Let Jimmy/Jeff do the honors. Seems like a job he is familiar with in the west wing.

Democrats should take the private accounts proposal, stick it in a paper bag, crap in the bag, put the bag on the steps of the White House, and set fire to the bag.

Those Damn Activist republican Senators...trying to interefere with The Boy King's pet project like that and not allowing the poor baby to get what he wants All the time.

Democrats should take the private accounts proposal, stick it in a paper bag, crap in the bag...

Seems redundant.

Throw them another anvil...the republican party is so out-of-step with ordinary Americans now that can't possibly staunch the coming damage of '06. Hubris got them in the mid-90s and it's getting them now. We're watching the accelerated decay of the Necrotic Wing of the republican party. I say pass the popcorn, please.

On another note: the "I am the president" declaration from Mr. Bush sums up all that's wrong with this man and this presidency. If he'd read anything during his school years, he'd have come across Louis XVI's "L'etat, c'est moi" , and he might have remembered what happened to that particular swollen head.

Without his family name, he would have been lucky to run a car dealership, and he'd be tossing them down at a local bar in Texas instead of causing incalculable damage internationally and at home.

It's disgusting.

Just as I said, he will fight until the end because of his tenacity. I hope that the lame duck will be served early.

Bush won't quit on this. I can't believe anyone expect that, hell, he's been obsessed with privatization since he was a Texas Governor. It works like this: If he's behind after nine innings, he'll play 20 in order to win. Win at all costs. That's it. period. I think the boy has some serious masculinity issues.

Does everyone here actually believe that there is not a problem with S.S.?

bigdog. President Bush has stated, on record, that privatization will not solve any SS problem. He has not presented any plan or idea how to do so. The issue is why he is so intent on doing something that a vast majority of Americans do not want, while admittedly not addressing the problem in a substantive manner. SS does have long term problems and funding needs to be addressed. Unfortunately the President is clearly more concerned with getting his way than proposing solutions. One place to start is to raise the cap on SS payments from $90,000 to say, $150,000.

Ah spring! Everywhere, blooming idiots who believe that more refineries are the answer to the energy problem, that US unemployment is 5%, tht America has the best health care system in the world, and that Bush wants to save Social Security.

T2,

The problem I see is that privatized accounts can be a very good thing for the vast majority of americans. There is going to be a huge cost in implementing it that needs to be seriously looked at. With that said though, I want to see some people come up with alternatives, not just simply say stick it up his ass, because that does nobody any good. Social security was designed to be paid for by the people that work. What good is upping the limit to 150,000 do? That is not really fair at all.

With that aside though, the people of this country need to realize that when the SSA was passed it was designed to be a supplimental retirement plan. We have too many people that don't realize this or they don't understand the word supplimental, and depend on it as their only means of survival. At least with some sort of privatized account, it will (probably) be enough for them to retire.

I said in previous post that crappy policy is crappy policy. Policy is not crappy simply based on the letter that appears behind their name. I would love to see the dems come up with a plan that refutes president bush, but I'm tired of just hearing them say NO with no possible alternatives or methods of fixing the problem.

BD,

I agree, SS's intent is supplimental, however, now it is principally relied on as retirement pay.

Here is a pretty rough solution/ answer to your question. IMHO, let the govt revert to pay as you go. Or better still, let the tax cuts, basically to the wealthy, expire. Then lower the burden on the middle class. Realistically, that's where a good chunk of the country's people fall into. After relieving the middle class tax burden, say raise the taxes on the wealthy by a couple of percentage points. After that, give the middle class a break on their SS input... lets say a hundred bucks a paycheck. Let them then do with that hundred what they want. If they choose to spend it, they spend it, if they choose to save it or put it into an IRA, more's the better. At least its giving them the option of using their money as they see fit. Isn't that the American way after all?

Just a very rough idea...

bd, I hope you turn down your SS or give it to charity when you become eligible - and live off your 401K and other investments.

o, and I hear WalMart has some good prices on Purina 1.

Big Dog:

Bush has had the stage on this issue for almost four months now. He has done numerous road shows in front of handpicked and screened crowds, and the only part of a "plan" that he has put forward so far is privatization, which even his administration admits does nothing to address the one issue that has put Social Security on the radar screen now: system solvency.

