Why are Libs/Dems Set Against Social Security Reform?

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
You have no idea what demographics will be in 75 years. No one does. That's why SS doesn't project any further. Do you think the baby boomers are going to live forever?

In 2042, the year the system will drop to seventy percent benefits IF NOTHING AT ALL IS DONE, the youngest of the baby boomers will be 78 years old. The demographic has a way of taking care of itself. In the meantime, just to be sure, start having some kids -- at the very least so that you can have someone to tell you what a freeloader and loafer you are when it's your turn to retire.

:roll:

 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: BBond
You have no idea what demographics will be in 75 years. No one does. That's why SS doesn't project any further. Do you think the baby boomers are going to live forever?

In 2042, the year the system will drop to seventy percent benefits IF NOTHING AT ALL IS DONE, the youngest of the baby boomers will be 78 years old. The demographic has a way of taking care of itself. In the meantime, just to be sure, start having some kids -- at the very least so that you can have someone to tell you what a freeloader and loafer you are when it's your turn to retire.

:roll:

The entire picture is that 2042 we will be getting reduced reduced benefits(getting back less than we paid in). And in order to get those reduced benefits my childres and grandchildren will being paying on the order of 20% payroll tax. This is not a good deal for this generation or future ones.

But you already got yours, you dont give a damn if everyone else gets screwed.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: BBond
You have no idea what demographics will be in 75 years. No one does. That's why SS doesn't project any further. Do you think the baby boomers are going to live forever?

In 2042, the year the system will drop to seventy percent benefits IF NOTHING AT ALL IS DONE, the youngest of the baby boomers will be 78 years old. The demographic has a way of taking care of itself. In the meantime, just to be sure, start having some kids -- at the very least so that you can have someone to tell you what a freeloader and loafer you are when it's your turn to retire.

:roll:

The entire picture is that 2042 we will be getting reduced reduced benefits(getting back less than we paid in). And in order to get those reduced benefits my childres and grandchildren will being paying on the order of 20% payroll tax. This is not a good deal for this generation or future ones.

But you already got yours, you dont give a damn if everyone else gets screwed.

No one need be "screwed" if Bush will come to his senses and work honestly toward reforming Social Security so that it works, instead of trying to destroy it in the name of saving it.

 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: BBond
You have no idea what demographics will be in 75 years. No one does. That's why SS doesn't project any further. Do you think the baby boomers are going to live forever?

In 2042, the year the system will drop to seventy percent benefits IF NOTHING AT ALL IS DONE, the youngest of the baby boomers will be 78 years old. The demographic has a way of taking care of itself. In the meantime, just to be sure, start having some kids -- at the very least so that you can have someone to tell you what a freeloader and loafer you are when it's your turn to retire.

:roll:



The entire picture is that 2042 we will be getting reduced reduced benefits(getting back less than we paid in). And in order to get those reduced benefits my childres and grandchildren will being paying on the order of 20% payroll tax. This is not a good deal for this generation or future ones.

But you already got yours, you dont give a damn if everyone else gets screwed.

No one need be "screwed" if Bush will come to his senses and work honestly toward reforming Social Security so that it works, instead of trying to destroy it in the name of saving it.

We can keep fixing SS like we have fixed SS in the past, keep raising the payroll tax. Raising payroll taxes has yet to fix the funding problem. I dont know why you think raising payroll taxes will fix it this time.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,357
8,446
126
Originally posted by: BBond
You have no idea what demographics will be in 75 years. No one does. That's why SS doesn't project any further. Do you think the baby boomers are going to live forever?

In 2042, the year the system will drop to seventy percent benefits IF NOTHING AT ALL IS DONE, the youngest of the baby boomers will be 78 years old. The demographic has a way of taking care of itself. In the meantime, just to be sure, start having some kids -- at the very least so that you can have someone to tell you what a freeloader and loafer you are when it's your turn to retire.

:roll:
no, the demographics won't get much worse, but i seriously doubt they'd improve all that much. in order for the demographics to make sense, the interest rate 'paid' on the worker's contribution MUST be lower than the rate of population expansion. that is, either benefits must be cut or there needs to be a giant population boom. and that boom would have to last forever. no such boom is coming. i can assure you of that. the world couldn't support it. lets assume a rate of 4%. which is rather a conservative interest rate for an investment and would barely keep you ahead of inflation. the population would double every ~18 years. assuming it started tomorrow, at the end of this 75 year period the US population would be 5 billion people!

demographics alone isn't going to fix the fscked system in place now. again, the only fix is changing the system to fully-funded
 

wiin

Senior member
Oct 28, 1999
937
0
76
Posted by GTaudiophile:
I just know if Clinton were saying the same as Bush right now, the Dems would be on their feet!

What is so wrong will allowing me to invest in my own retirement account? It's BS I have to put $15K a year into the system and won't get sheit out of it!

Clinton did what Bush is doing but was sidetracked by the sex scandal. Back then, the democrats were all for it.
 

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
Originally posted by: wiin
Posted by GTaudiophile:
I just know if Clinton were saying the same as Bush right now, the Dems would be on their feet!

What is so wrong will allowing me to invest in my own retirement account? It's BS I have to put $15K a year into the system and won't get sheit out of it!

Clinton did what Bush is doing but was sidetracked by the sex scandal. Back then, the democrats were all for it.

Actually, that's not true. Clinton wanted to put some of the SS surplus into higher-return, higher-risk funds, not set everyone up with a private account.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Clinton didn't "do" anything, wiin, you're making a false attribution of what an advisory board posed as a possible avenue, given the total economic/tax/fiscal policy at the time... they were looking at the situation through budget surplus tinted glasses... Bush and his congressional allies changed that very quickly, exploiting every opportunity to create a structural budget deficit, ruling out additional expenditures on SS, preferring rather to allow massive taxcuts for folks who didn't need them, anyway...

Tell you what. When GWB Inc. brings back he kind of rosy fiscal picture created by the tax revenue vs expenditure scenario reflected in the 2000 and 2001 budgets, then we can talk, OK? Because we really can't talk about SS as if it exists in a vacuum- there's the small matter of the SS trust, and the ability of the govt to fulfill its attached obligations... currently being rendered moot by a highly sophisticated form of deception and fraud in the form of other explosive debt...
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: wiin
Posted by GTaudiophile:
I just know if Clinton were saying the same as Bush right now, the Dems would be on their feet!

What is so wrong will allowing me to invest in my own retirement account? It's BS I have to put $15K a year into the system and won't get sheit out of it!

Clinton did what Bush is doing but was sidetracked by the sex scandal. Back then, the democrats were all for it.

Actually, that's not true. Clinton wanted to put some of the SS surplus into higher-return, higher-risk funds, not set everyone up with a private account.


And at the same time Reid was saying private accounts were a good idea.
 

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: wiin
Posted by GTaudiophile:
I just know if Clinton were saying the same as Bush right now, the Dems would be on their feet!

What is so wrong will allowing me to invest in my own retirement account? It's BS I have to put $15K a year into the system and won't get sheit out of it!

Clinton did what Bush is doing but was sidetracked by the sex scandal. Back then, the democrats were all for it.

Actually, that's not true. Clinton wanted to put some of the SS surplus into higher-return, higher-risk funds, not set everyone up with a private account.


And at the same time Reid was saying private accounts were a good idea.

Link and context please.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: wiin
Posted by GTaudiophile:
I just know if Clinton were saying the same as Bush right now, the Dems would be on their feet!

What is so wrong will allowing me to invest in my own retirement account? It's BS I have to put $15K a year into the system and won't get sheit out of it!

Clinton did what Bush is doing but was sidetracked by the sex scandal. Back then, the democrats were all for it.

Actually, that's not true. Clinton wanted to put some of the SS surplus into higher-return, higher-risk funds, not set everyone up with a private account.


And at the same time Reid was saying private accounts were a good idea.

Link and context please.


He(reid) told "Fox News Sunday" in 1999 that "most of us have no problem with taking a small amount of the Social Security proceeds and putting it in the private sector."
When asked whether people should be allowed to make those investment decisions rather than the government, Mr. Reid said, "I think it's important that we look, and I'm totally in favor of [doing] this. And, in fact, there are a couple of programs now that we're taking a look at to see if it will work with Social Security."

linkage
 

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: wiin
Posted by GTaudiophile:
I just know if Clinton were saying the same as Bush right now, the Dems would be on their feet!

What is so wrong will allowing me to invest in my own retirement account? It's BS I have to put $15K a year into the system and won't get sheit out of it!

Clinton did what Bush is doing but was sidetracked by the sex scandal. Back then, the democrats were all for it.

