NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 Bush's only SS proposal is diverting money from SS taxes to private accounts. That's cutting taxes. His idea, certainly not mine. Jackie. If you can come up with a better way to convert SS to personal savings accounts ( which I think is the right thing to do ) then please say so. The system is fundamentally broken as it stands now if it doesn't get fixed then there won't be anything left for you, me or anyone else, unless you plan to retire at 90 with just enough money in your monthly check to pay for your geritol. I'd much rather have my SS money building up in my own account and let the power of compounding take control than hope and pray that the current system hasn't come apart by the time I retire. The thing is that you still have to provide for current and soon to be retirees so the trick is to do that without busting the budget. I'll wait and see how the Bush Adminstration proposes to do that before passing judgement instead of sitting there while the walls fall in saying it cant be done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 Jackie. If you can come up with a better way to convert SS to personal savings accounts ( which I think is the right thing to do ) then please say so. The system is fundamentally broken as it stands now if it doesn't get fixed then there won't be anything left for you, me or anyone else, unless you plan to retire at 90 with just enough money in your monthly check to pay for your geritol. I'd much rather have my SS money building up in my own account and let the power of compounding take control than hope and pray that the current system hasn't come apart by the time I retire. The thing is that you still have to provide for current and soon to be retirees so the trick is to do that without busting the budget. I'll wait and see how the Bush Adminstration proposes to do that before passing judgement instead of sitting there while the walls fall in saying it cant be done. Wait -- I did not say that I have a plan, I don't. I only said that Bush has been avoiding the issue. And he has -- every time the issue arose in debates, he said that he had this great plan that would allow young workers to take part of their SS taxes and invest it for themselves. That would increase the SS deficit, so what else is he going to do? Silence... Frankly, if he wants to let me choose my own retirement plan, he'd announce that he's going to cut SS taxes and also eliminate my benefits. Then I can invest as much as I please. But he hasn't done that, and mark my words, he won't say anything of the sort. Bush wants to cut taxes, and also doesn't dare cut benefits (the near-retirees would vote out 2/3 of the Republicans in office today). SS is not fiscally solvent, and Bush has not proposed ANYTHING that would make it so. I agree that SS is broken, but this administration has steadfastly refused to even float painful, necessary measures in the press. It's just not honest. I am convinced that the Bush administration is willing to pile on the debt until a crisis comes. (They've certainly done nothing to suggest o/w -- spending has exploded, including nondefense spending, and taxes have dropped, with the debt projection reversing dramatically.) Surely, Republicans won't be in power for the next 3 decades. So naturally it'll be the fault of those big-spending Democrats... I voted for Kerry b/c he at least was honest -- he said he didn't really know what he'd do. Bush never showed a bit of indecision. Personal savings accounts would save us. I accept uncertainty, especially when even the best experts (Larry Kotlikoff, eg) are uncertain what should be done -- but to profess confidence in a path that does NOTHING to close the massive fiscal gap, that's purely dishonest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heads22 Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 I think we should reform SouthSider as much as possible.... oh wait... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 I think we should reform SouthSider as much as possible.... oh wait... I'm scared to make any further jokes... ss's been around a long time, and Jason's updating the board once more, I don't want my identity to get erased a second time... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted November 18, 2004 Author Share Posted November 18, 2004 Wait -- I did not say that I have a plan, I don't. I only said that Bush has been avoiding the issue. And he has -- every time the issue arose in debates, he said that he had this great plan that would allow young workers to take part of their SS taxes and invest it for themselves. That would increase the SS deficit, so what else is he going to do? Silence... Frankly, if he wants to let me choose my own retirement plan, he'd announce that he's going to cut SS taxes and also eliminate my benefits. Then I can invest as much as I please. But he hasn't done that, and mark my words, he won't say anything of the sort. Bush wants to cut taxes, and also doesn't dare cut benefits (the near-retirees would vote out 2/3 of the Republicans in office today). SS is not fiscally solvent, and Bush has not proposed ANYTHING that would make it so. I agree that SS is broken, but this administration has steadfastly refused to even float painful, necessary measures in the press. It's just not honest. I am convinced that the Bush administration is willing to pile on the debt until a crisis comes. (They've certainly done nothing to suggest o/w -- spending has exploded, including nondefense spending, and taxes have dropped, with the debt projection