they arent risky...just like govt thrift saving plan..... very conservative investing....
also, they are just propsing to aloow people to invest 4%, not all of thier social security
they arent risky...just like govt thrift saving plan..... very conservative investing....
also, they are just propsing to aloow people to invest 4%, not all of thier social security
Indeed, CsG, I'm sure you want to define the situation in favor of you own cause. I define SS, as does the govt., as insurance, as a kind of huge annuity program, as I said, part of a sensible retirement plan. Move the goalposts if you like, which is the thrust of the whole argument against SS, in the first place, as this whole privatization plan threatens the insurance payouts that folks like me have paid for over the last 30 years or more. If you feel that the whole model is threatened by those running it, as I do, then advocate their ouster, rather than supporting their deceptive misdirection campaign.
If people are allowed to opt out of 1/3 of their SS contributions, then the system will move into the red a lot sooner than 2018, a lot sooner... Which means that the money to cover the difference has to come from somewhere, or benefits will have to be cutback. Why shouldn't people be allowed to opt out? Because, with Republicans running the govt, cutting taxes drastically for those at the top, and borrowing us into oblivion, we can't afford to let people opt out.
Look past the deceptive rhetoric coming out of the Whitehouse and the rightwing thinktanks, look at federal taxation and spending in its entirety. Failure to do so will inevitably invoke the rule of unanticipated consequences, which is exactly what those at the top advocating your position intend- to sucker us all.
If people are allowed to opt out of 1/3 of their SS contributions, then the system will move into the red a lot sooner than 2018, a lot sooner... Which means that the money to cover the difference has to come from somewhere, or benefits will have to be cutback. Why shouldn't people be allowed to opt out? Because, with Republicans running the govt, cutting taxes drastically for those at the top, and borrowing us into oblivion, we can't afford to let people opt out.
Look past the deceptive rhetoric coming out of the Whitehouse and the rightwing thinktanks, look at federal taxation and spending in its entirety. Failure to do so will inevitably invoke the rule of unanticipated consequences, which is exactly what those at the top advocating your position intend- to sucker us all.
Hey
I keep hearing that the Obesity problem will shed 4-8 years off the life expectancy thus making this whole issue of SS running out of money due to Baby Boomers living longer moot. <shrugs>
I keep hearing that the Obesity problem will shed 4-8 years off the life expectancy thus making this whole issue of SS running out of money due to Baby Boomers living longer moot. <shrugs>
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Actually, I'm asking for it to be defined, instead of hiding behind some lame "insurance" BS like you. It isn't insurance - there are no acct holders.
Also, I don't give a rats ass what the Whitehouse is saying about SS. I want our gov't to either fix or get rid of SS because it's going to be a huge drain real soon. The reason it's going to be a drain is because the system is flawed and not self-sustaining. You can whine about debt or whatever you'd like but it doesn't change the fundamental flaws SS has. If it costs money to "fix" it - fine - it's better than passing the problem down to the next generation like some of you seem to be fine with. The "fix" however will entail more than just one item, but the problem here is the intent of the program is so foggy that any "fix" right now would be a st*b in the dark. THAT's why it needs to be defined. It needs to be either a retirement program or a welfare program. Right now it's basically a welfare program(generational wealth transfer) that everyone seems to qualify for.
Without proper definition - you are whining in the wind
CsG
You do realize the current tax rate for SS was implemented in the 1980s? Before that it was as low as 2-3% of your income. It is safe to say the people who have been contributing the most may not even be the people who get paid the most. Even though they may have contributed 3-5% of their lifetime earnings to the fund they will collect benefits in full while somebody like myself will pay 6.4% or more and recieve 80%.
Nah, CsG, SS needs to be redefined only to suit your argument, the same as the Whitehouse argument and the rest of the uber-right.
And, of course, no "Fix" is possible w/o our govt exercising some fiscal responsibility to make sure that obligations to the trust can be fulfilled when needed, something your ideological allies in congress and the Whitehouse apparently have no intention of doing... this whole privatization and redefinition scheme amounting to a ruse, an obfuscation of that underlying truth.
And, of course, no "Fix" is possible w/o our govt exercising some fiscal responsibility to make sure that obligations to the trust can be fulfilled when needed, something your ideological allies in congress and the Whitehouse apparently have no intention of doing... this whole privatization and redefinition scheme amounting to a ruse, an obfuscation of that underlying truth.
There is no trust fund. The govt lent itself money by purchasing bonds from the SS surplus. When those bonds have to be repaid, where do you think the money to repay them will come from?
From taxes, Genx87, the same as the money needed to maintain and pay back all the other debt being racked up by so-called Conservatives... otherwise known as looters, charlatans, bait and switch artists...
Where would the money come from to cover the 25 year gap left by privatization of younger people's SS? Same place...
Oh, wait, if the Repubs have their way, there won't be any taxes, just debt, which we'll finance by doing what? Whoring out the armed forces, selling Yellowstone, or what?
Where would the money come from to cover the 25 year gap left by privatization of younger people's SS? Same place...
