State of the Union

[Parkbandit]

I didn't get to see the whole speech last night, but from the part I did see... I was pretty happy with it.

One question that I just don't understand.. why are the Democrats so opposed to even discussing Social Security now? Wasn't that a pretty big focus for Gore when he was running.. the whole 'We have to save Social Security and I propose a lockbox'?

How is it that 4 years later, there's nothing wrong with the system?

Personally, I wouldn't mind being able to control a portion of my retirement money.. but I fear that many Americans do not have the same fiscal responsibility and I will end up having to bail them out when they hit retirement with a shortfall in funds. I'm a fence walker right now... partially due to my own ignorace I imagine.

[Wezas]

There is something wrong with the system - it's running out of money. And Bush giving everyone a tax break doesn't help the situation. It needs to be looked at - and we need to determine how we can keep enough money so that people won't be SOL when it comes time to retire. If that involves them raising the retirement age and me working until 70 - then so be it.

As for privitization of social security - it has it's upside and downside. I just don't think the upside is worth the possible downside.

[Killer Kitten]

My thought was that instead of bringing democracy to Syria and Iran we could pump that money into Social Security. For a fraction of what we spend destroying and then rebuilding foreign countries we could care for our own people, who have worked hard all their lives and deserve to have food and shelter in their old age.

The reason SS was implemented in the first place was to guarantee retired persons some kind of income when they're no longer able to work. It was an involuntary savings plan, designed to make sure people had a little something to carry them in their golden years, no matter how crappy they were at personal financial planning. Longterm investment and retirement accounts already exist in the form of IRA's. People who like playing with their retirement cash can play with their IRA to their hearts content. People who suck at the whole financial and fund game shouldn't have to gamble their SS money on it. I'm not in favor of this plan.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Wezas
There is something wrong with the system - it's running out of money. And Bush giving everyone a tax break doesn't help the situation. It needs to be looked at - and we need to determine how we can keep enough money so that people won't be SOL when it comes time to retire. If that involves them raising the retirement age and me working until 70 - then so be it.

As for privitization of social security - it has it's upside and downside. I just don't think the upside is worth the possible downside.

How do you figure that tax relief hurts Social Security? I thought they were 2 seperate issues? Can't it be argued that the tax relief increased hiring and thus INCREASED the revenue to Social Security? I will admit that I don't know the interworkings of our tax system.. but I thought that the social security money I paid every week went to social security.. and FICA went elsewhere.

Privitized accounts for me would probably make a HUGE difference in my retirement income... but my worry is that there are too many people out there that spend for today and believe it's the government's responsibility to take care of them when they get old.

[Back]

One reason may be that the Clinton administration tucked away a heafty surplus specifically for SS. In the 2000 the Bush campaign he pledged not to touch it, then turned around and spent it BEFORE 9/11 occured.

Go to SS site and you’ll see the administration is already pushing their agenda through it. They don’t talk about all the options, only the option they want.

Seriously... do you really want to gamble your retirement on the stock market?

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash
One reason may be that the Clinton administration tucked away a heafty surplus specifically for SS. In the 2000 the Bush campaign he pledged not to touch it, then turned around and spent it BEFORE 9/11 occured.

Go to SS site and you’ll see the administration is already pushing their agenda through it. They don’t talk about all the options, only the option they want.

Seriously... do you really want to gamble your retirement on the stock market?

I can make more money by putting a portion of the money I already pay to SS into the bank and collecting their measley interest. It's not a gamble unless you make it a gamble. My 401K right now IS a gamble.. because it's almost entirely in the stock market. I also know that I have 25 years of work left so I can easily afford this "gamble".

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
I also know that I have 25 years of work left so I can easily afford this "gamble".

Let me take a break from our political discussion to say "OMG F'N OLD!"

http://www.wheelchairgetaways.com/newsletter/MiniVan-Scooter.jpg

[Parkbandit]

That's a hot ride.

[Tsa`ah]

The problem with privatization proposals is that we don't know enough. We probably won't know enough until a measure is passed.

I've already paid a huge chunk into social security. If it's privatized, what happens to my now non-existent pay in?

What happens to your taxes as a retired individual when welfare sky rockets because of privatization measures and irresponsibility?

To me this is nothing more than an effort to fuck me and everyone else out of what our government has squandered.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
The problem with privatization proposals is that we don't know enough.

To me this is nothing more than an effort to fuck me and everyone else out of what our government has squandered.

Since we don't know enough.. how again are you making that leap to the Government fucking you again? I agree that we DO need to find out more about the plan.. the problem is, the Democrats don't even want to discuss it. They are shooting this bird down before it even passes in front of them.

I don't give two shits WHAT FUCKING PARTY brings the problem to light and WHAT FUCKING PARTY solves the problem.. but not even discussing it because "Social Security is OUR issue" just screams 2nd grade to me.

I really believe that Bush thinks that there is a problem. What does he have to gain by making this his #1 domestic focus of his 2nd term besides party bickering? It's not like his friends in Haliburton are going to make money off it.

:rolleyes:

[Warriorbird]

Considering the number of people in my parent's generation (the one slightly before Parkbandit's) who've gotten themselves shafted vigorously by being unsafe with their retirement accounts... I don't like the privatization of Social Security notion.

"Tax relief" = buying off campaign contributors, while vigorously shafting everyone else

Wealthy people don't get wealthy by giving away money.

And yeah, his friends at Halliburton will make money off of the proposal. Privatization would be a huge windfall for a lot of investment groups and industry concerns, especially as places like Fox dupe yokels (core Republican consituency) into investing into them.

Big oil and big construction were tied deeply into the S+L debacle which everyone tries so hard to forget the Bushes were knee deep in.

The losses will "correct" themselves, which means some folks will get vigorously shafted.

Me, I'm all for admitting Social Security shouldn't bloody well exist until we control other issues. I just don't like the proposed "solution."

[Edited on 2-3-2005 by Warriorbird]

[4a6c1]

Full speech

Part One: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=466522

Part Two: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=466526

[Tsa`ah]

Park, we don't know the full story because no one is offering up the details.

If it's so beneficial to the people, where are the details?

This is nothing more than allowing corporate America another break. Instead of luring folks in to work for substandard wages, substandard to no health coverage, and 401K plans that they will get to keep because they fuck groups of employees over before vestment kicks in ... now they'll offer contributions to the ss firm of your choice; with the same strings and red tape they throw on the 401k. I doubt employers will be required to contribute, but given an option to contribute.

[Valthissa]

I don't think you can have a rational discussion about social security costs and how to pay for those costs without first agreeing on what our social policy should be.

We currently have a system that, by design, will begin paying out more benefits soon (estimates vary) than it takes in. The system has been over funded and we will pay benefits from this 'surplus' out until around 2050. A 'do-nothing' approach yields the following result:

Pay benefits at their current levels until around 2050 and then all benefits go to zero. This would not seem to be good social policy and it’s an unlikely scenario. (I learned that when you are faced with a problem one should always analyze the do nothing approach first, so there it is.)

Social security is fundamentally different than other government programs in that money is not appropriated annually. This was done to remove the temptation from lawmakers to use annual social security appropriations as a political maneuver. It is true that this surplus is currently in the form of ‘I.O.U’s’.

It may very well be that it is good social policy to have a program like social security that transfers wealth from the young to old at a rate that exceeds our ability to pay for it over time.

We may want a system where benefits exactly equal our ability to pay for them over time and every citizen is treated equally, regardless of their income.

We may want a system where benefits are less than the taxes generated but politicians proposing such a ‘benefit’ might have trouble getting elected.

We might agree on a system that includes means testing of benefits, increased contributions from more affluent participants, and some increase in the return on investment currently realized. It’s usually pretty easy to get people to agree that this seems to be the most reasonable social policy – the difficulty comes in agreeing on what it means to execute this policy along with the specific legislative details.

Clinton proposed USA accounts, Bush has his idea for private accounts - both parties see that increasing the return on the taxes collected reduces the impact of the divergence between the costs of the current program and the funds required to pay for it. Closing this gap means that we will either have to borrow less to keep the same benefits or reduce benefits less than otherwise required.

One of the original intentions of the ’76 reform was to tax 90% of all regular income. There should be a debate on whether the tax should be increased to the first $140,000 which would bring the SS tax in line with this intention.

if you read all that, thanks - anyone interested in a discussion on social welfare for the elderly and it's impact on fertility rates?


C/Valth really, really slow day at work

[xtc]

I didn't watch the State of the Union because I can't listen to Bush for more than 5 minutes without wanting to strangle him (however that is another discussion).

I think social security is a serious issue. In Ontario, Canada teachers receive pensions for life that are indexed to match inflation. The way they have been able to do this is that they established a corporation to invest their retirement contributions. The fund (OTPP) has been widely successful and is so big it is one of the largest pension funds in North America. It is a very powerful corporation that owns so much of certain firms; mergers can't be done without their approval. The Municipal employees of Ontario have the same thing called OMERS. This way the funds are administered as a block with professional in-house research departments and rates of return have been excellent ensuring that retired employees receive excellent pensions.

I think a similar approach could be taken by the US Government to social security with the same successful results.

[Back]

FactCheck (http://www.factcheck.org/article305.html).org has an article on the president’s argument for the proposed SS change.

First off, I don’t trust this administration at all. So its not suprising I don’t like the idea. And isn’t the republican party the one who constantly says things like the government should have less control on our lives, and, the people know more about what to do with their money?

This SS scam is going to make some people very rich. Charles Scwab for one.

[Warriorbird]

If one goes by the notion that Social Security is bankrupt in 2042 or 2052...well...

The government's been bankrupt for a long time.

I think the program should likely be phased out. I'm not thrilled with the "phasing out" options, however.

[stillhere]

<<<This way the funds are administered as a block with professional in-house research departments and rates of return have been excellent ensuring that retired employees receive excellent pensions. >>>

My father retired a few years ago after teaching in Ohio for 30 years. He was part of a similiar program. Of course his health coverage and pension were both reduced because of some poor stock market decisions on the part of the "professional in-house research departments." I would have agreed with you ten years ago, but experience tells me this 'privatization' of the social security is a dangerous idea.