share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to retired workers? Only by guaranteeing to extract an equivalent share of GDP from the owners of capital!
Accordingly, indexing future retirement benefits to wages is analytically equivalent to indexing them to the overall returns experienced by the owners of capital. Those returns will basically depend on a weighted average of the returns to "risk-free" short-term government bonds and riskier assets like long-term government bonds as well as stocks and bonds issued by private companies. Under a system of entrepreneurial capitalism, a good portion of the return to owners of capital is presumably compensation for undertaking risky ventures -- i.e., the ventures that generate productivity gains for both individual companies and the overall economy.
From a balance sheet perspective, the government faces a massive quandary if it tries to guarantee relative living standards via wage indexation while funding the program with less risky investments like short- or intermediate-term government bonds. In doing so, its financial structure essentially becomes that of a doomed hedge fund -- perpetually "short" the stock market and "long" low-yielding government bonds. If stocks continue to provide higher returns than bonds over the next 100 years -- as has been the case over virtually all long-term historical periods -- that financial structure is almost certain to fail.
In a move that may have Karl Marx spinning in his grave, George Bush's vision of an "ownership society" would secure the Social Security system by explicitly making workers the owners of capital. The catch is that only by accepting some degree of high-risk stock market investments will workers receive the benefits of higher returns.
Of course, if standard economic growth theory is correct, the current system of wage indexation means that workers are already implicitly the owners of capital because they are effectively guaranteed a fixed share of GDP in the future. But instead of facing the risk of a market collapse, they instead face the risk of a fiscal collapse -- or a drastic cutback in future benefits -- because the system is not fiscally sound.
Indeed, the controversy surrounding the enactment of wage indexation in 1977 was not due to fundamental objections to the idea of indexing initial benefits to the cost of living. The idea of indexing benefits to the cost of living enjoyed broad bipartisan support then, as it does now. Rather, the controversy was due to the fact that Congress enacted wage indexation despite the findings of its own special commission that clearly rejected wage indexation as unaffordable in the long run.
As is often the case, economics tends to reinforce one basic point: there's no such thing as a free lunch. It remains to be seen how ardently President Bush will pursue his vision of an ownership society. But he has already performed a valuable service by prompting a genuine debate about the sustainability of current guarantees to future retirees
William Sterling is Chief Investment Officer of Trilogy Advisors. The opinions expressed in this article reflect his personal views and do not represent the view of his firm. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bah! Why should I listen to a profesional financial advisor when I can log on to the Dems website and push a button? iNTeRNeTS aRe FuN!!!111
EDIT: played with the cat a bit and returned a bit less snide.
We have 4 non-exclusive choices:
1. Reduce the amount given out at retirement.
2. Increase SS taxes.
3. Continually raise the retirement age.
4. Do nothing and hope nobody notices.
Hopefully, anyone my age (30) or younger understands that relying on SS when you retire is akin to hoping someone gives you a money tree for your next birthday. Anyone 18 or older, who isn't a full time student, should be investing some money somewhere (401k, Employee Stock Purchase, IRA, real estate, etc).
For those that refuse (because anybody within earshot of a television or a radio should have heard this conversation at least once in their life) we have to decide if they've thrown away their own future or if we're going to baby them for the rest of their lives.
Politicians are more than happy to increase payments (or "benefits" as they love to call them) for elderly who happen to be the largest voting bloc. Elderly are typically more than happy to take the money because, in theory, they've earned it.
Though we do run into a problem when people who haven't paid into the system are receiving payments. And that happens alot. Not to mention the increase in the average life span since the inception of this program. Fewer people are dying prematurely and we keep reproducing. The program gets ever more expensive.
Can and will the United States maintain or even improve an inherently socialist system that redistributes wealth from the young to the old (or incapable/unwilling)?
Personally, I don't plan on waiting to find out. If I'd known sooner that I could, I'd have become a minister and opted out of this Ponzi scheme. In the meantime, I'll be trying to find as many places as I can to hide my money from the tax man untill the day I retire. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm traveling and only have a few moments here, but for the record, Bill Clinton's proposal called to invest part of the general fund in the market, <b>not</b> create individual market 'accounts'. It isn't even remotely analagous (<i>especially</i> in terms of implementation costs). I'm sure you were aware of this distinction, so I'm wondering why you didn't make a more obvious note of it. I'm guessing it's because you were trying to score points here by <i>generously</i> generalizing the term 'privatize', but I could be wrong.
*shrug*
Demcorats are funny, and conservatives are what-- sneaky?
As BM said, none of the Democratic plans altered the fact that the SS accounts would be guaranteed benefits: i.e. a safety net. What Bush's plan does is radically reverse that key, fundamental feature, STILL taxing away you money and then investing it in a plan you select, but then having YOU bear the full risk of those investments. One might ask, if it's your money, why not simply cut the payroll tax and let you invest the money freely as you wish? But of course, that isn't what Bush's plan is all about: it's about pumping money into the stock market, making his buddies in the finacial sector that get to manage all these new huge funds BILLIONS more dollars in extra administrative costs (paid by you and I!) (which is just as much of a Ponzi scheme, which is to say, not one) and then letting individuals bear the full risk if these hedge funds turn Enron.
And to top it all off, it does nothing, NOTHING to fix the shortfalls that Bush tried to scare us with to sell us this plan in the first place!
It's no wonder that even many Republicans are not exactly impressed or excited by this.