When you are the president, and want to act like an onmipotent ruler (with his usual talk about "I'm the president" or "I'm not negotiating with myself",) then there is no explanation for proposing only a "solution" that does nothing to fix the problem at hand unless you are using the problem at hand as a cover for pursuing an agenda.

Bush is the one who has said that Social Security's solvency is a high priority in his second term. When he gets around to proposing a solution that actually deals with that problem, then Democrats I'm sure will engage him. Until then, it's simply empty Bush rhetoric.

And as you may know, some of us here have been talking about supportable solutions, such as raising the taxation ceiling for witholding, and changing the benefit calculations for upper income beneficiaries, two things I might add that by themselves obliterate the entire long-term solvency problem. These are two solutions that already trump the total lack of solvency solutions that have come so far from the White House.

Hey, this is Bush's agenda. He is the one who started this campaign months and months ago. I can assure you that there are other more immediate pressing problems, but the smoke screen of SS has served to keep those issues off the front burner. Democrats don't have to do diddly squat. It's Bush's agenda. Let him come up with a plan. Until he sees fit to design a plan for social security that takes private accounts off the table, he can go Cheney himself.

bigdog --

Actually, there is NOT a problem with Social Security. The system is working just fine, thank you very much.

The projected shortfalls are based on projected GDP growth of 1.9% per year. Hell, in order to roll back the crisis date from 2042 to 2041 the Bush Whores had to reduce the projected GDP growth to only 1.6%.

Now here's the deal -- in the last 50 years, the average has more than 2% per year. For the fictional fabulous private account returns of 6% per year that the BushCo liars promise, they are relying on projected growth of more than 3% per year.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

If GDP growth is less than 2%, we are all in a world of hurt -- and personal accounts would have a 0% or a negative net return. If private accounts had been in effect since George Bush took office, what would they have returned? Zip, Nada, Nothing.

If the GDP average growth is in the 2.5% range, there is no shortfall in Social Security -- it will be funded in full in perpetuity.

In addition, Kevin Drum had a post several weeks ago, that demonstrated a 92% correlation between GDP growth and return on investment from stocks -- meaning, if growth is 2.5%, ROI from the markets will be, on average, from 2.3-2.7%. Those reality based numbers mean that the George Bush Personal Accounts are just the latest example of Grand Theft GOP. Ripping off Working Americans, in order to give Welfare to Millionaires and Billionaires.

Class Warfare -- it's what the Republicans do best.

By-the-way, LEADERSHIP IS NOT saying "this is my plan, and I will not discuss it. Compromise is out of the question, it is either my way or no way. I will not offer a clear and concise plan on SS or how we are going to pay for it."

First point, Charles Rangel is to compromise what pickles are to ice cream.

Next... The goal of private accounts is to provide a better return on investment. There is no investment in today's system; it's a pay as you go system. In order for the system to have any chance of working long term, there has to be investment and growth.

That's just the facts.

(But, that being said, I don't think the President will win the battle against the 800-lb parakeet, the AARP. So, the system will begin to suck dollars out of the general fund and take those dollars from other programs.)

That may be the "goal" muck, but it is not a guarantee. That is a fact.
If someone wants to invest in the Market to supplement retirement money, use an IRA, don't use the retirement money itself. Thats why it's called SS Insurance.

ck, you are absolutely right. Bush decided to make this an issue at this time. He wants desperately to go down in the history books as the President who destroyed the New Deal's SS. Personally, I would have preferred that health care got as much attention as he is giving a non-issue as SS, at this time. I am not immediately concerned about something that may happen 40 years from now. However, I am concerned about the fact that millions of Americans can no longer afford health care for themselves or their children.

durable goods report out today offered a generally gloomy picture for factory and business spending plans. I'm glad I don't have my SS money tied up in some durable goods stock !

Judith --

You are absolutely correct on both points -- Bush wants to destroy Social Security, and rollback all the progressive reforms of the 20th century. That's the only legacy that matters to him -- conning the rubes, for the benefit of the uber classes.

And secondly, the REAL CRISIS is Healthcare -- with Medicare and Medicaid the fiscal crisis on the Government's doorstep. The only solution will be some form of National Health Insurance, probably modeled on the French system. Right now, the VA system is the best in the USA, but the bogeyman of Socialized Medicine will have GOoPer heads exploding all over the country.

Gosh, that would be worth the price of admission, wouldn't it?

Flamethrower,

I don't pay into S.S. because of my profession, which at the time I will recieve 80% of my highest 3 paying years.

It is privatized S.S. and I love it. Oh and by the way, I do have a Roth IRA on the side because when I retire...I want to stay retired. Its called planning for the future and fiscal responsibility.

Steve,

I agree he has not issued a plan other than to say that he calls on congress to come up with solutions in order to fix the problem. Well that is very weak and upsets me, I'm glad that he has offered to listen to various opinions (whether that is lip-service or not is yet to be seen).

I would love to 6 or 7 plans that people come up with in order to provide a true retirement system. Then we will be able to debate which is best for the people that is not a supplimental system. It would be much better than simply saying nothing is wrong.

Anthony,

You have very intersting points. I love the idea of the "average american" getting 100 extra dollars to do what they want. The problem is, is that our country is pretty dumb as a whole when it comes to money. They would rather spend the extra on some dumbass thing they don't need rather than planning for the future.

The Idea of S.S. is great because it forces people to plan for retirment. The problem is the returns that people get and the fact that it is supplimental. Too many people retire thinking S.S. is going to give them all they need, only to find out it does not come close.

CK,

Look, I honestly cannot even talk logically with you if you are unwilling to admit that there is nothing wrong with SS...thank you very much.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

Partisan question: Did you believe there was nothing wrong with it when Pres. Clinton was in office? I did not!

BigDog says:

I'm glad that he has offered to listen to various opinions (whether that is lip-service or not is yet to be seen).

Bush told Rangel to take a hike. Bush himself admits private accounts do NOTHING for the solvency issue, yet he tells Rangel to go climb a tree when Rangel says to take the very piece of the plan that does NOTHING to help the solvency off the table.

So don't attempt to state that it remains to be seen. It's quite apparent when it's right in front of your nose what Bush intends NOT to do - help solve the damn long-term problem in any way.

And the Dems. do have plans on the table, such as raising the cap and adjusting the benefit calculations, but they are NOT about to show these hands until the President agrees to take the one issue off the table that does NOTHING to solve the long-term problem. So right now the only hand the Dems. are willing to show, and rightly so, is for the President to take private accounts off the table. When the President is finally willing to take off the table something that does NOTHING to address the problem at hand, and by all accounts will actually HURT us more by putting us much deeper in the red and push that doomsday date of 2018 much much closer, then the Dems. will talk.

Aside of that, what could they possibly have to talk about?

Mr. Opus,

First of all if Charlie Rangel told me the sky was blue...I would go double check, but thats night my point.

The problem I see with SS is not the money currently in it, or when is it going to run out. The problem is the Return of it. As mentioned earlier too many people think that it is a retirment program when it was intended to be a supplimental retirement program. Because of this they do nothing with their money in order to plan for a "successful retirement". I believe SS is a problem because the returns on it are not enough to sustain a retirement under any circumstance.

Now SS does provide outstanding things, such as the Unemployment Comp. and the aid to dependent children and people with disabilities. But it is a terrible retirement system because too few people understand how it works.

Maybe the simple answer is education. Maybe in H.S. rather than focusing on only academic classes, they should offer a "life class". Teach the population how SS works. Show them that it will not be enough to retire on and have a confortable life. Teach them the other options available for their money...such as mutual funds, treasury bonds, CD's, Monney Market Accounts.

Until everyone understands how it works, and what they need to expect in the future. It really does not matter what the government does, because we will still be uneducated about the system.

The left isn't being intellectually honest with regards to Social Security.

They know it's a wealth transfer scheme.

They know that there are no investments in the plan.

They know that in the next decade, money will have to be siphoned from other social programs to fund Social Security.

They know the only way to fix any pension plan is to require adequate funding AND investments that have a growth component to them.

But, they're not being honest. The system is currently adequately funded, but there are no investments; thus, there is no growth. Without growth, it will not be adequately funded for much longer.

muckdog, if investing is so great, why is the "trust fund" being siphoned off right now for other programs (like tax cuts for the wealthy?) and not invested to shore up the trust fund so it would be even bigger in the long run?

BigDog says:

First of all if Charlie Rangel told me the sky was blue...I would go double check, but thats night my point.

Wether or not you like or appreciate Rangel is irrelevant. The merit of his argument is still quite valid and has been repeated by every single Senate Democrat, as well as nearly all fiscally responsible Republicans (yes, I believe there still are many out there). I may not like the guy either, but his sentiments are shared by an overwhelming voice. So who says it is immaterial here, it's what is being said that should raise eyebrows.

As for the rest of your statements, to a certain extent I agree with you - the problem is that many people have unfortunately had to rely more on SS than they or anyone else here would probably want them to.

However, that in of itself does not point to the long-range problem of SS now, does it? Rather, that points to the problem of our corporate business world who've completely undermined sturdy retirement plans and gutted pension plans a great deal. I'd love nothing more than to have education courses on how to deal with money matters (unlikely considering Bush continues to underfund NCLB, but I digress). But we must also keep in mind that despite Bush's plan for privatization, we must still be relying on the government for the various plans offered (if it is to resemble Plan 2 of the 2001 President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security). It is by no means a free-for all choose whatever stock you want - it is still structured in 5 or so different options depending on risk offered THROUGH the government:

http://www.csss.gov/

So we're really not relying less on the government at all, should we choose to go with the President's plan. If anything, we're actually relying on it MORE, despite having a few extra options depending on risk.

And of course, we do need to discuss the risk. With the current SS plan, everyone has the same safety net. However, anyone choosing privatization, and then retiring at a time when the market is doing terrible will see their nest egg disappear. Why take such a risk when we know we all have a safety net now?

Becasue taxes are not the governments money. That would be the logical assumption.

bigdog --

I concede that there are minor actuarial problems with Social Security, based on lower-than-average projected growth rates in the GDP. But even in the worst case scenarios, minor tweaking of the either the tax rate or benefit payments for high wage earners will solve the problems.

But private accounts DO NOT solve the problem, and in no way do they offer a better rate of return than the present guaranteed benefit system. Every country or entity that has implemented privatization (Chile, Britain, and others) have seen returns substantially lower than the defined benefit system.

What part of the reality based factual analysis do you disagree with?

Mr. Opus,

Yes I understand that with the privatization the money is invested into the market by Government agencies...which I hope would be filled with economists and financial engineers that understand what the hell their doing. And yes i understand that individual people would not be able to invest into whatever stock they want. This is why I support it. You can't give people that much latitude because the VAST majority do not understand how it works.

However, you are at a minimum putting YOUR money into a growth account. If you would take a look, I think you would be supprised exactly how well mutual funds do. Their are several I know off the top of my head that have never taken a loss in any 10 year period. Also the money is Yours, and if god forbid you die...you are able to leave that money to your family. This is another huge downfall of SS. My Father died at the age of 52, never retired, my brother and I were above the age of 18 (20 and 22) and my mother worked. So absolutly nobody in my family ever saw a cent from the money my father paid into SS from the time he was 14.

The bottom line is their has to be a better method of retirement or even supplimental retirement.

bigdog,"Social security was designed to be paid for by the people that work. What good is upping the limit to 150,000 do? That is not really fair at all."

Explain what is not fair about that? And while you are doing it, explain what is fair about those who make less than 90K having to pay SS taxes on 100% of their income and those making more not? I agree with the idea of exempting the first few thousand everyone earns from SS taxes and then paying on every penny above that.

aparently if that is your reality then we are on two different planets. As state before we might as well aggree to disagree and go from their.

But, I would definantly check out the sources of your information because they go against 95% of any economists I have ever heard talk or read their writings on the subject.

Because the benefits do not increase after 90K. Hey I would say raise it to 1 million if they got their money back...which they would'nt.

Also, Donnie I forgot.

Believe it or not it would actually hurt a large proportion of Businesses. You know the Main Street businesses that have to pay 1/2 into the SS system.

Bush is completely out of touch. Here he is, WASTING time and money, pushing this plan that the public doesn't want, while ignoring true crises: health care (incl. Medicare/Medicaid/prescription drug costs), education, environment, jobs, etc., etc.

I got a huge kick out of watching the "30something" Dem reps on the floor of the House on CSPAN last night. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL) actually compared Bush to her young children, stomping their feet and throwing a fit when told no. I was rolling on the floor laughing. She also dissed the Bush family, incl. Jeb, governor of her state. I loved it.

Bigdog,

Does everyone here actually believe that there is not a problem with S.S.?

What aspect of the discussion of the solvency problems of the program don’t you understand bigdog?

With that aside though, the people of this country need to realize that when the SSA was passed it was designed to be a supplimental retirement plan. We have too many people that don't realize this or they don't understand the word supplimental, and depend on it as their only means of survival. At least with some sort of privatized account, it will (probably) be enough for them to retire.

According to what do you make that assessment? Or are you just pulling things out (as opposed to stuffing them up) your ass? I haven’t seen any models that show a significant increase in what people will actually receive from SS if they opt for private accounts.

The Idea of S.S. is great because it forces people to plan for retirment. The problem is the returns that people get and the fact that it is supplimental. Too many people retire thinking S.S. is going to give them all they need, only to find out it does not come close.

Do you know some people who retire thinking SS is going to “give them everything they need”?

Look, I honestly cannot even talk logically with you if you are unwilling to admit that there is nothing wrong with SS...thank you very much.

I think ck did admit that in his opinion there is nothing wrong with SS.

First of all if Charlie Rangel told me the sky was blue...I would go double check, but thats night my point.

So why mention it?

The problem I see with SS is not the money currently in it, or when is it going to run out. The problem is the Return of it. As mentioned earlier too many people think that it is a retirment program when it was intended to be a supplimental retirement program. Because of this they do nothing with their money in order to plan for a "successful retirement". I believe SS is a problem because the returns on it are not enough to sustain a retirement under any circumstance.

So you want to change SS from a supplemental program to a full retirement program via the alluded to higher returns of private accounts? Is that the idea?

Show them that it will not be enough to retire on and have a confortable life.

I get a statement from the SSA every so often that tells me exactly what my benefits will be. It’s pretty clear to me.

Yes I understand that with the privatization the money is invested into the market by Government agencies...which I hope would be filled with economists and financial engineers that understand what the hell their doing. And yes i understand that individual people would not be able to invest into whatever stock they want. This is why I support it. You can't give people that much latitude because the VAST majority do not understand how it works.

So why not just let the government take the funds now being paid into SS and set up such an investment mechanism under the current system? That would have the same effect of increasing returns. Correct? Isn’t that sort of what Clinton proposed? Investing the surplus.

Believe it or not it would actually hurt a large proportion of Businesses. You know the Main Street businesses that have to pay 1/2 into the SS system.

Do you have some statistics on this bigdog?

I find it hard to believe that a "large proportion" of "Main Street businesses" pay many of their employees more than $90,000 a year. Let alone $150,000!

BigDog:

Whatever Main Street ponied up in additional employer Social Security contributions could be far outweighed by what they saved if Bush had focused instead four years ago on fixing health care.

And given how much the larger parts of Main Street want to dump their pension obligations on the backs of taxpayers, you won't get much sympathy about how any change to the program will cost businesses. It is true that we need to be mindful of how any changes will affect smaller to mid-size businesses (the real "Main Street" to me), but larger employers as a whole have been dumping their obligations to this country on the backs of taxpayers for a while now while pocketing ever increasing profits, and then sending jobs overseas to increase even more that bottom line.

It is ludicrous that the GOP says the budget deficits they themselves created with their revenue-draining jobs-bereft tax cuts, which drained the treasury of long term lock-boxed surpluses now supposedly require budget and benefit cuts so that the wealthy and corporations can pocket their gains without making any sacrifice themselves the last five years.

Sorry, no sale.

1. your last point is fine, I agree with that. The problem is the percentage return that people get..or don't get. That is the problem I see with SS.

Businesses pay for 1/2 of their empoyees contribution to SS. If you up the ceiling then businesses are forced to pay more into it. If businesses are forced to pay more...people lose jobs (because their greedy right?)

SS could easily become a full retirement if the returns were higher. And yes you do recieve statements from SS, just got one last month telling my I'm 11 credits short, but you assume that all people are smart enough to understand everything in it...I assume their not.

I told you in a previous post, that I will recieve 80% of my three highest years when I retire. This is because we have our own system of retirement and do not pay into SS. Are you going to get anything like that from SS? hows that for a model?

Read the Newspaper and the letters to the editor...they are filled with people complaining that SS does not cover their expenses.

lastly, why ask, why ask? Seems a little redundant...I was making a smart-ass remark. Or am I not allowed to do that because I have the minority opinion in here.

The bottom line in my opinion is simple...1 people DESERVE a greater return on THEIR MONEY. 2. Educate the population on the system, and what else they are going to need to do in order to ensure a good retirment.

Steve,

Look all i'm pointing out is that the current system is lacking because the returns on it suck. There is a better way to do this, but governemnt is too busy bickering over dumb shit.

The rest of post...some other time. My hands are getting tired of punching keys.

Businesses pay for 1/2 of their empoyees contribution to SS. If you up the ceiling then businesses are forced to pay more into it. If businesses are forced to pay more...people lose jobs (because their greedy right?)

I know how SS withholding works. Are we talking about businesses or "Main Street businesses"? It's your colorful language that alludes to mom and pop having to lay off the stock clerk at the shop from his $100,000 a year job because they can't afford to pay his extra withholding on the last $10,000 of his income! This is the same bullshit rhetoric that the republicans use that you complain about and here you are doing it. The extra witholding on a $150,000 income would be $3,600. How many main street businesses do you know that have any number of employees earning $150,000 a year?

I told you in a previous post, that I will recieve 80% of my three highest years when I retire. This is because we have our own system of retirement and do not pay into SS. Are you going to get anything like that from SS? hows that for a model?

Ah yes! Private pensions. My father has one of those too. A lot of people used to get those until businesses decided that they were to expensive and left their 'dumb' employees to fend for themselves. Hence so many people relying on SS. I receive a share of the company profits every year that gets deposited into a retirement account for me every year. A pretty sweet deal I must say. I also have IRA's. As does my wife.

How's that for a model for SS? You tell me. You think the deal your getting could be given to every worker in the country without causing people to lose their jobs?

lastly, why ask, why ask? Seems a little redundant...I was making a smart-ass remark.

So you were just casting aspersions on Charlie Rangel for fun? Or do you have a real beef with him? Again. You complain about the nature of politics but then you partake of the same muckracking that you claim to despise.

Or am I not allowed to do that because I have the minority opinion in here

Would that be you using the "oppressed minority" card? Tsk. Tsk.

bd,

Of course, I am well aware of the fact that businesses pay in 1/2 of the SS taxes. But while I was out in the garden, anon made part of my point, in that most employees in most business don't get those kinds of salaries. And while in the garden, I was thinking, if corporations had to think about the 1/2 SS they would have to pay CEO's, would that rein in their salaries? Ceo's in general have raked it in at incredible rates (ok, I'm too lazy to go look up the article that reported the average salary increases of CEO's over the same past few years that the vast majority have either lost their jobs or had their salaries frozen). And I know, if what I'm talking about were to come about, corporations would find non-salary related ways to reward their top dogs.

And I know this is reaching back a bit in the dicussion, but bigdog said, "My Father died at the age of 52, never retired, my brother and I were above the age of 18 (20 and 22) and my mother worked. So absolutly nobody in my family ever saw a cent from the money my father paid into SS from the time he was 14." I am sympathetic with your loss, having lost my own dad. He died in harness at age 60 and no, none of us got any of his SS, being over the age. But that one experience didn't color my perception of the system. You see, my grandfater and grandmother were farmers and never paid into the system. However, they both lived for many years (both 10+) on the SS checks they received. Think about it, do you know anyone who never paid in but received a benefit nonetheless? My point is, it's not about the individual, it's about all of us. Call me a socialist if you want. You'd actually be off the mark.

My point is, it's not about the individual, it's about all of us.

That's it in a nutshell.

It wasn't supposed to be about the individual being able to get a better return than the other guy. It was supposed to be about lifting everyone up a little bit.

Exactly anon. That's why all the arguments about raising the salary ceiling and benefit adjustments just make no sense to me. If you earn enough to supplement your retirement, fine. But why should you demand that you get your golf course fees covered at the expense of someone who has not been able to earn enough or maybe just hasn't worked for the right employer to wrap up a tidy retirement package?

My god bigdog, did no one in your family have a story to tell about how bad it was in the Depression? Perhaps all of yours had good investments to protect them back then.

btw bigdog -- just appealing to your "personal history" approach to politics fyi.

If you earn enough to supplement your retirement, fine. But why should you demand that you get your golf course fees covered at the expense of someone who has not been able to earn enough or maybe just hasn't worked for the right employer to wrap up a tidy retirement package?

You lost me a bit there. Wage caps and benefit adjustments would only be necessary to maintain current and future obligations. Not to increase benefits beyond whats already calculated. Someone who earns over $90,000 a year will not be impoverished if the cap is raised. They will be doing their part to aid their fellow citizens. As muckdog likes to point out it's a form of wealth transfer from the more well off to those who would rely on SS to make ends meet.

anon, we are on the same page, I was just not being as clear as I could have been. I was trying to address bigdog's issue of how it would be unfair to raise the ceiling on taxable income and his response that those higher wage earners would not get all their contributions back. I was trying to nail down my original point that SS is not for the rich, i.e. those who can play golf in retirement, but for those who work at minimum wage all their lives (and btw don't want to play golf, but probably would love not to have to ask their children for help at retirement).

no worries -- I am still as left of socialist as ever -- just didn't make my point well.

take care
:)

Donnie,

My point is it was HIS MONEY, he should have always had the option of what to do with HIS MONEY. This is the problem...they take from us, yet some never recieve it. At least with some sort of control SS, the people have the CHOICE of what to do with their money.

Also, I'm a history teacher so I know exactly what it was like during the depression from my studies. However, my grandfather and his father created a lumber business after they lost their jobs during the depression. I guess I really don't care what it was like in 1929, I believe that all americans should be able to invest their money where they want. I believe the government needs to help them...by forcing them to invest in one of several plans. But none the less they shoud be able to get a greater return than they currently get...and the money that is paid into should be theirs to give to whomever they want if they die before benefits can be given to them.

Anon,

The government could easily start a pension (retirement system) very similar to nearly every states teachers retirement system...it guarentees higher returns. Also in the STRS, you are forced to put in X amount out of every paycheck...no exceptions. Why can't SS work this way? Its basically what Clinton wanted to do and I was all for that plan. Also the money paid into STRS only comes from the teacher...nobody else?

Yes I have a real beef with charlie...he is awful for the african american community in my opinion...but thats not important now.

Minority Card - You can seriously do better than that

"Main Stree" We've had this discussion before, what you and I consider businesses or corporations very greatly...so i'll let sleeping dogs lie.

Donnie,
Lastly, your right SS is not for the Rich...It is for Every American, Rich and Poor...Black and White.

Anon Says;

It wasn't supposed to be about the individual being able to get a better return than the other guy. It was supposed to be about lifting everyone up a little bit.

As Bob Dylan says in tangled up in blue; "we always did believe the very same thing we just saw it from a different point of view"

You are correct it is to lift everyone up "a little bit"...hence the terminology supplimental. The overall problem as stated much earlier is lack of education on the system, and people depending on it as their sole retirement. Unfortunantly ignorace is bliss to way to many people in the country. Making the program solvent is great but it still not going to help the people that work the low paying jobs. If the money is invested into a growth account...It will allow the lower paid workers to retire confortably, this is what I want to see

Yes I have a real beef with charlie...he is awful for the african american community in my opinion...but thats not important now.

Certainly you are entitled to your opinion.

Minority Card - You can seriously do better than that

If the shoe fits....

"Main Stree" We've had this discussion before, what you and I consider businesses or corporations very greatly...so i'll let sleeping dogs lie.

Status quo? I thought that's what you were trying to do away with?

Why not just admit you play the same rhetorical games that the politicians you complain about play.

What Rhetorical Games?

If the money is invested into a growth account...It will allow the lower paid workers to retire confortably, this is what I want to see

Please show me somewhere that it is projected that the benefits paid out at retirement age to someone earning a low income all their life will be substantially higher under the private account system that it will have a demonstrable effect on the quality of their lifestyle.

What Rhetorical Games?

'Main Street businesses'.

anon,

the stock market is funny, you can make a lot on your investments even if you only put a little in. If the money is taken out of their checks and put into a growth fund (gov't controlled)...it will grow...hence more money. That is a hell of a lot better than it sitting in a place gaining nothing. I'm not saying they are going to have a condo up north and a condo down south...but their returns will be a hell of a lot better than their ss check, as well as have the ability to retire before the age of 68 or whatever age people finally get their ss these days.

I honestly have to say that I'm getting tired of arguing the same thing with you in every thread. You obviously don't think it needs fixed...I honestly think it does need fixed. You think all businesses and corportations are evil, I don't. You believe the wealthy should pay for the poor, I don't. Its actually quite redundant and boring for me. But it was fun for a while.

You obviously don't think it needs fixed...I honestly think it does need fixed.

Wrong. I'm just not convinced that private accounts are going to be as good for everyone as you do.

You think all businesses and corportations are evil, I don't.

Where you got that idea I have no clue. I called you on your unsupported claim that raising the wage cap is going to cause 'Main Street businesses' to dump employees. I said nothing at all about the nature of corporations. You must be high.

You believe the wealthy should pay for the poor, I don't.

A bit of a distortion. I believe the wealthy have an obligation in this country to contribute at a greater rate to the common good than those who are less fortunate than they because they benefit more from the maintainance of a stable and healthy society.

Its actually quite redundant and boring for me. But it was fun for a while.

It's redundant to hear you make claim after claim without backing them up with any facts.

anon errrr Marty,

what facts do you want, you have access to the internet start looking at other things than just the nation, or mother jones. Check out the Economists...that would be a good place to start on how much more money a mutual fund will make compared to SS.

anon errrr Marty,

I hope your judgement about finance is better than your ability to guess at people's identities.

...start looking at other things than just the nation, or mother jones.

Never have been to either of those places.

Check out the Economists...that would be a good place to start on how much more money a mutual fund will make compared to SS.

For everyone? It will make more money for everyone? The way you talk you'd think people have had their heads up their asses for years otherwise they could all be millionaires from the stockmarket. It's easy as that. You give the people with the knowledge your money and they make you rich. Every time.

you wanted stats marty, I gave you a place to go look. If that is not good enough for you then their is nothing else I can do. If you're going to act like that a refuse to even look at other options, then you are really the typical person that I can't stand to talk to...becasue it always results back to the same thing; I'm right your not, so now I'll result to childish games.

I said three posts ago, that it is useless to talk about this anymore because you're not going to change your mind...or for that matter even open it up. I know i'm not going to change my mind, and if you read previous post I have often opened mine and agreed on several things that people said about SS.

So I'm done, you can sit here and rip on me and feel good about yourself...I'll be the bigger person and walk away

Once again I'm not Marty but if you must be right than who am I to argue.

So I'm done, you can sit here and rip on me and feel good about yourself...I'll be the bigger person and walk away

Rip on you? Sorry that's not my thing. If you think I'm ripping on you you are mistaken. Just trying to understand your unflinching belief in the wonders of the stock market. Your comments basically suggest a complete change of the SS system to something it has historically not been and was not intended to be, an investment vehicle. You have not once acknowledged that there is risk inherent in the stock market. Broad multi-decade trends of positive returns do not gaurantee that individuals will realize the average market return on their money or even a positive return. Some people will lose money. There is not a plan out there right now that can gaurantee that people will get greater benefits under private accounts, as part of the larger system, than they are gauranteed right now. None.

Go ahead and be the big man bigdog. Your a bit thin skinned for someone with such a name.

Hey anon,

I know I said I would not respond, but I have this one last thing.

You say I'm thin skinned for the name...thats fine, but at least I'm a big enough man to give the same name everytime, and not hide an anon label the rest of the time. But hey, no big deal i'm sure i'll see you around the site soon enough.

You say I'm thin skinned for the name...thats fine, but at least I'm a big enough man to give the same name everytime, and not hide an anon label the rest of the time.

Oh! Yeah. I'm hiding behind "anon" but your not hiding behind "bigdog". LOL! That makes you a bigger man for sure. It constantly amazes me the crippling effect that testosterone has an the male ability to think rationally. It always comes down to "being the bigger man" or "being man enough". Man enough to talk tough but not man enough to grasp the concept of sacrificing a wee bit for your neighbor.

You don't still think I've been posting as Marty do you? I have not posted a comment in a single exchanged with you under any other identifying name than (blank)or "anon". Which interestingly enough I began using at the urging of none other than Marty.

But hey, no big deal i'm sure i'll see you around the site soon enough.

Is that...like...supposed to be some kind of cyber blog intimidation?

Good day.

wow, wish I could have stayed up and participated in that exchange . . . it was fun reading this afternoon, though. I guess we'll see what the boy king has to say in just a bit.