Oh, wait, if the Repubs have their way, there won't be any taxes, just debt, which we'll finance by doing what? Whoring out the armed forces, selling Yellowstone, or what?
"It isn't insurance "
That is exactly what it is. Disability, survivor, retirement insurance. And because the administrative costs are very low and there is no profit to be paid, you can't get similar insurance for anywhere close to the price of Social Security.
The actual alternative to Social Security, is that large numbers of people will go without these kinds of insurance, and the affect on society will be less stability, and greater cost for less good.
It's the same thing as the difference between changing your automobile oil versus replacing the engine, the average cost is much lower with the oil changes, even though it appears in the short run to be cheaper to skip them.
That is exactly what it is. Disability, survivor, retirement insurance. And because the administrative costs are very low and there is no profit to be paid, you can't get similar insurance for anywhere close to the price of Social Security.
The actual alternative to Social Security, is that large numbers of people will go without these kinds of insurance, and the affect on society will be less stability, and greater cost for less good.
It's the same thing as the difference between changing your automobile oil versus replacing the engine, the average cost is much lower with the oil changes, even though it appears in the short run to be cheaper to skip them.
Dont act like democrats havent had their hands in the pot either.
You may have a valid point but your silly partisan attacks will mask the point anyday of the week.
I think the point of privatization is to get people off the system and onto an automonous system where congress cant rape their funds. How will it be paid for? Obviously through borrowing or through taxes. The question is should we borrow the money now, erect a solvent system, and fix this issue?
Or should be play partisan games, screw around pretending the end isnt coming, and then at the last second throw another bandaid on the problem for another generation to fix or bankrupt?
The end is coming, it is just a matter of when people will realize this and fix the problem. I prefer now because if we wait 40 years we truely wont be able to afford to fix it.
Who says people need to be taken care of? There is no right to the public Dole in the constitution! Just have them work till they keel over. That is what family is for.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
No, I'm not saying it should be one or the other, in fact if you would have been paying attention - I would like to scrap the whole damn thing. IF SS is going to continue - it needs to be defined and then fixed. It's a jumbled mess right now and any little tweak will not fix it due to it being a flawed system. If people want it to a retirement system - fine. If a welfare system - fine. Just decide because as I've stated(and you seem to refuse to even contemplate) right now those opposing changing it use two different arguments depending on the "fix" proposed. If it's private accts -they claim it's to help those who have nothing when they are old(welfare). If the "fix" is means testing - they whine about people having had paid in for years. Well - make up your mind. SS will not survive without it being defined.
As to your continued whine fest about those EVAL republicans - when exactly have the Democrats allowed for fiscal restraint so your precious fake IOUs can be re-spent? That's right - you are trying to point a finger at the other side when yours is just as much at fault if not more so. I mean to a democrat - a spending increase reduction is a "cut".:roll: Whatever.:roll:
Also, you continue to ignore the FACT that I am against the spending that goes on in Washington. There is no reason we need a $2.5TRILLION+ budget just to run. It's BS, but again, any programs or spending that is cut causes the left to go into a rabid spittle spewing hissy. Can't have it both ways...not on the budget - nor SS.
CsG
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Just because it has the name "insurance" does not mean it's insurance. Get a clue. It doesn't act like insurance. It isn't voluntary, no acct holders, no "benefit" amount at the time of payment, etc. It's a joke to call SS - "insurance".
CsG
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Oh, well then we might as well count on that and not even *think* about alternate plans for retirement!
Jason
You can argue the merits all day, but you CAN'T claim that it's an insurance program. Insurance programs BY DEFINITION have assets set aside to cover what they may have to pay out; Social Security does not. The only way you can claim SS DOES have assets is if you count PEOPLE as assets because they work and produce more income for the system.
Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme, pure and simple, and it's high time we added at least the OPTION for people to CHOOSE whether they participate or not. It SHOULD have been optional from day one. Forcing people to contribute to your cause, no matter how righteous, is WRONG.
Jason
You know, sometimes I'd swear that if we were both gay I'd suck your dick. NICE post in a nice SERIES of nice posts
Jason
Steeplerot
Lifer
- Mar 29, 2004
- 13,051
- 6
- 81
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
You know, sometimes I'd swear that if we were both gay I'd suck your dick. NICE post in a nice SERIES of nice posts
Jason
I am sure he would be happy if he wasen't in line to go down on bush today.
ok excuse me but I saw this "cuming" with his little hateclub of cable tv newswatchers he has scraped together on P&N.
that is soooooooo one for the history books of P&N..............
Ohh CaD my right wing hero of the opressed conservative lemme give you a big fat dirty sanchez! hehehe
*reality check* CaD's posts are straight from the WH press newsroom or fox (same diffrence) and about as original as floor wax. :roll:
Well, CsG, at the present time, it's the Dems calling for fiscal integrity, with the Repubs rather gleefully looting the treasury and the future, refusing to pay for even more taxcuts, more pork, more military, probably more taxpayer blood sucking adventures like Iraq, and more special interest wealth transfers, like the so-called "Senior drug benefit". Dems offer "pay as you go", Repubs say put it on the taxpayers' account, they'll pay for it later-
It's the same with SS "reform"- Repubs offer no reform, just illusions, just ways to borrow more money... ways to destroy the fiscal integrity of the govt faster, and the fate of the SS trust along with it.
