Kerouactivist
Diamond Member
- Jul 12, 2001
- 4,665
- 0
- 76
SS reform is nothing more than a bull$hit attempt to falsely inflate the economy with these so called private monies....
Geez, at least get the facts straight. The SS trust was worth ~$1.5T in govt securities at the end of 2003-
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR04/II_cyoper.html#wp94983
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR04/II_cyoper.html#wp94983
What was the justification for Bush giving half a trillion dollars in tax cuts to the wealthiest 1% of US citizens, again?
Surely the most sensible thing to do right now is halt those tax cuts. (They haven't fully come into effect yet.)
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Bush's approach to SS is the same as his approach to Iraq: If it's not broken, break it
I'm glad things haven't got as bad as this in Australia. Although Australia, and also Europe, are facing the same fundamental problem as the US, which is that there aren't enough working citizens for every retired individual. Wonder how Europe is going to approach this issue.
Government bonds are not IOU's. If they were the US economy would be nothing but a Ponzi scheme were the US government paid off its debt with debt. On the other hand maybe the US economy is a Ponzi scheme.
Some people theorize that Bush's plan has been to destroy SS from get go, but he couldn't get away with a direct approach of dismantling it, so the next best thing was to spend like crazy, getting the country into such enormous debt that the only choice would be to slash welfare/ SS benefits.
It's called "starve the Beast", aidanjm, and it's quite real, intended to forever alter the balance of power between wealth and egalitarian democracy. It's not just about SS, but about the govt in general, about crippling the choices of our descendants for the foreseeable future.
But then you could also say the federal goverment bonds sold to Americans in the private markets are also money that we owe to ourselves. So why not default on those too? Just make them disappear.
Well, American government owing Americans money is We The People owing Us The People money. So if the American government defaults on loans to Americans, no foul, no harm
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Well, American government owing Americans money is We The People owing Us The People money. So if the American government defaults on loans to Americans, no foul, no harm
yes but it will be alot less painful if the goverment defaults on the loans it owes itself....
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Well, American government owing Americans money is We The People owing Us The People money. So if the American government defaults on loans to Americans, no foul, no harm
yes but it will be alot less painful if the goverment defaults on the loans it owes itself....
But SS system is separate from general government revenue and spending. The taxes paid into SS are specifically designated to be spent on SS, so if the government borrows that money, it has to repay it.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
bushites like being lied to its a matter of faith..
http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/1/26/123037/557
Bush: Social Security Will Be Bankrupt in 1988
According to a July 28th, 2000 article in USA Today, back in 1978 when President Bush was running for congress in Texas, "he predicted Social Security would go broke in 10 years and said the system should give people 'the chance to invest money the way they feel' is best."
From the Texas Observer in 1999 concerning Bush's failed 1978 campaign:
According to Gary Ott, who was then a reporter for the Plainview Daily Herald, Bush stopped by the paper's little office "maybe five or six times. He'd sit down at my desk; he was a fun guy. He was very outgoing, very friendly, and we would argue politics since I was a liberal. We'd argue over Carter policies." Bush criticized energy policy, federal land use policy, subsidized housing, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("a misuse of power," he said), and he warned that Social Security would go bust in ten years unless people were given a chance to invest the money themselves."
Back then, he was completely wrong. Now, he is just lying.
its a matter of faith..http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/1/26/123037/557
Bush: Social Security Will Be Bankrupt in 1988
According to a July 28th, 2000 article in USA Today, back in 1978 when President Bush was running for congress in Texas, "he predicted Social Security would go broke in 10 years and said the system should give people 'the chance to invest money the way they feel' is best."
From the Texas Observer in 1999 concerning Bush's failed 1978 campaign:
According to Gary Ott, who was then a reporter for the Plainview Daily Herald, Bush stopped by the paper's little office "maybe five or six times. He'd sit down at my desk; he was a fun guy. He was very outgoing, very friendly, and we would argue politics since I was a liberal. We'd argue over Carter policies." Bush criticized energy policy, federal land use policy, subsidized housing, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("a misuse of power," he said), and he warned that Social Security would go bust in ten years unless people were given a chance to invest the money themselves."
Back then, he was completely wrong. Now, he is just lying.
