With Bush you always have to keep an eye on the dog that isn't barking. This 'centerpiece of the second term' isn't over.
Posted by rlprather at June 8, 2005 09:04 PMI wonder how many in the disapprove category just don't want the $90K cap raised? Heck, that's my point of view. Just leave it alone. If the system goes bankrupt, it goes bankrupt. Who cares?
Down the road, they'll just have to make it needs based. That's better than removing the cap. I don't want to dump more money down that rat hole.
Leave it alone.
Posted by muckdog at June 8, 2005 09:10 PMSteve: The whole choir has broken out for Junior on all major issue...just reading all of the blogs on TLC today makes me joyous....the walls are starting to crack...the tabacco giveaway (they're giving stuff away for votes 18 months before mid-terms)...the withering "social insecurity" plan...the poll numbers on Iraq...Repugs are getting nervous...should be a hot stinky summer for DeLay as the ooooze from under the carpet turns into Danish cheese...never bother your adversary when he's loading the gun backwards! Hallelujah!!
Posted by Goy at June 8, 2005 09:14 PMI want my private accounts and I want my pony!!! I want my money NOW and I want it when I retire, enlarged to a humongous pile by the magic of compound returns!!! Dubya promised, and I want it ALL!!!
On a serious note, isn't the confirmation Janice Brown one more piece of evidence that the Dems got rolled on the nuclear compromise? On the other hand, so long as the Senate rules are preserved, no matter how much they have been hollowed out, it's a good thing . . .
I guess . . .
Posted by ck at June 8, 2005 11:31 PMSteve said: Democrats should now be able to say that private accounts are dead,
Whoa! It may look like it is over, but it isn't over until Bill Thomas, Bush, Hastert, Delay and Frist say it is over. Dems saying that private accounts are dead means nothing.
We should expect that Thomas will propose something that sounds negotiable, but when the conference committees finally produce a product it will look very non-negotiable and is truly awful in the details. Bush wants two things (1) a victory of some kind to add a notch in his belt of invincibility (2)a weakened and headed-for-decline Social Security program - fulfilling the Repub hatred of this program since the 1930's. Dems should prevent both of these from being claimed and won.
This is just the first couple rounds of the fight. Remember the Energy, Bankruptcy and Medicare Drug bills?
Posted by JimPortlandOR at June 8, 2005 11:53 PMNote that two paragraphs in the above story start with "More troubling..." and "More worrisome..."
Not a whole lot of accomplishment to crow about on this privatization campaign.
Posted by Matt Davis at June 9, 2005 06:00 AMI had a little epiphany the other day: I wondered why Dems are even seriously discussing the so-called strategy of these criminals (and I do mean that literarlly).
Isn't it akin to the fruitlessness of discussing the strategy of the Manson Family?
Posted by d at June 9, 2005 06:47 AMIf Bush could run for a third term, the SS scam would have been dropped by now. But he can afford to beat that dead horse until some of the GOPer's up for 06 publically reject it so they won't have to be voted out because of it. Then Bush can blame them. In the mean time, he'll keep at it..what else does he have to do? He has 6 weeks to kill before his August vacation, he might as well stay on the SS roadshow and out of Washington where some wildcat reporter might ask him a question about his failed administration and it's failed Iraq War.
Posted by T2 at June 9, 2005 06:49 AMMuck,
You want embezzlers to handle the SS system? Wow, that's rich. It isn't only the OH GOP that has been embezzling from tax payers-it's happening here in GA too.
No, Ga6, I don't want anybody to touch Social Security or the $90K cap. I know that most of us won't receive a check down the road anywys, because there isn't enough money. It'll be converted to a "needs based" system.
Everybody is already acknowledging that. Most of you here under 40 probably won't receive a dime from social security, unless you're very poor. If you have a 401(k), IRA and/or a pension plan, you will be means-tested out of any Social Security benefit.
In the meantime, I don't want that cap lifted. Because any additional dollars diverted to Social Security are gone forever. I'd rather keep those dollars myself, and invest or spend them as I see fit.
Posted by muckdog at June 9, 2005 08:31 AMInvestments? Like Tyco?
Once again, SS is NOT an investment plan. It is an insurance plan. By your reasoning, everyone should drop their insurance immediately unless they are filing claims that exceed the premiums.
What you are suggesting has been tried already in Great Brittain to much failure.
Ever heard of honoring your mother and father? well, that's called SS.
The money is there until 2042. I will be 65 in 2025. So even assuming that you are even partially right, only people who are born in 1980 or later would be affected-a very small portion of the population and one that doesn't bother to vote much.
You rabid fundamentalists are stuck too much in your little fantasy world. Even if every thing you said was true, LOL, you'd have to be a fool to let W. touch SS. Haven't you learned your lesson yet? Or are you still living proof of PT Barnum's statement that there's a sucker born everyday?
Posted by ga6thdem at June 9, 2005 10:44 AMSince the blogs are full of an article claiming the economic growth will fix the deficit then economic growth will fix social security. Remember the bush Doom and Gloom campaign is based on the assumption that the economy will go south for 40 years.
Posted by emeldir at June 9, 2005 12:55 PMga6thdem,
I don't see how you can call the original intent of the SS program insurance. Insurance from what? Not dying before age 60? It can't be insurance if you are reasonably assured of collecting the benefit. If SS were really insurance, I'd drop it immediately. I guess the system will eventually go to an insurance type system since it will go to really poor seniors. Then it will be insurance for being completely destitute I guess. It worked when the ratios of working to retired were high. Now it just can't be sustainable long term with 3 working people for every retiree. Someone is going to get hosed eventually.
emeldir,
I think the 90k cap kind of blows your theory. There will be some impact, but it won't be as much as the impact on tax revenues that have no cap.
It's retirement insurance. You can cash in your life insurance before you die why shouldn't you be able to get your retirement insurance when you retire. Tex, I'm not trying to be mean but obviously you don't understand much about insurance. People pay into SS who die before they reach 65.
Posted by ga6thdem at June 9, 2005 03:54 PMIt's also a disability insurance,and survivor's insurance...something you hope you never need to use.
Posted by at June 9, 2005 06:03 PMTex, these moonbats don't have a clue. It will most definitely be means tested away from them. And the reason isn't about projected dates, it's just the reality that the surplus will begin to diminish, and the general fund will be in crisis mode. And that's just 4 years away!
All this crap about insurance and safety nets is ridiculous. The liberals have done a great job redefining the program as a welfare program.
Let them have it. The main focus of fiscal conservatives at this point is to draw a line in the sand. DO NOT RAISE THE CAP.
Posted by muckdog at June 9, 2005 06:42 PMMuck,
You can't debate the points so you start calling names, LOL! Why on earth would you want W. to handle any fund? This is the guy who lost billions of dollars in Iraq that they have hunted for and can't find.
4 years, feh. The SS commission says 2042 and they are much better with numbers than W. is.
PT Barnum is getting his daily chuckles from your posts.
Posted by ga6thdem at June 9, 2005 06:55 PMNo, why debate the facts when you're not honest about the issues?
I'd love nothing better than for Bush to change the subject IMMEDIATELY!
DO NOT TOUCH SOCIAL SECURITY. DO NOT RAISE THE CAP. DO NOT LET THE GOVT CREATE PRIVATE ACCTS THAT ARE UNDER THEIR CONTROL.
I DO NOT WANT A GOVERNMENT SOLUTION FOR THE SOCIAL SECURITY CRISIS.
Keep your own money. Do with it what you like. Let social security run its course. It's solvency issues are well known, and it'll peter out over time to just another welfare program for the poor. There are no other options.
If you can see that, then you are indeed a moonbat.
Posted by muckdog at June 9, 2005 08:43 PMga6thdem,
I beg to differ on my understanding of insurance. I can't cash in the life insurance I'm about to get as it will be a term policy. The insurance you are talking about is whole life which is pretty much a bad deal if you get one that provides SS returns. I'd rather use the money to buy private diability insurance (which I have) and a term80 life insurance policy (which I'm about to have) and fund a conservative annuity for retirement. If SS were really an insurance program/company, it would be out of business pretty quick. It wasn't supposed to be a welfare program although it will probably evolve into that eventually.
Posted by Tex at June 10, 2005 02:54 AMTex,
Ever heard of cash surrender? You can cash out life insurance if you live to a certain age. I'm not talking about whole life. There are term policies that let you do this. You are making a case against all insurance. You know pretty much that your insurance is going to have to pay when you have a baby. Insurance companies are in pretty poor financial shape for the most part. They don't make money off insurance, they make money off the money that they invest-annuities just like ss.
Muck,
Well, at least you are finally honest. You want to end SS. So quit shilling for Bush and his program and just state straightforward that you want to end the program.
ga6thdem,
Yes, I have heard of cash surrender, but not with a true term policy. Could you forward me a link to a company that offers that for rates competative with regular term80 insurance? I have seen a product where you can convert your term to whole life, but the returns are pretty crappy and the death benefit drops so it's just better to leave it in term. I'm getting ready to buy life insurance so I am seriously interested. I would disagree with you on insurance companies doing poorly. Health insurance companies may be, but that is another matter. SS doesn't offer health insurance. Also, SS doesn't invest the money you put in. It is a "self-funding" lockbox type program. That is why it is doomed with ratios of working to retired of 3 to 1. If it did invest the money put in to it, it would probably have solved the problem. It got in a hole by giving benefits to the first round of people. Those people should have just been put on a welfare program funded through the general fund while SS money was invested for the original contributors. Private accounts aren't bad, it's just too hard to convert the system we have now to private accounts.
muck,
I disagree about the 2008 date. The surplus is there. The general fund would have had to borrow that money anyway if the SS fund wasn't raided. So we owe SS instead of Joe Bondholder. Just think of it as a no interest loan that the US got away with for awhile. Now they have to issue bonds for that debt, like they probabbly should have done to begin with. It would have been cleaner if SS just purchased marketible T-bills with that money, but it's the same principal.
Tex,
The program was changed under Reagan to annuities.
Technically, the SS fund wasn't raided. it's in annuites but it is used as an asset on the "balance sheet" to offset the deficit.
Sad thing is, if the GOP had done what Clinton had wanted, then we wouldn't even be having this discussion. We could have used the surplus to end the "accounting trick".
I don't have time today to look up the ins information. Once again, insurance companies do not make money off insurance. And it's not just health insurance companies. Ask people who work in Property & casualty about hurricane and tornado season. Or ask people who work in assigned risk insurance.
Posted by ga6thdem at June 10, 2005 08:57 AMga6thdem,
I think you're talking about the surplus that occured as a result of the reforms of the 80's. That is a pretty small percentage of the amount that comes out of my paycheck check and that number will go negative in 2008. I don't think it is in annuaties, but I haven't looked at the specifics. I'd like to see a link if you get time. Anyway, my point is, the money I pay into SS isn't in annuities. It helps pay for my grandmother's check. The surplus amount will be zero around 2040 so I definitely don't have any magic annuity money coming to me I retire in 2045. I have a guarenteed benefit cut as far as I can see it.
I know lots of people that work in the insurance business - all kinds, corporate, life, property, etc. They still sell insurance everyday and earn comissions off of selling it so I think they still make money off of it. If they didn't, they wouldn't sell policies anymore. Companies usually don't sell things that are unprofitable for very long. If it was unprofitable, they'd quit writing policies and just invest the assets they have that you claim makes all the profit for them. I'm sure the hurricanes last year hammered some property insurers, but that is the risk they take. Maybe you are confused because you saw a story about a property insurer that only had a positive net income from investment gains and had a significant hit from claims for last year. Over the long term, this isn't the case, they make money on the long term. A lot of different types of business lose money some years, but they don't close shop. Anyway, they make money. Otherwise no one would offer insurance. I'm confused as to how you can think otherwise. Why would anyone write insurance policies for anything? Insurance companies aren't big softies...
Posted by Tex at June 10, 2005 09:57 AMJust a followup, I was looking at progressive car insurance over lunch so I thought I'd take a look at their
income statement. It looks like they mainly get their revenue from preimums and they make a profit even without their income from investements.
Tex,
Progressive specializes in giving policies to people who are denied insurance by other companies therefore their premiums are generally twice to three times of other companies so I'm not surprised to find out that they would make a profit.
Also, many insurance companies no longer do just insurance. Mine does banking, investments, wholesale clubs etc.
I worked for a fortune 500 insurance company. At that time the company overall just broke even. The HMO division was making money but it was offset by the losses in the WC and P & C divisions.
Posted by ga6thdem at June 11, 2005 05:53 AM