reversing dramatically.) Surely, Republicans won't be in power for the next 3 decades. So naturally it'll be the fault of those big-spending Democrats... I voted for Kerry b/c he at least was honest -- he said he didn't really know what he'd do. Bush never showed a bit of indecision. Personal savings accounts would save us. I accept uncertainty, especially when even the best experts (Larry Kotlikoff, eg) are uncertain what should be done -- but to profess confidence in a path that does NOTHING to close the massive fiscal gap, that's purely dishonest. His plan hasn't even been unveiled yet and you're right all that has been discussed is Personal savings accounts. If you'll recall I gave Bush credit for moving SS reform to the forefront of his agenda and said I liked the idea of PSA's & thats it. Until it's unveiled there is as of yet no concrete plan for getting this done. Like I said. Wait and see exactly what he wants to do before judging. If this were the only issue in the election Id still have voted against Kerry because instead of looking to reform he said nothing more than wanting to perpetuate the status quo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 His plan hasn't even been unveiled yet and you're right all that has been discussed is Personal savings accounts. If you'll recall I gave Bush credit for moving SS reform to the forefront of his agenda and said I liked the idea of PSA's & thats it. Until it's unveiled there is as of yet no concrete plan for getting this done. Like I said. Wait and see exactly what he wants to do before judging. If this were the only issue in the election Id still have voted against Kerry because instead of looking to reform he said nothing more than wanting to perpetuate the status quo. Well, not quite -- Kerry said he's appoint a commitee to investigate possible solutions. Not much, but still a legitimate, honest answer I think. Kerry made it a big issue, too, he just didn't have a definite proposal -- he made the mistake of saying this upfront. I'll wait to see what Bush says, but no way he has the "stones" to propose the necessary cuts. Even w/o PSAs we'll need to cut benefits, but the PSAs will diminish revenues by at least $1 trillion over 10 years (probably more -- making the cuts needed for solvency that much greater). If Bush makes any strong proposals, I'll be impressed. And probably too shocked to type. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 The problem is that Social Security was never going to go broke in the first place. The expenditures for Social Security may, eventually, exceed the amount collected in the payroll tax but it doesn't mean that the government will run out of money to spend on Social Security. When the government makes its own money, its hard to actually ever literally run out of it. Personally, I think if our government ever got responsible about discretionary spending, we'd have plenty of money to fund Social Security. But the party in power has increased it at a rate faster over the last ten years then the ten years before it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 The problem is that Social Security was never going to go broke in the first place. The expenditures for Social Security may, eventually, exceed the amount collected in the payroll tax but it doesn't mean that the government will run out of money to spend on Social Security. When the government makes its own money, its hard to actually ever literally run out of it. Personally, I think if our government ever got responsible about discretionary spending, we'd have plenty of money to fund Social Security. But the party in power has increased it at a rate faster over the last ten years then the ten years before it. Not really a fair criticism, there was a long-term discrepancy even before Bush came to office (although it wasn't nearly as bad). Not to mention, SS benefits are inflation indexed, and the Fed is independant, so it's very problematic if you're suggesting we could bully it into inflating away any debt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 More than fair. The Republicans have controlled the house of Representatives, the body which does the heavy lifting on budget expenditure since Jan 1995. In 2000, we had a Social Security surplus which we now borrow from to fund discretionary spending that was not curtailed after a tax rebate and cut and further cut. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 More than fair. The Republicans have controlled the house of Representatives, the body which does the heavy lifting on budget expenditure since Jan 1995. In 2000, we had a Social Security surplus which we now borrow from to fund discretionary spending that was not curtailed after a tax rebate and cut and further cut. I still disagree. Bush made the long term debt much worse than it should be, but it wasn't zero before he was inaugurated. (IIRC, the CBO projections still had the US falling into unsustainable debt at the end of the Clinton administration -- it was just delayed a couple decades. And the CBO projections are always too optimistic b/c of their assumptions on government spending increasses.) The Republicans strongly influenced spending, but you didn't see enormous increases before Bush was inaugurated. And suggesting that the US government will always be able to pay off the debt b/c they literally makes money is wrong if you think the Fed will continue to be independant, or inviting hyperinflation otherwise. Hyperinflation would be considered a de facto default on the debt -- the economic result would be no better than a regular default. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 First off neither party wants to see SS fail. Both parties know it is the key to the vote of an aging population and will pander to whatever will get them elected. The best quote I've heard regarding politics and SS is it is the "third rail of American politics". Fundemental truths about retirement planning, no matter who controls it. You need income + profit = enough money People are living longer and dying in a more expensive manner People are staying healthier and productive longer No matter who administers your plan, the government by investing in US Debt, or you by investing in the stock market, etc. you need interest and profits on your money. The principle isn't enough. You want investements? The US government spent over $400 Billion more than we took in last year. We pay interest on that money. Our SS $$ are invested in that debt and when it is repaid, your contribution is multiplied. It is one of the few pluses to our innability to control expenses while not lowering taxes. The biggest risk I see in giving people control of their accounts is the question of what do to if their investments fail to pan out. There is no other backup. Social Security should be considered like unemployment insurance, a backup plan, not the main plan. Use SS as part of a balanced approach. Focus on your 401k and other investments, and use SS as a backup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted November 18, 2004 Author Share Posted November 18, 2004 First off neither party wants to see SS fail. Both parties know it is the key to the vote of an aging population and will pander to whatever will get them elected. The best quote I've heard regarding politics and SS is it is the "third rail of American politics". Fundemental truths about retirement planning, no matter who controls it. You need income + profit = enough money People are living longer and dying in a more expensive manner People are staying healthier and productive longer No matter who administers your plan, the government by investing in US Debt, or you by investing in the stock market, etc. you need interest and profits on your money. The principle isn't enough. You want investements? The US government spent over $400 Billion more than we took in last year. We pay interest on that money. Our SS $$ are invested in that debt and when it is repaid, your contribution is multiplied. It is one of the few pluses to our innability to control expenses while not lowering taxes. The biggest risk I see in giving people control of their accounts is the question of what do to if their investments fail to pan out. There is no other backup. Social Security should be considered like unemployment insurance, a backup plan, not the main plan. Use SS as part of a balanced approach. Focus on your 401k and other investments, and use SS as a backup. I think the best way to handle that would be to lay out a number of mutual funds to choose from ( similar to the Thrift Savings Program which is the government service version of the 401K plan ) ranging from a low risk government securities fund to an aggressive growth stock fund. The worst you could do is a 5% return on your money with the bonds. Using me as an example: I pay 132.10 a month into Social Security. Take that and plow it into an investment earning 7% yearly and a timespan from 25-65. You'd end up with something like close to $350,000. A pretty tidy sum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USAF_11F4H Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 I think the best way to handle that would be to lay out a number of mutual funds to choose from ( similar to the Thrift Savings Program which is the government service version of the 401K plan ) ranging from a low risk government securities fund to an aggressive growth stock fund. The worst you could do is a 5% return on your money with the bonds. Using me as an example: I pay 132.10 a month into Social Security. Take that and plow it into an investment earning 7% yearly and a timespan from 25-65. You'd end up with something like close to $350,000. A pretty tidy sum. $132 on what, an E5 grade? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted November 18, 2004 Author Share Posted November 18, 2004 $132 on what, an E5 grade? Yup, with 6 years in Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USAF_11F4H Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 Yup, with 6 years in I haven't looked at my DD slip in ... awhile. Ha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 I think the best way to handle that would be to lay out a number of mutual funds to choose from ( similar to the Thrift Savings Program which is the government service version of the 401K plan ) ranging from a low risk government securities fund to an aggressive growth stock fund. The worst you could do is a 5% return on your money with the bonds. Using me as an example: I pay 132.10 a month into Social Security. Take that and plow it into an investment earning 7% yearly and a timespan from 25-65. You'd end up with something like close to $350,000. A pretty tidy sum. If you are going to limit it to a number of mutual funds, why not just require the government to invest in those same funds? How are you coming up with a worse you can do is 5%? Who is going to give the US Government Seal of Approval on the Mutual Funds? Could you imagine the other funds sitting by and accepting that? Could you imagine companies that would be left out, via a government fund, sitting idly by? Can you imagine what happens when big campaign contributor is in and no campaign contributor in the same industry is left out? Why not invest in the US Government via bonds? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted November 18, 2004 Author Share Posted November 18, 2004 If you are going to limit it to a number of mutual funds, why not just require the government to invest in those same funds? How are you coming up with a worse you can do is 5%? Who is going to give the US Government Seal of Approval on the Mutual Funds? Could you imagine the other funds sitting by and accepting that? Could you imagine companies that would be left out, via a government fund, sitting idly by? Can you imagine what happens when big campaign contributor is in and no campaign contributor in the same industry is left out? Why not invest in the US Government via bonds? The 5% figure comes from the fact that most bond funds I've seen yield about that much coupled with the fact that the average annual return for stocks over the years is north of 10%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 The 5% figure comes from the fact that most bond funds I've seen yield about that much coupled with the fact that the average annual return for stocks over the years is north of 10%. It's a good number, I was just wondering if you were offering some government guarantee. My concern is this will place SS squarely as the main and only retirement planning even more people make. I prefer a solution where SS is the insurance if your other planning fails. I believe when SS becomes your main focus, you will not have as nice a retirement as one would expect. So since it is the place of last resort, I prefer to see less risk than letting people chose which companies to bet on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 Mark my words folks ... when enough people get enough money into investments that would have been in SS .... the market will crash and burn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 Social Security "reform" now there is an oxymoron. There are two ways to "save" social security. You either have to have more people working than retired, or you have to raise taxes on the people who are working in order to pay the benefits promised. There is no magic bullet to saving things. Social Security is a pyramid scheme of the highest nature, that depends essentially on population of people working that grows faster than the population of retirees. The problem is the baby boomers are starting to retire, and this won't be possible anymore. There is no "fixing" the problem no matter what the lies the pols tell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 Mark my words folks ... when enough people get enough money into investments that would have been in SS .... the market will crash and burn Interesting reading for those that still read the media By Dennis Cauchon and John Waggoner, USA TODAY The long-term economic health of the United States is threatened by $53 trillion in government debts and liabilities that start to come due in four years when baby boomers begin to retire. (Related graphic: U.S. economy threatened by aging of America) The "Greatest Generation" and its baby-boom children have promised themselves benefits unprecedented in size and scope. Many leading economists say that even the world's most prosperous economy cannot fulfill these promises without a crushing increase in taxes — and perhaps not even then. Neither President Bush nor John Kerry is addressing the issue in detail as they campaign for the White House. A USA TODAY analysis found that the nation's hidden debt — Americans' obligation today as taxpayers — is more than five times the $9.5 trillion they owe on mortgages, car loans, credit cards and other personal debt. More at link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 Interesting reading for those that still read the media More at link Alan Greenspan has been testifying about this in front of congress and anyone else who will listen for years. But I guess since pretty colors and charts tell the story easier, the USA today will do if it gets the point accross to people. There.is.no.fixing.social.security. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 There.is.no.fixing.social.security. What exactly do you mean by that? Do you mean we will just stop sending checks? We will not pay $1 to any retirees? What do you see for retirees in 2010, 2020, etc.? I believe we can provide retirement help for all citizens. I believe we can provide enought to keep someone from starving or freezing to death. Can they play golf 4 times a week, and take an Alaskan cruise? Nope, not fully funded by their SS checks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 What exactly do you mean by that? Do you mean we will just stop sending checks? We will not pay $1 to any retirees? What do you see for retirees in 2010, 2020, etc.? I believe we can provide retirement help for all citizens. I believe we can provide enought to keep someone from starving or freezing to death. Can they play golf 4 times a week, and take an Alaskan cruise? Nope, not fully funded by their SS checks. Oh lord, I shouldn't have said anything... Look at the math of the CBO, and then get back to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 Oh lord, I shouldn't have said anything... Look at the math of the CBO, and then get back to me. No, no. What I am asking is to clarify what you mean by ss cannot be saved. Will it be replaced by anything, or do you believe the government will get out of all retirement plans for senior citizens? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.