Wow, they calculated that a program would tank a decade before it was conceptualized?
Were these economists or psychics?
I don't consider programs designed for the Redistribution of Wealth being compared to socialism as hyperbole.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ...Bill Clinton's proposal called to invest part of the general fund in the market, not create individual market 'accounts'. It isn't even remotely analagous (especially in terms of implementation costs). I'm sure you were aware of this distinction, so I'm wondering why you didn't make a more obvious note of it. I'm guessing it's because you were trying to score points here by generously generalizing the term 'privatize', but I could be wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unfortunately, Clinton realized quickly that Congress wasn't going to consider touching SS and dropped the issue before detailing anything specific. But, the mere fact that The Democrat would consider <a href='http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/02/dem.response/' target='_blank'>"gambling"</a> with our retirement money must be enough to squeeze the Botox out of Pelosi's face.
Let's be clear about this: Politicians are out for one thing - votes. Old people vote, young people don't. It's that simple. Bush and Cheney won't be voted for again. From that perspective, they have nothing to lose. Whether or not Congress is willing to face this issue realistically remains to be seen.
And, for the record, I don't like the idea of the Federal Government taking my money, charging me for an account, most likely using my interest in the meantime, and then debating over how much of it I should get back. That part is plain stupid . But, the long term rate of return in the markets is much higher and the sooner I get my money growing, the better.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Demcorats are funny, and conservatives are what-- sneaky? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I won't argue that they're sneaky, but I would add that lately they've been more pragmatic.
And, just to spice things up a bit <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Here's a tidbit that I love to pull out from the great Walter E Williams:
<a href='http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/04/socialism.html' target='_blank'>Socialism is Evil</a>
The returns are higher a) because they are riskier and b) because up until now the markets were underinvested preciely because it wasn't common wisdom that the returns were higher. Pouring a ton of tax money into the stock markets is almost sure to make them LESS better in returns.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't consider programs designed for the Redistribution of Wealth being compared to socialism as hyperbole.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Only if you don't know what socialism means.
And means testing isn't even quite the same thing as redistributing wealth, because it makes things closer to being social insurance that pays off if your lifea nd other investments fail.
Well then, please enlighten those of us who are clearly too ignorant to grasp such a complexity.
Wow, they calculated that a program would tank a decade before it was conceptualized?
Were these economists or psychics? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Economists. The top of their day in the 20's
Socialism is when the government owns and runs all the productive capacity the economy (usually in the name of the people). If taxation, even progressive taxation, were socialism, then this would mean that virtually every country on the face of the earth and in history was socialist, which is utterly absurd.
Socialism is when the government owns and runs all the productive capacity the economy (usually in the name of the people). If taxation, even progressive taxation, were socialism, then this would mean that virtually every country on the face of the earth and in history was socialist, which is utterly absurd.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now I see where the problem is: I never said that the US had a Socialist Government, at least not yet. I said that Social Security was a socialist program. We don't live in a giant political vacuum that only allows one type of government system to exist. Whether you think so or not, your definition confirms that. You see, the government takes the money (or keeps it initially) and then determines who gets what and how much.
If you don't see the similarity then I'm wasting my time.
And yes, Economics has existed much longer than 80 years.
<a href='http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/04/socialism.html' target='_blank'>Socialism is Evil</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->For the Christians among us, socialism and the welfare state must be seen as sinful. When God gave Moses the commandment "Thou shalt not steal", I'm sure He didn't mean thou shalt not steal unless there's a majority vote. And, I'm sure that if you asked God if it's okay just being a recipient of stolen property, He would deem that a sin as well.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
um....rofl?
It should be noted that Williams uses quite a bit of tongue-in-cheek in his prognostication...
but, yes. ROFL.
Corrected in regards to the date, I say 20's because we adopted it from the same ideas Europe was implimenting, <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
But even then it still doesn't disprove the fact they were right.
Again, socialism is about the government ownership of productive capacity. A program of taxation that is progressive is NOT SOCIALISM.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You see, the government takes the money (or keeps it initially) and then determines who gets what and how much.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right, which... isn't socialism.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And yes, Economics has existed much longer than 80 years. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But it's only really been a meaningful field as far as things like detailed macroeconomics for a few decades.
<!--QuoteBegin-Uzi+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Uzi)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Corrected in regards to the date, I say 20's because we adopted it from the same ideas Europe was implimenting,<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Except our system is very different from the European ones, so, wrong again.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But even then it still doesn't disprove the fact they were right.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You've still yet to produce a single cite for your claims that this was even what "they" said (and who, specifically, were "they," these economists?). Of course since they would have had to have been psychic to know what sort of system the US would adopt, I think the need for a cite might be a little premature.
I give up.
Word for the day is:
<a href='http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=semantics' target='_blank'>Semantics</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Main Entry: se·man·tics
Pronunciation: si-'man-tiks
Function: noun plural but singular or plural in construction
1 : the study of meanings: a : the historical and psychological study and the classification of changes in the signification of words or forms viewed as factors in linguistic development b (1) : SEMIOTIC (2) : a branch of semiotic dealing with the relations between signs and what they refer to and including theories of denotation, extension, naming, and truth
2 : GENERAL SEMANTICS
3 a : the meaning or relationship of meanings of a sign or set of signs; especially : connotative meaning b : the language used (as in advertising or political propaganda) to achieve a desired effect on an audience especially through the use of words with novel or dual meanings <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->