The cuts in SS benefits as well the fact that you can only invest 4% of your income make sure that this isn't true. If you are making 45,000 a year you are putting 2.2% of your FICA into your private account, and the other 4% goes to pay SS benefits. Cuts range from 0.9% when someone retire in 2012 to about 45% by 2075. Therefore it is not robbing the current system of income -- it takes until 2018 under the current system before we owe more than we put in, and people are eligible for the new plan in 2009. It is balanced so that those who are born before 1950 still get all their benefits, and then you can opt in or out with a private account for the rest. It makes sense, I urge you to read my other thread on this.
Everyone does realize that the last of the baby boomers, born in 1964, will be long gone before 2075, right??? Are you people forgetting that this, as with everything, is a temporary demographic?
SS is facing a temporary problem. There is no crisis. Minor adjustments today will keep SS solvent until the next minor adjustment is needed.
No one can tell the future. And Bush above all is certainly no fortune teller. As a matter of fact many of his "predictions" so far have been dead wrong (for example, WMD) because his administration doesn't look at the facts when investigating an issue. They look at their goals then choose whatever information that fits their agenda (for example, WMD).
Bush has no idea what will happen demographically during the next 50 years. His goal is to destroy Social Security. Period.
Let me ask you, once the baby boomers are all dead and gone and your pittance of a personal account is all you have left, what excuse will you be given then to satisfy having destroyed the most successful retirement program in U.S. history?
SS is facing a temporary problem. There is no crisis. Minor adjustments today will keep SS solvent until the next minor adjustment is needed.
No one can tell the future. And Bush above all is certainly no fortune teller. As a matter of fact many of his "predictions" so far have been dead wrong (for example, WMD) because his administration doesn't look at the facts when investigating an issue. They look at their goals then choose whatever information that fits their agenda (for example, WMD).
Bush has no idea what will happen demographically during the next 50 years. His goal is to destroy Social Security. Period.
Let me ask you, once the baby boomers are all dead and gone and your pittance of a personal account is all you have left, what excuse will you be given then to satisfy having destroyed the most successful retirement program in U.S. history?
Ok, explain this, then. Someone who retires now can get up to1939 a month until they die. With life expectancy pushing 78 years, how can the system pay that? That's about 280,000 in total benefits. You do realize that at 12% FICA that's 47 years at 50,000 dollars, right? Considering that is the benefit that ALL people get, and that the median income is only 43,000 dollars right now, how the fvck can you say it is successful? It is a goddamn Ponzi scheme is what it is. You've got 35 million people who are 65 or older, 25 million that are 55 to 64, and another 40 million who are over 45. You really expect that all of them can get their 1939 or higher? I sure as hell don't, and yes I know that most people over 65 aren't getting 1939 -- they get less, but not by much.
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
bushites like being lied to
http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/1/26/123037/557
Bush: Social Security Will Be Bankrupt in 1988
According to a July 28th, 2000 article in USA Today, back in 1978 when President Bush was running for congress in Texas, "he predicted Social Security would go broke in 10 years and said the system should give people 'the chance to invest money the way they feel' is best."
From the Texas Observer in 1999 concerning Bush's failed 1978 campaign:
According to Gary Ott, who was then a reporter for the Plainview Daily Herald, Bush stopped by the paper's little office "maybe five or six times. He'd sit down at my desk; he was a fun guy. He was very outgoing, very friendly, and we would argue politics since I was a liberal. We'd argue over Carter policies." Bush criticized energy policy, federal land use policy, subsidized housing, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("a misuse of power," he said), and he warned that Social Security would go bust in ten years unless people were given a chance to invest the money themselves."
Back then, he was completely wrong. Now, he is just lying.
I guess you missed the significant tax hike on payroll taxes in the early 80s....
You're still taking only average life expectancy into account without including mortality. A minor tweak now will save Social Security. The demographic problem will not last forever.
Senator Kennedy was on Press the Meat this morning. While under attack from Tim Russert, representing the Bush administration, Kennedy said if Bush rescinded only one-third of his proposed permanent tax cuts it would be enough to keep Social Security stable. Why not repay the decades of taxes workers paid into Social Security through a one-third reduction in Bush's proposed permanent tax cuts?
This is no crisis.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter