"The truth is, personal accounts will not even come close to making Social Security solvent."

[cquark]

The Bush administration is starting to come clean and tell the press that personal
accounts won't solve the Social Security problem. From the LA Times:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-na-s...print.story?coll=la-headlines-business

"A Bush aide, briefing reporters on the condition of anonymity, was
more explicit, saying that the individual accounts would do nothing to
solve the system's long-term financial problems.

That candid analysis, although widely shared by economists, distressed
some Republicans.

"Oh, my God," one GOP political strategist said when he learned of the
shift in rhetoric. "The White House has made a lot of Republicans walk
the plank on this. Now it sounds as if they are sawing off the board."

But Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a leading Senate proponent of
restructuring Social Security, said the White House's candor was a
good thing.

"As we debate the problem, we also need to be realistic about defining
the solutions," he said. "The truth is, personal accounts will not
even come close to making Social Security solvent."

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: cquark

"The truth is, personal accounts will not even come close to making Social Security solvent."

But it gives all the money to the Rich Boys to play with and make even more money while screwing over the little people.

Right according to plan as usual.

 

[ciba]

Personal accounts mean my generation will see pennies on the dollar rather than nothing.

 

[yllus]

You do realize it's not meant to be a 100% fix.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: yllus
You do realize it's not meant to be a 100% fix.

Not the way the administration has been selling it.

 

[ElFenix]

there is no way to fix a non-fully-funded plan if you don't either increase taxes or decrease benefits. it cannot be done. the whole thing needs to be scrapped and reworked.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
there is no way to fix a non-fully-funded plan if you don't either increase taxes or decrease benefits. it cannot be done. the whole thing needs to be scrapped and reworked.

Pols do not have the guts to tackle this.

Easier to pass teh buck to the next person in-line.

Part of the problem is that there are so many fingers in the pie, that any type of rework to be effective will cause some-one pain.

 

[irwincur]

briefing reporters on the condition of anonymity

Coming from the LA Times I would be wary of this quote... Not exactly the most politically up and up paper, they in essense declared war on Bush during the election. Waiting for some other reports.




Whatever the case, Bush has never sold this as the entire fix. He is selling it as an option for some that want a better return. He is also selling it as a partial solution. It solves the long term problems, but there will still be the gap. A two trillion dollar gap. However, if we wait until 2018, that turns into a ten trillion dollar gap, growing at around $400 billion per year. At that point even a moderate tax increase will not make a dent.

The point is, do you pay two trillion now for a complete solution. Or wait until it will cost us more, much more? I am all for fixing a problem as soon as possible, as putting it off will just cause more problems.

Also, do not fool yourselves - there is a crisis. If there wasn't damn near every economist for the last thirty years would not have said so. Both Democrats and Republicans have been calling for a solution for the last two decades. The numbers did not change this year. The power shift in DC did though, and now that someone is actually working on a solution rather than giving it lip service, has some people running scared. Democrats in particular who risk losing their entire base if Bush manages to be successful.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
there is no way to fix a non-fully-funded plan if you don't either increase taxes or decrease benefits. it cannot be done. the whole thing needs to be scrapped and reworked.

I agree with the premise but not necessarily your solution. The fundamental problem is demographics. If you tweak age of retirement, FICA rate, FICA cap, and benefits you could create a system that responds in a dynamic fashion. In essence, flush economic times would cause the FICA rate and FICA cap to drop while tight economic times (say a Bush in the WH) would prompt an easing up of FICA rates, FICA cap, and trimming benefits.

Politicians wouldn't have to wring their hands every decade or so about "fixing" SS. The flipside is that fiscal morons (Bush43 and GOPie Congress) wouldn't be able to hide the true magnitude of their mismanagement.

 

[Queasy]

In an address to Congress on January 17, 1935, President Roosevelt foresaw the need to move beyond the pay-as-you-go financing of the current Social Security system. "For perhaps 30 years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions," the president allowed. But after that, he explained, it would be necessary to move to what he called "voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age." In other words, his call for the establishment of Social Security directly anticipated today's reform agenda: "It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans," FDR explained.

"What Roosevelt was talking about is the need to update Social Security sometime around 1965 with what today we would call personal accounts," says one top GOP member of the Ways and Means Committee. "By my reckoning we are only about 40 years late in addressing his concerns on how [to] make Social Security solvent."

Link

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: ElFenix
there is no way to fix a non-fully-funded plan if you don't either increase taxes or decrease benefits. it cannot be done. the whole thing needs to be scrapped and reworked.

I agree with the premise but not necessarily your solution. The fundamental problem is demographics. If you tweak age of retirement, FICA rate, FICA cap, and benefits you could create a system that responds in a dynamic fashion. In essence, flush economic times would cause the FICA rate and FICA cap to drop while tight economic times (say a Bush in the WH) would prompt an easing up of FICA rates, FICA cap, and trimming benefits.

Politicians wouldn't have to wring their hands every decade or so about "fixing" SS. The flipside is that fiscal morons (Bush43 and GOPie Congress) wouldn't be able to hide the true magnitude of their mismanagement.

seems like you fully embraced my solution before turning to childish insults

 

[whistleclient]

According to USA Today, as a congressional candidate in 1978, George W. Bush was claiming "Social Security would go broke in 10 years" - 1988. Even then, he said the only way to fix this crisis was to privatize the system. [Source: USA Today, 7/28/2000]

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: cquark
The Bush administration is starting to come clean and tell the press that personal
accounts won't solve the Social Security problem. From the LA Times:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-na-s...print.story?coll=la-headlines-business

"A Bush aide, briefing reporters on the condition of anonymity, was
more explicit, saying that the individual accounts would do nothing to
solve the system's long-term financial problems.

That candid analysis, although widely shared by economists, distressed
some Republicans.

"Oh, my God," one GOP political strategist said when he learned of the
shift in rhetoric. "The White House has made a lot of Republicans walk
the plank on this. Now it sounds as if they are sawing off the board."

But Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a leading Senate proponent of
restructuring Social Security, said the White House's candor was a
good thing.

"As we debate the problem, we also need to be realistic about defining
the solutions," he said. "The truth is, personal accounts will not
even come close to making Social Security solvent."

The Bush admin has never said Private accounts alone would solve SS. They have said private accounts should be there for future generations.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: yllus
You do realize it's not meant to be a 100% fix.

Not the way the administration has been selling it.

Anyone that watched the state of the union would know that they are pushing private accounts in addition to other reforms. All reforms + private accounts are on the table, every reform except increasing payroll taxes.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: ciba
Personal accounts mean my generation will see pennies on the dollar rather than nothing.

personal accoutns mean that you will get pennies on the dollar as opposed to a solid 60 cents or so because it will bankrupt SS much quicker and harsher.

 

[Jhhnn]

Gotta love it, from Inwincur-

"The point is, do you pay two trillion now for a complete solution. Or wait until it will cost us more, much more? I am all for fixing a problem as soon as possible, as putting it off will just cause more problems."

But wait just a second... Do we have $2T? No? So we'll borrow it, right? And then what? So that by the time we reach the alleged crisis, we'll already be in the throes of a real crisis, one created by attempting to borrow our way out of debt... a crisis of debt maintenance expenditure...

A complete solution? How do we meet obligations in the time period between the projected fiscal crossover point and the date of fruition of these private accounts?

By then, I doubt we'll be able to borrow more money, so we can just print more, instead...

 

[irwincur]

But wait just a second... Do we have $2T? No? So we'll borrow it, right? And then what? So that by the time we reach the alleged crisis, we'll already be in the throes of a real crisis, one created by attempting to borrow our way out of debt... a crisis of debt maintenance expenditure...

2T will be easier to come up with today than 10T in 2018, and about 100T in 2052. Why must the left always wait until it is too late. Do you know what taxes will be required to pay that 100T - Democrats have estimated 60% payroll taxes in 2052 - and that would be OK for them. However, I doubt the US will even make it there as pretty much every employer will leave the country well before that point.

Payroll taxes are a two edged sword. They front load the government with money at the cost of jobs. With fewer jobs, tax receipts drop. With lower renvenue, the government will be forced to tax again.

 

[Jhhnn]

What $10T in 2018? Democrats estimate 60% payroll taxes in 2052?

Now you're just pulling numbers out of your nether orifice...

And returning to the basic false premise, that we can, indeed, borrow our way out of debt. Once you've addressed that fundamental issue, you'll have merely begun to make sense out of it all...

At the current rate of republican looting, we'll already owe ~$13T in 2018, not counting this SS scam, the Senior Pharma Pork scam, The Iraqi freedom scam and a few others, and we'll be past our credit limit, paying exorbitant interest on rather shaky revolving debt... debt maintenance will likely exceed $1T annually... while 1% of the population owns ~50% of the wealth, or more...

 

[dannybin1742]

in case you didn't notice there was a war going on between the written press and the mass TV media, the tv media would put crap on tv that simply wasn't true such as the swift boats thing, and play it over and over and over, where as the papers, presented it and debunked it, but the tv media didn't even bother to do that.

if anything the tv media was sucking rove's d!ck the whole election and since americans are too lazy to read anymore they were spoon fed the bs and they beleived it, our country has become a joke both socially and politically, not to mension out media is obsessed with death/murder, celeb cases, rape, and war. i pretty much only read news now. and the LA times was/is a fairly conservative paper, just cause its from a blue state does not mean its liberal

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: tangent1138
According to USA Today, as a congressional candidate in 1978, George W. Bush was claiming "Social Security would go broke in 10 years" - 1988. Even then, he said the only way to fix this crisis was to privatize the system. [Source: USA Today, 7/28/2000]

Both Republicans and Democrats have been climbing on the SS soapbox over the years, depending on who is in office. With a Democratic pres, the Rep's complain about it and make it an issue. Vice versa with a Republican pres in office.

SS has really become little more than a political pinata that's beaten around for opportunistic reasons. The pols claim something needs to be done, and have for years, yet when somebody wants to do something about it they still complain and bicker endlessly. It'll be beaten about for 4 years and nothing will be done. And four years after that the same thing will happen. And so on.

I'm actually laughing at the Democrats right now. They are the ones who began slamming home SS, making it an issue and hoping they could use it as a lever to slap Bush around and gain political points, figuring he'd basically do nothing about it just like every other politician in the past. Then Bush turns around with hsi plan to change SS and the Democrat's eyes get wide as saucers. He called their bluff and now they're not sure what to do. It's hilarious, at least from a political perspective.

What's not hilarious is that the basic SS issues will still languish and nothing will really be done.

 

[upsciLLion]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: cquark

"The truth is, personal accounts will not even come close to making Social Security solvent."

But it gives all the money to the Rich Boys to play with and make even more money while screwing over the little people.

Right according to plan as usual.

That sounds vaguely familiar to our... current situation!

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: ElFenix
there is no way to fix a non-fully-funded plan if you don't either increase taxes or decrease benefits. it cannot be done. the whole thing needs to be scrapped and reworked.

I agree with the premise but not necessarily your solution. The fundamental problem is demographics. If you tweak age of retirement, FICA rate, FICA cap, and benefits you could create a system that responds in a dynamic fashion. In essence, flush economic times would cause the FICA rate and FICA cap to drop while tight economic times (say a Bush in the WH) would prompt an easing up of FICA rates, FICA cap, and trimming benefits.

Politicians wouldn't have to wring their hands every decade or so about "fixing" SS. The flipside is that fiscal morons (Bush43 and GOPie Congress) wouldn't be able to hide the true magnitude of their mismanagement.

seems like you fully embraced my solution before turning to childish insults

There's nothing childish about those insults at all. It requires MORONIC levels of intellect to call this most recent budget proposal "good" or "tight" or "meeting the needs while cutting the excess". The whole "personal vs private accounts" BS perfectly encapsulates the sheer depravity and idiocy of Bush and GOP. They invested more time in trying to "sell" an idea than designing and instituting real solutions.

Further, the very program they are seeking to demolish is the sole reason they can claim that "deficits don't matter." The truth is that deficits do matter if they are huge AND structural. The SS surplus has been hiding the true size of our annual deficits since the late 80s-early 90s. Somewhat sound fiscal policy by Bush41 and Clinton helped end the "structural" risk. Unfortunately, the Bush Regime and Crappy Congress have restored huge, structural deficits.

Bush and his supporters either have horrible cases of dyscalculia or they are just simple liars with contempt for the broad swaths of America that will DEPEND on SS to keep them out of poverty.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

In a rare defense of Bush . . . since he's rarely right or worth defending . . . his quote from 1978 should be taken in context.

It was quite true that SS would have truly gone belly up if the SS Commission hadn't developed reforms (which the Congress passed). In fact, it was those reforms that led to flush SS coffers capable of covering some of the deficits of Bush 41, Clinton, and most egregiously Bush43.

Granted, Bush's solution of "privatization" would not have saved SS. It's a shame he wasn't elected. There's a lot of disgruntle shareholders of multiple companies and taxpayers in Arlington that have suffered mightily by his bizness acumen.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: ElFenix
there is no way to fix a non-fully-funded plan if you don't either increase taxes or decrease benefits. it cannot be done. the whole thing needs to be scrapped and reworked.

Pols do not have the guts to tackle this.

Easier to pass teh buck to the next person in-line.

Part of the problem is that there are so many fingers in the pie, that any type of rework to be effective will cause some-one pain.

:thumbsup:

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

There's nothing childish about those insults at all. It requires MORONIC levels of intellect to call this most recent budget proposal "good" or "tight" or "meeting the needs while cutting the excess". The whole "personal vs private accounts" BS perfectly encapsulates the sheer depravity and idiocy of Bush and GOP. They invested more time in trying to "sell" an idea than designing and instituting real solutions.

Further, the very program they are seeking to demolish is the sole reason they can claim that "deficits don't matter." The truth is that deficits do matter if they are huge AND structural. The SS surplus has been hiding the true size of our annual deficits since the late 80s-early 90s. Somewhat sound fiscal policy by Bush41 and Clinton helped end the "structural" risk. Unfortunately, the Bush Regime and Crappy Congress have restored huge, structural deficits.

Bush and his supporters either have horrible cases of dyscalculia or they are just simple liars with contempt for the broad swaths of America that will DEPEND on SS to keep them out of poverty.

sure is easy to get you riled up. childish insults are childish insults, regardless of how much you try to justify them.