Is it just me or does it seem like every time Bush is confronted with a problem his decision is to destroy it?
Iraq giving you grief? Blow it up!
People complaining about SS? Blow that sh[b][/b]it up too!
I seriously doubt there will be money for my mother in SS let alone for me when I get that age, so I don't mind privatizing SS, in fact I've already opened up a Roth IRA, if I stick to putting at least 2k a year in it I'll have 1 million by the time I retire.
What do you think? Are you for or against the privatization of SS and why?
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Bush wants to "fix" SS
Bush wants to "fix" SSFollow
Absolutely for privatization.
I like to be able to blame people for why I'm poor and blaming the gov't just gets your house renamed into a 'compound' and blown up.
While I may not get any money or satisfaction out of blaming Target for the decline of my personal portfolio, last I checked they don't blow sh[i][/i]it up too often.
I like to be able to blame people for why I'm poor and blaming the gov't just gets your house renamed into a 'compound' and blown up.
While I may not get any money or satisfaction out of blaming Target for the decline of my personal portfolio, last I checked they don't blow sh[i][/i]it up too often.
For. Simply because it's obvious that if it's government controlled I'll never see the money I put into it because it won't last that long. Honestly, if someone in the government could come up with a logical fix to it without privatizing it beyond increasing the age at which you can start drawing from it or making it so strict that you'll have to get a note from God to start drawing on it, I'd be all for it. But they seem to throw these temporary fixes at it and hope something works. Actually, I don't think they even care, as long as it makes them look like they're trying so they can get re-elected.
Some people are like slinkies, they aren't really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.
For privatization, as long as some competition is involved. The way things are going, most moderate estimates paint a very dire picture for my generation and SS (I'm currently nineteen.) Privatization and competition, hopefully, can solve that problem, at least partially.
For.
I saw a very interesting panel discussion on Hardball tonight.
The gist of it was that privitization, by itself, wouldn't accomplish the stated goal of 'saving' Social Security. In addition to privitization, changes to the way benefits are calculated, raising the age at which you can draw SS, increasing the taxation level from this year's ~$90k to possibly as much as $250k/year and/or means testing might have to be considered.
I wonder if Bush has the political cojones to push for that.
I wonder if the Republicans in Congress have the political cojones to push for that.
Tim Russert pointed out that, when the SS system was rolled out in the 1930s, there were 16 workers paying for every 1 recipient; by 2015, that ratio will be down to 2 workers for every recipient. The pay as you go system will go broke within another 25 years.
What the panel advocated was not only privitization but also options 3 and 4 that I listed above. Raising the cap on taxable wages would add trillions over the next 20 years and making sure that people who don't need SS benefits (like Bill Gates, for instance) do not receive benefits when they retire could add hundreds of billions more. It might not totally ensure solvency for the next 100 years but it would ensure that folks like the 19 year old (ah to be young again) above would collect on a promise made (unless he turns out to end up being rich of course). Russert showed a printout of a document collectively signed by both Democrats and Republicans that outlined a similar proposal and one of the panelists went on to say that Bush himself preferred this approach so maybe he does have the political cojones to bring it up.
Now if we can just get the AARP to stop lying about this...
I saw a very interesting panel discussion on Hardball tonight.
The gist of it was that privitization, by itself, wouldn't accomplish the stated goal of 'saving' Social Security. In addition to privitization, changes to the way benefits are calculated, raising the age at which you can draw SS, increasing the taxation level from this year's ~$90k to possibly as much as $250k/year and/or means testing might have to be considered.
I wonder if Bush has the political cojones to push for that.
I wonder if the Republicans in Congress have the political cojones to push for that.
Tim Russert pointed out that, when the SS system was rolled out in the 1930s, there were 16 workers paying for every 1 recipient; by 2015, that ratio will be down to 2 workers for every recipient. The pay as you go system will go broke within another 25 years.
What the panel advocated was not only privitization but also options 3 and 4 that I listed above. Raising the cap on taxable wages would add trillions over the next 20 years and making sure that people who don't need SS benefits (like Bill Gates, for instance) do not receive benefits when they retire could add hundreds of billions more. It might not totally ensure solvency for the next 100 years but it would ensure that folks like the 19 year old (ah to be young again) above would collect on a promise made (unless he turns out to end up being rich of course). Russert showed a printout of a document collectively signed by both Democrats and Republicans that outlined a similar proposal and one of the panelists went on to say that Bush himself preferred this approach so maybe he does have the political cojones to bring it up.
Now if we can just get the AARP to stop lying about this...
*MY* biggest problem with SS is the same problem I have with welfare.
I don't care so much about the lady who decides she can accept a squalid life in a rundown neighborhood living off section8 and food stamps; *I* care about paying for expensive buildings and salaries to administrate the program. That's the cost I don't want to bear. It burns my *** to see how much money is spent NOT HELPING.
I don't care so much about the lady who decides she can accept a squalid life in a rundown neighborhood living off section8 and food stamps; *I* care about paying for expensive buildings and salaries to administrate the program. That's the cost I don't want to bear. It burns my *** to see how much money is spent NOT HELPING.
Quote:
Is it just me or does it seem like every time Bush is confronted with a problem his decision is to destroy it?
Overlord AngstyCoder wrote:
Quote:
Bush wants to "fix" SS
Oh... not that SS.
I figured someone had to drop a **** reference
GODWINS.
Thread over
against.
i see all these posts "for" pritatization, and it makes me wonder how much you really know what they want to do.
SS was designed to help people who fall through the cracks in thier retirment planning. people who become disabeled, the working poor, families who have the money maker die, and leave not enough behind, people who get fired right before they reach retirement age.
SS was designed to be a safety net to help them survive so they dont end up being indigent and wards of whatever state they live in.
this plan wants ot let them keep 2/3 of their contributions to invest as they will. a TAX BREAK.
if you let the working poor keep this money, it will not be invested. it will be used for necessities for daily living, the future be damned.
when it is time for retirement, they will recieve 2/3 LESS in SS benifits because they did keep this money.
so what?
they WILL become a GREATER burden on each and every state these people live in. and as a result of this system, there will be 2/3 LESS money flowing into governemnt to deal with this problem.
there will be an unprecedented indigent problem when they get to retireement age.
the government is not putting ANY restrictions on how you invest this money. no guarentees these people actually invest it for their future.
wana know why?
because this is not a SS fix. it is a tax break under the guise of a SS fix.
if they do not put some serious restrictions on what happens to this money, 20, 30 years from now, not only will the SS system be broke, but there will be an unpresidented number of indigent people living in the U.S.
this may sound like a good idea for you individually, buy for the country, it is a disaster. a selling of the future for a tax break today.
but go ahead and vote for it. you voted for bush, might as well be in it for the whole pound. i will never need SS and i wouldnt mind some extra spending cash in my pocket, becuase that is where that 2/3 of MY contribution will be going. it is hte other 80 percent of you who will be screwed.
i see all these posts "for" pritatization, and it makes me wonder how much you really know what they want to do.
SS was designed to help people who fall through the cracks in thier retirment planning. people who become disabeled, the working poor, families who have the money maker die, and leave not enough behind, people who get fired right before they reach retirement age.
SS was designed to be a safety net to help them survive so they dont end up being indigent and wards of whatever state they live in.
this plan wants ot let them keep 2/3 of their contributions to invest as they will. a TAX BREAK.
if you let the working poor keep this money, it will not be invested. it will be used for necessities for daily living, the future be damned.
when it is time for retirement, they will recieve 2/3 LESS in SS benifits because they did keep this money.
so what?
they WILL become a GREATER burden on each and every state these people live in. and as a result of this system, there will be 2/3 LESS money flowing into governemnt to deal with this problem.
there will be an unprecedented indigent problem when they get to retireement age.
the government is not putting ANY restrictions on how you invest this money. no guarentees these people actually invest it for their future.
wana know why?
because this is not a SS fix. it is a tax break under the guise of a SS fix.
if they do not put some serious restrictions on what happens to this money, 20, 30 years from now, not only will the SS system be broke, but there will be an unpresidented number of indigent people living in the U.S.
this may sound like a good idea for you individually, buy for the country, it is a disaster. a selling of the future for a tax break today.
but go ahead and vote for it. you voted for bush, might as well be in it for the whole pound. i will never need SS and i wouldnt mind some extra spending cash in my pocket, becuase that is where that 2/3 of MY contribution will be going. it is hte other 80 percent of you who will be screwed.
Beyond all the problems already listed with privatizing SS, do you really want Bush's business cronies having access to all that money?
Seems everytime bigu business gets deregulated, there's some huge scandale in which billions upon billions of dollars get pilfered from the little peons, the top men in the business get obscenely rich from their criminal acts and then get slaps on the wrist as a result. Enron and the Savings and Loan Scandal come immediately to mind.
Seems everytime bigu business gets deregulated, there's some huge scandale in which billions upon billions of dollars get pilfered from the little peons, the top men in the business get obscenely rich from their criminal acts and then get slaps on the wrist as a result. Enron and the Savings and Loan Scandal come immediately to mind.
RognarsDwarvenGrog wrote:
For privatization, as long as some competition is involved. The way things are going, most moderate estimates paint a very dire picture for my generation and SS (I'm currently nineteen.) Privatization and competition, hopefully, can solve that problem, at least partially.
What do you mean when you say competition? I know what the word means but I'm curious as to what link you've made to it with SS. You have to compete to get SS? What would they judge on in a competition to SS?