Actually, that's not true. Clinton wanted to put some of the SS surplus into higher-return, higher-risk funds, not set everyone up with a private account.


And at the same time Reid was saying private accounts were a good idea.

Link and context please.


He(reid) told "Fox News Sunday" in 1999 that "most of us have no problem with taking a small amount of the Social Security proceeds and putting it in the private sector."
When asked whether people should be allowed to make those investment decisions rather than the government, Mr. Reid said, "I think it's important that we look, and I'm totally in favor of [doing] this. And, in fact, there are a couple of programs now that we're taking a look at to see if it will work with Social Security."

linkage

Ok, he said he was happy to look into the idea of privatizing Social Security. And? Plus, back in 1999, our country was in a MUCH better place financially to discuss something like that.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: wiin
Posted by GTaudiophile:
I just know if Clinton were saying the same as Bush right now, the Dems would be on their feet!

What is so wrong will allowing me to invest in my own retirement account? It's BS I have to put $15K a year into the system and won't get sheit out of it!

Clinton did what Bush is doing but was sidetracked by the sex scandal. Back then, the democrats were all for it.

Actually, that's not true. Clinton wanted to put some of the SS surplus into higher-return, higher-risk funds, not set everyone up with a private account.


And at the same time Reid was saying private accounts were a good idea.

Link and context please.


He(reid) told "Fox News Sunday" in 1999 that "most of us have no problem with taking a small amount of the Social Security proceeds and putting it in the private sector."
When asked whether people should be allowed to make those investment decisions rather than the government, Mr. Reid said, "I think it's important that we look, and I'm totally in favor of [doing] this. And, in fact, there are a couple of programs now that we're taking a look at to see if it will work with Social Security."

linkage

Ok, he said he was happy to look into the idea of privatizing Social Security. And? Plus, back in 1999, our country was in a MUCH better place financially to discuss something like that.

However, during that time the outlook of social security has not changed. If private accounts/market investments were a valid way of fixing them then, they are still valid today. Surely Reid knew that economy would not always be as good as it was in 1999.
 

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: wiin
Posted by GTaudiophile:
I just know if Clinton were saying the same as Bush right now, the Dems would be on their feet!

What is so wrong will allowing me to invest in my own retirement account? It's BS I have to put $15K a year into the system and won't get sheit out of it!

Clinton did what Bush is doing but was sidetracked by the sex scandal. Back then, the democrats were all for it.

Actually, that's not true. Clinton wanted to put some of the SS surplus into higher-return, higher-risk funds, not set everyone up with a private account.


And at the same time Reid was saying private accounts were a good idea.

Link and context please.


He(reid) told "Fox News Sunday" in 1999 that "most of us have no problem with taking a small amount of the Social Security proceeds and putting it in the private sector."
When asked whether people should be allowed to make those investment decisions rather than the government, Mr. Reid said, "I think it's important that we look, and I'm totally in favor of [doing] this. And, in fact, there are a couple of programs now that we're taking a look at to see if it will work with Social Security."

linkage

Ok, he said he was happy to look into the idea of privatizing Social Security. And? Plus, back in 1999, our country was in a MUCH better place financially to discuss something like that.

However, during that time the outlook of social security has not changed. If private accounts/market investments were a valid way of fixing them then, they are still valid today. Surely Reid knew that economy would not always be as good as it was in 1999.

I don't think Reid imagined the amount of debt this country would be put in. I don't anybody did actually. Myself, I'm not against the thought of a private account with SS, but the plan has to be right and the time to set it up has to be right. The article provided doesn't provide enough context to decipher anything about any of the quotes inside it.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
As i pointed out earlier, Reid's comments were made in a totally different fiscal context. One might also want to notice that thy're rather heavily conditional, as well... the linked article points out the same things, too...
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: wiin
Posted by GTaudiophile:
I just know if Clinton were saying the same as Bush right now, the Dems would be on their feet!

What is so wrong will allowing me to invest in my own retirement account? It's BS I have to put $15K a year into the system and won't get sheit out of it!

Clinton did what Bush is doing but was sidetracked by the sex scandal. Back then, the democrats were all for it.

Actually, that's not true. Clinton wanted to put some of the SS surplus into higher-return, higher-risk funds, not set everyone up with a private account.


And at the same time Reid was saying private accounts were a good idea.

Link and context please.