The only real answer lies in paying down the current debt, getting our house in order so that the "compact between generations", SS, can survive, and that, at some future date, honest alternatives can be examined from a position of fiscal strength, rather than under the shadow of explosive federal debt. That means taxes have to be raised, simply because the kind of cuts that could do the job all by themselves simply won't fly, for a variety of reasons. None of that will happen with the radical Repubs in power, so the next best thing is to attempt to limit the damage they can cause, prevent radical and likely disastrous consequences where possible. To say that I don't trust them is an understatement- they'd steal from their Grandmothers.
It's the same with SS "reform"- Repubs offer no reform, just illusions, just ways to borrow more money... ways to destroy the fiscal integrity of the govt faster, and the fate of the SS trust along with it.
The only real answer lies in paying down the current debt, getting our house in order so that the "compact between generations", SS, can survive, and that, at some future date, honest alternatives can be examined from a position of fiscal strength, rather than under the shadow of explosive federal debt. That means taxes have to be raised, simply because the kind of cuts that could do the job all by themselves simply won't fly, for a variety of reasons. None of that will happen with the radical Repubs in power, so the next best thing is to attempt to limit the damage they can cause, prevent radical and likely disastrous consequences where possible. To say that I don't trust them is an understatement- they'd steal from their Grandmothers.
umbrella39
Lifer
- Jun 11, 2004
- 13,816
- 1,126
- 126
If you want to kick all the old people off of SS then you tell them they have to leave. I am not going to do it. But surely you have to realize that we need SS (maybe not in its present form) to protect our citizens and children against catastrophes.
You don't feel obligated as an American citizen to contribute to a fund that helps pay for kids until they are 18 years old should their parents die? You feel no obligation whatsoever? If you lost both legs tomorrow, not at work and not somewhere where you could sue someone, you would toss that SSI check in the mail every month? I think not. Quit thinking about your bottom line all the time like Cad and Co and consider someone other than yourselves for once. We are all capable of saving for our retirements in spite of our paltry SS deductions.
umbrella39
Lifer
- Jun 11, 2004
- 13,816
- 1,126
- 126
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
You know, sometimes I'd swear that if we were both gay I'd suck your dick. NICE post in a nice SERIES of nice posts
Jason
What does gay have to with it, don't let that stand in the way of his dick in your mouth! I am sure he would appreciate the gesture.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
You know, sometimes I'd swear that if we were both gay I'd suck your dick. NICE post in a nice SERIES of nice posts
Jason
I am sure he would be happy if he wasen't in line to go down on bush today.
ok excuse me but I saw this "cuming" with his little hateclub of cable tv newswatchers he has scraped together on P&N.
that is soooooooo one for the history books of P&N..............
Ohh CaD my right wing hero of the opressed conservative lemme give you a big fat dirty sanchez! hehehe
*reality check* CaD's posts are straight from the WH press newsroom or fox (same diffrence) and about as original as floor wax. :roll:
Reality check: I don't have cable TV(not until next Tuesday - I'm ditching dsl to go to cable) and I don't give a rats ass what the WH is saying - SS is a failed scheme regardless.
But hey, I've only presented these FACTS to you a couple dozen times...so why should I think you'd attempt to be honest this time...:roll:
********
DMA - I just get sick of the socialist thinking that people seem to have around here and this SS issue is one of the worst. I will not back down to those who wish to steal from the working class and give to the non-working and call it "insurance". What a joke these people are.
CsG
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
You know, sometimes I'd swear that if we were both gay I'd suck your dick. NICE post in a nice SERIES of nice posts
Jason
What does gay have to with it, don't let that stand in the way of his dick in your mouth! I am sure he would appreciate the gesture.
:laugh:
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
What you meant to say, what the dems are claiming they want fiscal responsibility but yet they don't actually follow through. Instead they whine about "cuts" to their precious pet projects.
Also, the dems have offered no new ideas - all they do is whine about what the right proposes or does. They have become the party of "no".
True SS reform will not happen until the system is defined. YOU are the problem here. YOU want to keep a flawed system in place instead of defining it and fixing it so it won't be a burden to our fiscal state(which it will be unless it is defined/fixed).
So yeah, keep flapping your gums about those EVAL republicans if you want to stay blind. Just don't come whining to me when SS destroys our Federal budget in a few short years - YOU didn't want to change it - YOU thought it was just fine. What a joke.
CsG
Can't wait to see the Dems run on that particular platform in '06 and beyond. Better be prepared to be the minority party for a long, long time . . .
I hope you're right about preventing the GOP from 'saving' SS. Why accept a band-aid job on a bad program when we could do nothing and let it collapse under its own weight?
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: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter