It's so absurd, you have to laugh...how could America have re-elected this guy?
Posted by MyShred at February 2, 2005 11:05 PMIs this some kind of freakish dreamstate I am living in.
"It's time to extend the same security, and choice, and ownership to young Americans. (Cheers, applause.)"
Courtesy of NPR
Ownership indeed. Isn't this just government investing? And on a broader scale, isn't this exactly what Adam Smith was arguing against with the government influence on the private sector? Conservatives you should be ashamed.
broken link. here ya go .
And if it doesn't work, you can copy and paste...
http://www.pcdf.org/corprule/betrayal.htm
Posted by chris65203 at February 2, 2005 11:54 PMWell, we all know that it is easy to get people behind you when you lie. Bush proves this over and over again. After reading the Washington Post article, I wonder if the SCLM will bring this fact to the American people? I'm not holding my breath on that one. We have to continue fighting this latest assault on the American people. We need to continue to make it clear that if our politicans (remember the ones sent to Washington to represent us) want to return to Washington, they better vote against this theft.
Posted by Judith at February 3, 2005 01:35 AMI think there's a word for this kind of investment vehicle Bush is proposing. What is it? Um, let's see. . . . Ah, yes . . .
RIP-OFF!
Commander-in-thief, indeed. I want to hear muckdog or Toby defend this crap of a plan. This isn't even right.
Posted by Brian Bell at February 3, 2005 04:30 AMListening to the President last night (and the right-wing blowhards on talk radio) got me to thinking…I know, can be dangerous. What is a possible unintended consequence of establishing the personal/private accounts?
As the system is set up now, 6.2% of your pay (up to $90,000) goes to Social Security. Likewise, your employer has to contribute that same 6.2%. (If you are self-employed, you have to contribute the entire 12.4%.)
Let's look at this. The accounts the will be set up will invest in a varaiety of mutual funds/bonds (sorta like a 401(k)). You contribute 4%. Does your employer also contribute 4% or does their 4% go into Social Security system as it is today?
The possible unintended consequence would be that employers will not offer separate 401(k) programs to their employees since, according to the right-wing talk radio guys, the new personal account system (which is 401(k)-like will make all employees millionaires by the time they retire. What reason would employers have to offer a separate 401(k) to their employees? Why would they want to? So the businesses, not the employees, will be the ones making out here since they will be able to eliminate the company contributions to employees' 401(k)s, saving millions every year.
Then it hit me…maybe this is the INTENDED consequence.
SS was originally design to be a safety net, to make sure that retiress had money to buy food and shelter...not to be the total retirement nest-egg as the right is trying to sell this plan of theirs.
Posted by the professor at February 3, 2005 05:18 AMyes, yes. Lets hear our trolls expound upon this great plan that does the opposite of what they've been cheering on. Boys, is that the sound of a sawed off limb breaking behind you??
Posted by T2 at February 3, 2005 06:03 AMI'm sorry but I didn't know this plan has passed yet. Why don't you wait until the Bill actually has this wording in it before you freak out. You've been wrong on most everything else you bitch and moan about and I'm sure this will be another one added to your list....if not I will stand corrected.
Posted by Sky is Falling!! at February 3, 2005 06:54 AMObviously Sky is Falling!! doesn't appreciate the best aspects of an open and free debate of ideas.
The best ideas are never developed in a vacuum.
Posted by There is no crisis!! at February 3, 2005 07:08 AMContinually wrong? Wow, you have a convenient loss of memory. WMD's, aluminum tubes, emminent threat?
Posted by ga6thdem at February 3, 2005 07:08 AMProfessor, surely you don't think they are sincere? Dismantling Social Security has been the wet dream of the neo conservatives since its inception. Now they have someone evil enough to carry the banner for them.
Posted by Joe at February 3, 2005 07:17 AMThis paragraph from the article seems to say it all.
If a worker sets aside $1,000 a year for 40 years, and earns 4 percent annually on investments, the account would grow to $99,800 in today's dollars, but the government would keep $78,700 -- or about 80 percent of the account. The remainder, $21,100, would be the worker's.
Mucky, do you like those returns? It's called letting you build a nest-egg for passing on to your children.
Posted by Mary at February 3, 2005 07:23 AMThe Democrats better come up with a simple talking points memo like Rove did, or else this plan will sail through Congress. One approach would be to demand that funding for privatization should come only from adding Social Security taxes to incomes above $90,000. No borrowing should be allowed, no additions to the deficit. The resulting new funds should be invested on behalf of everyone eligible for Social Security, not just those who pay the additional tax.
Posted by nohelp at February 3, 2005 07:30 AMok. this is madness. so how the fuck do we stop this?
Posted by cali_ at February 3, 2005 07:34 AMThe article Steve links to says this plan is almost identical to the one Bill Clinton proposed during his administration. (I bet you'd have liked it then.)
Indeed, the system would ultimately look something like a proposal made by President Bill Clinton, in which the government would have invested Social Security taxes in the stock market.
That idea was criticized by conservatives because the federal government could end up choosing winners and losers in the financial markets. But under the Bush system, the government is still choosing the stocks and bonds to be bought with Social Security money, said Jason Furman, a former Clinton administration economist. Individuals would get a limited choice, and the government would still keep most of the returns.
I think Bush addressed the concerns that the fund would be raided, since the amount of return equal to the return of Treasuries would be "refunded" back to the system. I think that addresses the "$2 trillion shortfall" issue folks here have been talking about.
Of course, I'm not as thrilled about the plan as I wanted to be. Still, it's far better than what we have today. It seems that Bush successfully addressed the issues Democrats had, and he's giving his base at least a little bit of what they want.
Looks like a compromise to me.
It's better than what we have today. That's the best I can say about it. There's no financial windfall to anyone. It looks like a plan to fix social security; not a plan to make everyone rich. I think he'll get enough bipartisan support on it to make it happen. Obviously, Boxer and Pelosi will be voting NO. But Democrat fiscal conservatives probably like it.
Posted by muckdog at February 3, 2005 08:18 AMMuck,
No fiscal conservative will like this plan. It spends way too much money. Republicans are screaming on CSPAN wanting to know where the money is coming from. If you believe what Bush said, we have until 2042 until we have a problem. Let's wait until we have someone who can handle money.
Another statement from the SOTU that struck me as odd when the POTUS spoke about the "personal" accounts (since we can't use the word "private" since it has negative connotations and "personal" falls right in line with the "ownership society").
"If you are a younger worker, I believe you should be able to set aside part of that money in your own retirement account, so you can build a nest egg for your own future."
Umm, they can now...it's called 401(k) and if their company doesn't offer one, they can invest in any of a wide range of mutual funds or direct invest.
"And best of all, the money in the account is yours, and the government can never take it away.
...
We will make sure a personal account can't be emptied out all at once, but rather paid out over time..."
This brings up 2 points. The money isn't yours if the government tells you how much you can have per month...it's a retirement allowance. Secondly, if as the right is so adamantly pointing out, that the the present SS system is unfair to minorities due to shorter life expectancy, how is giving them money a little at a time any different that the present system?
In order to make if "fair", minorities would have to be able to retire earlier or get greater monthly payments in order "compensate" for their shorter life expectancy. Like that solution will ever pass Congress. Can you see the constituents in the southern red states supporting the idea of a black man getting to retire earlier or getting a larger SS check than his white coworker, just because he's black. Why is no one addressing the reasons for the shorter life expectancies?
Still, it's far better than what we have today.
Yet more proof that P.T. Barnum was right. Did you read the article, muckdog? You'd have to double the returns you'd get from treasuries just to break even! You get all the risk and little reward! Woohoo! Then there are the higher administrative costs! You must be on the White House payroll, muckdog, because I see absolutely nothing about this proposal that would make a Republican happy.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at February 3, 2005 08:59 AMIt's better than what we have today. That's the best I can say about it. I think there will be enough support down the middle of the aisle to implement this. Obviously, the extreme right and left wings of their respective parties aren't happy about what Bush proposed. He proposed basically what Clinton did. Proving that both Clinton and Bush are centrists, despite the opposition's clamor.
I think those who oppose reform risk losing their election in 2006.
Anyways, there will be more analysis of the proposal in the coming weeks.
Posted by muckdog at February 3, 2005 09:35 AMMuck,
It's simple. Even if we do nothing, future retirees will have to take a 30% cut in benefits. If we enact Bush's plan, they will have to take a 45% cut in benefits while running up a huge amount of debt.
how could America have re-elected this guy?
The Democrats didn't offer a better alternative.
C'mon, Ga6, you're smarter than that. Your numbers are waaaay off. Stay away from the political commentary, and read what the financial gurus are saying...
Posted by muckdog at February 3, 2005 10:24 AMMuck,
Those numbers come from the CBO.
hehe finacial advisors? The ones whose pockets will be lined with our money? My financial advisor had me put money in TYCO. They are about the last people I'm going to listen to on this issue!
Posted by ga6thdem at February 3, 2005 10:32 AMthe financial gurus
Read - confidence men
Posted by at February 3, 2005 10:33 AMfinancial gurus
Getting Undisclosed Riches Undeserved
Posted by at February 3, 2005 12:25 PManyone noticing that muckdog, though as stupid as ever, is actually, for muck, a bit unsettled by the plan--he even admits its not what he thought it was. Perhaps the light is beginning to dawn on muck. Keep on reading, keep on thinking, muck and one day you will realize just how screwed ordinary people like you are under bushco.
aimai
Posted by aimai at February 3, 2005 01:56 PMOoops!
Office of the Press Secretary
(Great Falls, Montana)
For Immediate Release, February 3, 2005
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
Participants get 100% of Their Personal Retirement Accounts,
Both Principal and Interest
Muck,
you're using that same propoganda website to prove that the WaPO is wrong, LOL!
Bush's plan is NOT the same as the one Clinton proposed. See Brad DeLong's explanation:
"Weisman is, however, wrong, in his claim that the Bush plan looks like the Clinton administration idea to invest the Trust Fund in the stock market. Under the Clinton plan, the government insures individuals against the possibility that the assets in their private account will tank. Under the Bush plan, that risk lies on individual beneficiaries--which is a profoundly stupid place for the risk to lie, and something that will in all likelihood make the Bush plan a bad idea."
Posted by AnnKatz at February 3, 2005 04:47 PMActually, muckdog, the WaPO did a "correction" story about this, apparently based on the same propaganda you are spewing. Although, apparently you, muckdog, are too damned stupid to understand what it says, really. I can't figure out why the WaPO published a "correction" -- and the lead paragraph is pure Bushie propaganda (Rove must be calling in some favors) -- because it actually says the same damn thing as before. From the "correction" story:
. . . workers who opt to invest in the new private accounts would lose a proportionate share of their guaranteed payment from Social Security plus interest. They should be able to recoup those lost benefits through their private accounts, as long as their investments realize a return greater than the 3 percent that the money would have made if it had stayed in the traditional plan. . . .
. . . The Post mistakenly reported that the balance of a worker's personal account would be reduced by the worker's total annual contributions, plus 3 percent interest. In fact, the balance in the account would belong to the worker upon retirement, according to White House officials.
Um, okay, what changed here? NOTHING! Nothing changed.
Under this system, I would:
The "clawback" is STILL THERE!
Since I'm giving the government my money, do I really give a free-flying fuck at the end of the day whether:
And, Bush still wants to reduce the benefits in total for everybody, on top of this crap! How else will he pay for it when he states he won't raise payroll taxes? Some say the reduction could be as much as 45 percent plus switching benefits so that they are indexed to inflation instead of wage growth, which is possibly a bigger cut than the 45 percent! And, they want to take my money!!! Jesus, if the Dems can't derail this thing, then the American populace is far, far stupider than I ever realized. I mean, c'mon, people -- this is almost beyond liberal and conservative. This is the government taking your money and screwing you over, hugely so.
You're also wrong about this crap of a plan saving Social Security. Apparently, Bush has dropped that bit as his rationale for these Social Security changes. He's not claiming anymore that this will save the system. Real nice, huh? From the LA Times:
. . . In a significant shift in his rationale for the accounts, Bush dropped his claim that they would help solve Social Security's fiscal problems -- a link he sometimes made during last year's presidential campaign. Instead, he said the individual accounts were desirable because they would be "a better deal," providing workers what he said would be a higher rate of return and "greater security in retirement."
A Bush aide, briefing reporters on the condition of anonymity, was more explicit, saying that the individual accounts would do nothing to solve the system's long-term financial problems. . . .
I note with some relish, muck that until you thought it was refuted -- it wasn't, it's just how they're trying to sell you on screwing you over -- that your defense, muckdog, of this thievery was quite lukewarm, the closest I suppose you can come to admit this proposal flat-out sucks, big-time.
I tell you what, muck, since you seem to like the idea of getting screwed so much, why don't you give me 6 percent of your income every year. I'll skim some off the top for myself, of course, just like a broker's fees. Then, upon your retirement, muck, I will pay a big, mean biker dude to come fuck you up your ass every month, and we all know how much you conservatives love that kind of action. The effect will be about the same for you as this Social SUCKurity plan of Bush's.
We want Social Security! Not Social SUCKurity!
Posted by Brian Bell at February 3, 2005 05:20 PMThis press release says something different - and in a more polite tone I might add.
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Great Falls, Montana)
____________________________________________________________________________________ For Immediate Release February 3, 2005
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
Participants get 100% of Their Personal Retirement Accounts, Both Principal and Interest
Myth: Jonathan Weisman's Washington Post Story today (p A13), includes the headline that "Participants would Forfeit Part of Accounts' Profits," which is flat wrong. The article says workers who opt for personal accounts "would ultimately get to keep only the investment returns that exceed the rate of return that the money would have accrued in the traditional system." This statement, unfortunately, is also flat wrong. Both the headline and this assertion are completely inaccurate. The White House is seeking a correction from the Washington Post.
Reality: Under President Bush's plan, participants would get EVERY SINGLE PENNY OF THEIR RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS -- BOTH the PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST.
Myth: The WP story suggests that President Bush's proposed personal retirement accounts actually benefits the Federal Government more than the account holder, by providing a "claw back." A "claw back" is typically a feature of a plan where the government guarantees a certain combined benefit from the traditional system and the personal account. Under such a plan, the better your account does, the less you get from the government. Therefore, the gains in the accounts are "clawed back."
Reality: The President's plan for personal retirement accounts does not have a "claw back." Under the President's plan, you, not the government, get all the gains in your personal retirement account. The amount you receive from the government is NOT reduced if your personal account does well. The better your account does, the better off you are.
Here are the facts:
Ø President Bush's plan allows you to make a decision to put your money in a different kind of prudent investment, with the potential for receiving higher pay-outs.
Ø For example, a worker who decides against taking a personal account might, in the future, get $15,000 annually in benefits from the traditional system, reformed to be permanently sustainable.
Ø Another young worker could choose to invest in a personal retirement account. In exchange for the right to get the account, he gives up benefits from the traditional system. For example, he might give up one-third of those future government benefits, and be entitled to receive $10,000 annually from the traditional system.
Ø A personal retirement account would belong entirely to the worker. If the account earns a 3% real rate of return - the worker would be right back where he started - at $15,000 of combined benefits per year.
Ø A worker could earn a higher return through his personal account investments. The Social Security Actuary assumes he will invest in a conservative mix of stocks, corporate bonds, and government securities that would result in a 4.6% real rate of return. In this case, the account would be large enough to provide about $7,000 per year of benefits, so he would have a combined future benefit of $17,000. His combined benefit would be $2,000 per year higher than had he not chosen the account.
Ø A worker's traditional benefit would be affected by the amount of investment in a personal account because some of his payroll taxes are flowing into the account, rather than into the traditional Social Security system. His government benefit would not, however, be affected by the investment performance of the personal account, as was suggested in today's Washington Post.
Ø Note that if he puts all of his account into safe government securities, he can expect an average 3% real rate of return (the break-even rate). In addition, the worker will own all the funds in the account. Even if the worker were only to break even financially, he would be better off because of his ownership rights:
o If he were to die before retirement age, he would have an asset to pass on to his loved ones.
o If he were to divorce, his account would be marital property.
o And if future policymakers were to change government-provided benefits, his account balance would be immune from those changes.
Remember:
Ø Personal retirement accounts help make Social Security better for younger workers. Personal retirement accounts give younger workers the chance to receive a higher rate of return from sound, long-term investing of a portion of their payroll taxes than they receive under the current system.
Ø Personal retirement accounts provide ownership and control. Personal retirement accounts give younger workers the opportunity to own an asset and watch it grow over time.
Ø Personal retirement accounts would be entirely voluntary. At any time, a worker could "opt in" by making a one-time election to put a portion of his or her payroll taxes into a personal retirement account.
o Workers would have the flexibility to choose from several different low-cost, broad-based investment funds and would have the opportunity to adjust investment allocations periodically, but would not be allowed to move back and forth between personal retirement accounts and the traditional system. If, after workers choose the account, they decide they want only the benefits the current system would give them, they can leave their money invested in government bonds like those the Social Security system invests in now.
o Those workers who do not elect to create a personal retirement account would continue to draw benefits from the traditional Social Security system, reformed to be permanently sustainable.
RTW, the press release actually says things WORSE than the WaPO article, although basically the same concept.
And I'm not going to be polite about someone trying to lift my wallet from me, especially not for dumbshits who don't understand that they're being robbed and are helping the asshole Bush with the stick-up.
Yeah, all those paragraphs from the press release? Real nice, RTW. Next time why don't you just supply a link or quote the relevant passages? Anyway, all those paragraphs are nice shiney bullshit, but even they can't conceal the truth. Here's the straight dope, man, these two bullets, and it actually suggests the "clawback" is worse than reported in either of the WaPO stories:
Ø For example, a worker who decides against taking a personal account might, in the future, get $15,000 annually in benefits from the traditional system, reformed to be permanently sustainable.
Ø Another young worker could choose to invest in a personal retirement account. In exchange for the right to get the account, he gives up benefits from the traditional system. For example, he might give up one-third of those future government benefits, and be entitled to receive $10,000 annually from the traditional system.
Okay, under Bush's proposal -- inasmuch as there is one and goodness knows every time they reveal details it looks worse and worse -- if you opt for the investment account, a given percent of payroll taxes will go into the Social Security trust, and a given percent will go into the investment account, which you won't control, by the way. Now, maybe the percentage you pay into the trust is about 88 percent, and your investment is about 12 percent of your payroll taxes (informed folks are saying the administration is talking about 4 points going into the investment, and that's about what I'm describing here, very, very roughly). Now, if your investment tanks, for sake of argument let us say it goes bust, you do NOT then get 88 percent of your traditional Social Security benefit. According to both WaPO articles, each phrased differently but saying the same thing, AND according to this press release, your traditional Social Security benefits are reduced by an amount commensurate with what was placed into the investment account, NOT by an amount commensurate with what you paid into the traditional trust. The two are not the same thing. So you paid in gobs of money into the traditional trust, and if the investment account goes bust, you get jack back from the traditional SS account.
Well, that's the risk of capitalism you say? So be it.
Let us say you made out well in your investment account, maybe you end up with about $100,000 in it or more, as described in the "corrected" WaPO article. They still take out that defined amount from the tradtional account, commensurate with what you paid into the investment account. Sure, you're sitting pretty, relatively speaking, better than sticking with just traditional Social Security benefits. But guess what? You've just been fucked, hard. They didn't reduce traditional benefits according to what you paid into the traditional SS trust. You paid in 88 percent of your payroll taxes into the SS trust every year for 40 years or more. But, you're not getting 88 percent of those benefits back. You'll get back an amount less what was in your investment account. Ouch! Worse, the press release suggests it could be a reduction in benefits by about a third. Now, that's getting fucked over, hard. So, even if you do well in your investment account, which the government will control for you -- no shopping for brokers for you -- the government is taking more money from you to put into the SS trust, money you will never see. Plus, all indications are the "clawback" will be based on a defined amount plus 3 percent a year indexed to inflation, which will work against you since you're the one paying the interest. Double ouch! On top of all that, they're saying they may have to reduce everyone's benefits on top of all of this!
It doesn't matter if the government just takes the money out of your "investment account" straight up, as described in the first article, or if they take it out of traditional benefits you ought to be owed since you paid a huge sum into it. Either way, they are taking your money, flat out. You're just giving it away and they're just stealing it. That's the "clawback."
Worst of all, they are not saying what amount the "clawback" will be from the traditional benefit, and if the press release is any indication, it could work out to far, far more than just straight-up taking it out of your account as described in the original WaPO article. Nice, real nice. And then, of course, there's the interest, plus what they take back will be indexed to inflation (how the hell can they do that with a straight face when they're already charging interest?!?), and the broker's fees the government will be paying with your money on these "accounts," and I use that word loosely considering you're not going to get much choice in how it is invested. And don't worry, I'm sure wherever there is a great confluence of government and money and Wall St., there will only be the most honest of business dealings with your money that you will not control, because as we've seen time and again, money and government and Wall St. never, ever result in corruption or theft. (HAH! I can't believe I just typed that, even sarcastically!) Jesus, I cannot believe any American is getting on board with this plan, at all.
Like I said, RTW, if you like getting fucked, hell, more like gang raped, you feel free to take it. From the perspective of non-government officials who are not brokers either, it ought to be beyond conservative and liberal. How this can be viewed as anything but straight-up robbery of my and your money is beyond me.
And, they aren't even claiming anymore that this will save Social Security! Unbelievable. Yeah, let's let Bush and the government stick it to us and not save Social Security, let's let them fuck us over for no reason at all! Doh!
Look, you don't believe it, RTW, you go read that press release, again. They're saying the same thing in both WaPO articles and that press release, just describing it different ways is all, and then clouding what they are doing by talking about all the good things they are going to do, aside from take your money. What they're saying is they are going to steal your money. You may get some benefit, but they're still stealing from you. Thank you, but no thank you. I'm no sucker. Are you?
We want Social Security, not Bush's Social SUCKurity!
Posted by Brian Bell at February 4, 2005 05:42 AMfamily boy - parenting articles.
Posted by family at February 11, 2005 05:11 AM