He(reid) told "Fox News Sunday" in 1999 that "most of us have no problem with taking a small amount of the Social Security proceeds and putting it in the private sector."
When asked whether people should be allowed to make those investment decisions rather than the government, Mr. Reid said, "I think it's important that we look, and I'm totally in favor of [doing] this. And, in fact, there are a couple of programs now that we're taking a look at to see if it will work with Social Security."

linkage

Ok, he said he was happy to look into the idea of privatizing Social Security. And? Plus, back in 1999, our country was in a MUCH better place financially to discuss something like that.

However, during that time the outlook of social security has not changed. If private accounts/market investments were a valid way of fixing them then, they are still valid today. Surely Reid knew that economy would not always be as good as it was in 1999.

I don't think Reid imagined the amount of debt this country would be put in. I don't anybody did actually. Myself, I'm not against the thought of a private account with SS, but the plan has to be right and the time to set it up has to be right. The article provided doesn't provide enough context to decipher anything about any of the quotes inside it.

You do of course realize that the state this countries debt load is not radically different than it was in 1999. Yes the debt to gdp ration is higher than it was in 1999, but not signigicantly. Yes yearly defecits that have occured in the last several years are large in todays dollars, but they are not histicially large when adjusted to inflation or size of gdp.

 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
As i pointed out earlier, Reid's comments were made in a totally different fiscal context. One might also want to notice that thy're rather heavily conditional, as well... the linked article points out the same things, too...

IF they were worth looking into then, they are worth looking into today....
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Sure, charrison, look all you want. Before doing anything, however, I think it's important for us to figure out how we're going to pay for it... That might have been possible w/o the Bush taxcuts, explosive expenditures, and pie in the sky pharma pork of the senior drug benefit. We're already dealing with the fiscal fallout of one false emergency, Iraq, and many of us aren't to keen on being hornswaggled into another...

 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

--President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1952



heh heh
 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
You might as well ask the question, why are conservatives/ Republicans dead set determined to dismantle Social Security (or other welfare safety net provisions and services)???
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: aidanjm
You might as well ask the question, why are conservatives/ Republicans dead set determined to dismantle Social Security (or other welfare safety net provisions and services)???
Because Jesus said, "F*ck the poor."


This administration is moving to paint Social Security as a program to combat poverty, thereby staining its reputation as being acceptable to people from all income levels.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
Originally posted by: conjur
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

--President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1952



heh heh


What a great quote. I'm a Democrat, but I deeply regret the near extinction of the reasonable, genuine, conservative Republican.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Tom
Originally posted by: conjur
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

--President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1952



heh heh


What a great quote. I'm a Democrat, but I deeply regret the near extinction of the reasonable, genuine, conservative Republican.

Some how I doubt Eisenhower would approve of the dems not proposing any plan to fix SS and rejecting every idea put forward on the subject.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Tom
Originally posted by: conjur
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

--President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1952



heh heh


What a great quote. I'm a Democrat, but I deeply regret the near extinction of the reasonable, genuine, conservative Republican.

Some how I doubt Eisenhower would approve of the dems not proposing any plan to fix SS and rejecting every idea put forward on the subject.

I think Eisenhower made it crystal clear, in his own words, just what he would and wouldn't approve of.

 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: BBond
You have no idea what demographics will be in 75 years. No one does. That's why SS doesn't project any further. Do you think the baby boomers are going to live forever?

In 2042, the year the system will drop to seventy percent benefits IF NOTHING AT ALL IS DONE, the youngest of the baby boomers will be 78 years old. The demographic has a way of taking care of itself. In the meantime, just to be sure, start having some kids -- at the very least so that you can have someone to tell you what a freeloader and loafer you are when it's your turn to retire.

:roll:

The entire picture is that 2042 we will be getting reduced reduced benefits(getting back less than we paid in). And in order to get those reduced benefits my childres and grandchildren will being paying on the order of 20% payroll tax. This is not a good deal for this generation or future ones.

But you already got yours, you dont give a damn if everyone else gets screwed.

No one need be "screwed" if Bush will come to his senses and work honestly toward reforming Social Security so that it works, instead of trying to destroy it in the name of saving it.

You still haven't explained how he's "trying to destroy it". In fact, BUSH still hasn't explained how he's trying to destroy it. This is just more of your reactionary claptrap. I'm all for slamming Bush if his plan seems like it will fvck up SS, but until we actually SEE what the plan is, how can we do that with legitimacy?

The answer: We CAN'T

Jason