OK...let me point out a few fallacies that have been raised:
First, shadow quotes- inaccurately- a 2/3 figure for "contributions" to these private accounts that a worker can choose to divert to a personal retirement account.
The truth is that it is 2/3 of only HIS 'contribution'. His employer will continue to 'contribute' matching monies to the general SS fund. What does that do to the math? Well, it means that, of the total 'contribution' of some 14.2% of your income going to SS, you will be able to divert some 4% to your own account- that is less than 1/3, not 2/3.
The plan I hear referred to most often caps individual accounts at somewhere around $1300/year. Since the cap for SS-taxed wages is $90,000 this year, that would mean the tax you'd pay on that income would be approximately $6400, with your employer contributing another $6400. So, out of a total tax of some $12800, you can choose to divert $1300. Not exactly 2/3s is it?
Next-
As the system stands now, if you die before you collect SS benefits, tough noogies. Your family gets nothing. With a private account, you can will that money to your survivors to help them out. Every time a black man dies at 64, a white woman that will live to be 90 gets his SS benefits. Privitization would change that.
As to the possibility of losing money: name me a 20 year period in US history where the stock market lost ground. Where the actual end DJA was lower than it was 20 years before. You can't because it's never happened. Could it happen? Sure...and the Red Sox could win the World Series....oops, bad example.
There will be restrictions on how the money has to be invested and on the people who invest it. I'd guess that there will be hardship withdrawal plans, much like there are with a typical IRA. No one is going to be just given a check and have no restrictions placed upon what they are allowed to do with the money. Besides, we already have a plan that does that and Democrats love it: it's called "Welfare".
I honestly cannot understand Libs' objections to being able to keep more of their own money. If you're rich beyond your needs, nothing is stopping you from writing a check to the IRS to give them more. But for me, I'm taxed too damn much as it is to be able to set aside part of what little extra I have at the end of the month to start a retirement account. This gives me a chance to set some cash aside for my retirement or to pass on to my family if I don't make it till then.
I thought you Libs were Pro-Choice. So give us the choice to have our SS 'contributions' go to us when we retire and need it.
First, shadow quotes- inaccurately- a 2/3 figure for "contributions" to these private accounts that a worker can choose to divert to a personal retirement account.
The truth is that it is 2/3 of only HIS 'contribution'. His employer will continue to 'contribute' matching monies to the general SS fund. What does that do to the math? Well, it means that, of the total 'contribution' of some 14.2% of your income going to SS, you will be able to divert some 4% to your own account- that is less than 1/3, not 2/3.
The plan I hear referred to most often caps individual accounts at somewhere around $1300/year. Since the cap for SS-taxed wages is $90,000 this year, that would mean the tax you'd pay on that income would be approximately $6400, with your employer contributing another $6400. So, out of a total tax of some $12800, you can choose to divert $1300. Not exactly 2/3s is it?
Next-
As the system stands now, if you die before you collect SS benefits, tough noogies. Your family gets nothing. With a private account, you can will that money to your survivors to help them out. Every time a black man dies at 64, a white woman that will live to be 90 gets his SS benefits. Privitization would change that.
As to the possibility of losing money: name me a 20 year period in US history where the stock market lost ground. Where the actual end DJA was lower than it was 20 years before. You can't because it's never happened. Could it happen? Sure...and the Red Sox could win the World Series....oops, bad example.
There will be restrictions on how the money has to be invested and on the people who invest it. I'd guess that there will be hardship withdrawal plans, much like there are with a typical IRA. No one is going to be just given a check and have no restrictions placed upon what they are allowed to do with the money. Besides, we already have a plan that does that and Democrats love it: it's called "Welfare".
I honestly cannot understand Libs' objections to being able to keep more of their own money. If you're rich beyond your needs, nothing is stopping you from writing a check to the IRS to give them more. But for me, I'm taxed too damn much as it is to be able to set aside part of what little extra I have at the end of the month to start a retirement account. This gives me a chance to set some cash aside for my retirement or to pass on to my family if I don't make it till then.
I thought you Libs were Pro-Choice. So give us the choice to have our SS 'contributions' go to us when we retire and need it.
Adiemus wrote:
As to the possibility of losing money: name me a 20 year period in US history where the stock market lost ground. Where the actual end DJA was lower than it was 20 years before. You can't because it's never happened. Could it happen? Sure...and the Red Sox could win the World Series....oops, bad example.
Opening of NY Stock Exchange: May 17, 1792
I'm sure people that had owned 20 year stocks around this time weren't too happy. Heck, people that owned 5 and 10 year stocks weren't too happy.
Tolsarian wrote:
Quote:
Oh... not that SS.
I figured someone had to drop a **** reference
I figured someone had to drop a **** reference
yeah, i figured skeet meant that heinrich himmler is going to be fired, wtf is the SS?
SS = Santa Suit. Bush thinks Red and White aren't enough anymore. It's un-patriotic. He's going to make sure Santa changes his suit to Red, White, AND Blue or he'll make the North Poll look like Iraq: Bombed out and Depleted.
Quote:
What do you mean when you say competition? I know what the word means but I'm curious as to what link you've made to it with SS. You have to compete to get SS? What would they judge on in a competition to SS?
Heh... I was referring to market competition among SS providers. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. :)
Though, come to think of it, gladiatorial battles for SS benefits doesn't sound so bad. The money from the tickets sold to watch it could help pay for SS!
Well seeing as how the only reason that SS is in the state that it currently is in is because GW raided the money set aside to fix it even though he promised repeatedly both prior and after his election in 2000 that he would never ever touch it no matter what.
Plus privatizing has been shown not to be the best option. Look at privatizing the powergrid and energy sector. Things fell apart all over the place and the govt had to come in and subsidize the sh[b][/b]it out of the private sector to keep things working which ended up costing them more.
Plus im waiting to see how the situation for low income families will be like in 50 years. People that will be unable to afford to set up SS funds for themselves.
Edited, Mon Jan 10 11:10:58 2005 by bhodisattva
Plus privatizing has been shown not to be the best option. Look at privatizing the powergrid and energy sector. Things fell apart all over the place and the govt had to come in and subsidize the sh[b][/b]it out of the private sector to keep things working which ended up costing them more.
Plus im waiting to see how the situation for low income families will be like in 50 years. People that will be unable to afford to set up SS funds for themselves.
Edited, Mon Jan 10 11:10:58 2005 by bhodisattva
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
bhodisattva Defender of Justice wrote:
Well seeing as how the only reason that SS is in the state that it currently is in is because GW raided the money set aside to fix it even though he promised repeatedly both prior and after his election in 2000 that he would never ever touch it no matter what.
Plus privatizing has been shown not to be the best option. Look at privatizing the powergrid and energy sector. Things fell apart all over the place and the govt had to come in and subsidize the sh[b][/b]it out of the private sector to keep things working which ended up costing them more.
Plus im waiting to see how the situation for low income families will be like in 50 years. People that will be unable to afford to set up SS funds for themselves.
Edited, Mon Jan 10 11:10:58 2005 by bhodisattva
Plus privatizing has been shown not to be the best option. Look at privatizing the powergrid and energy sector. Things fell apart all over the place and the govt had to come in and subsidize the sh[b][/b]it out of the private sector to keep things working which ended up costing them more.
Plus im waiting to see how the situation for low income families will be like in 50 years. People that will be unable to afford to set up SS funds for themselves.
Edited, Mon Jan 10 11:10:58 2005 by bhodisattva
They'll do the same thing they usually do, work until a very old age, then either die or live with one of their children until the child puts them in a home or they die.
Flea and I wonder what the heck my Mom is going to do when she can't work anymore. There was a day where she could beat up men, she used to be a sort of a bouncer for a bar in San Fran. I've seen her toss out big burly drunk men. But... She's getting old. At least she's stopped working on cars and starting trying for a desk job somewhere.
"fix" it like a cat gets "fixed".
I for one can't wait 'til I get old and spend all my SS on all the crack and smack that i can't afford to do today.
I for one can't wait 'til I get old and spend all my SS on all the crack and smack that i can't afford to do today.
I fully expect to die long before I retire, so I couldn't give a sh[b][/b]it.
Live fast, die young, leave everything for someone else to clean up.
Live fast, die young, leave everything for someone else to clean up.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Firmly against. Propping up the stock market isnt' my idea of good use of government. There wouldn't be a SS "crisis" if Capt. FuckingMoron, aka GWB, hadn't screwed up the surplus by giving tax breaks to his cronies. Now he wants us to prop up the stock market for when the Boomers pull their 401k's out. Fuck him in his stupid ***.
Grady
Grady
I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked, dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix, angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machin ery of night.
Skeeter wrote:
There was a day where she could beat up men, she used to be a sort of a bouncer for a bar in San Fran. I've seen her toss out big burly drunk men. But... She's getting old. At least she's stopped working on cars and starting trying for a desk job somewhere.
So that explains the gender role issues that ya have Skeet!
Rent this movie and it should clear everything up for you.
Au contraire, mon brown frere. Skeet's not the typical macho latin guy, and that's all thanks to his mom. I dig it.
Princess Atomicflea wrote:
Au contraire, mon brown frere. Skeet's not the typical macho latin guy, and that's all thanks to his mom. I dig it.
So he's more like an effeminite **** latin guy?
Hey, if that's what turns your crank...
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Of course. Cause there's only two types of latin men. Stereotype much?
Recent Visitors: 228
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (228)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Bush wants to "fix" SS
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC