I hope to God the Republicans launch another SS offensive. Personally I would give up half of my current SS tax if I could invest the other half myself. I would not ask the government for another dime for as long as I live. Why is letting you plan for your retirement a bad thing?
Posted by Cyber Sarge at August 25, 2005 03:34 PMWow, that's a hell of a plan, Steve. But I think it's pretty much unnecessary.
C'mon, I've got almost as low an opinion of the American attention span as anybody. But even I don't think America has already forgotten the 3 month concerted effort to destroy SS mere months ago. Dems didn't screw it up then, and they're even less likely to screw it up now, since the GOP has spent any remaining stores of political capital.
What's more, imagine if DeLay actually managed to pull it off: All of a sudden, the corruption theme and the Gop v. Social Security come perfectly together. Dems win huge under those conditions, and pass some laws to undo the damage.
I can't believe they're this stubborn. I understood it back when the stubbornness, while risky, had a significant upside. Here, they seem to be fighting just to fight.
Posted by dj moonbat at August 25, 2005 03:42 PMI agree with Steve. I'm not sure why Democrats are so gullible time after time. BushCo and the GOP plan to destroy SS while they are in power. They have to do it before 2006. The last thing we should allow to happen is for any SS legislation to happen in the next four years. AARP has now come out with the line that it's time to 'fix' SS. If the GOP can get enough cover and Democrats don't stay on top of this BushCo WILL pass a destructive SS bill.
Posted by Gail Davis at August 25, 2005 04:04 PMAs bush polls numbers are getting lower and lower we will see all the neocons running for election in 2006 distancing themselves from their leaders. Rick Santorum is one of them. (Santorum Makes the Baby Jesus Cry, at crooks and liars) Let’s not forget that they have votes for everything bush wanted. It is time to take back the congress.
Posted by not stupid at August 25, 2005 04:06 PMYou never heard Bush say "ok, I presented my plan and you citizens rejected it". NO, No, no. What Bush said was that this was the first part of his "education" of the public on "what we need to do" for SS. I cannot believe there are any left leaning or actual Dems who thought they had won on SS and Bush had lost. No. It doesn't work that way. Bush has more than three years left and he'll try SS every one. If the Dems win Senate or House in 06 he'll try then too, and could win with a new bunch of Scaredy Cat Dems in the gov't.. What is missing in the Dem party is a leader or at least someone who is willing to stand UP. Where are you , Howard Dean? Is it you or nobody?
Posted by T2 at August 25, 2005 04:56 PMAs long as Bush is in the White House he'll have shills like cyber sarge willing to muddy the concept of a safety net with the idea of retirement planning. One more time "THE STOCK MARKET IS FOR MONEY YOU CAN AFFORD TO LOSE!
Posted by rlprather (rlp) at August 25, 2005 05:02 PMNice to know that I'm not alone on this one, Steve, Gail and T2.
If BushCo can't make a sale directly, they use whatever means necessary to find an end around to get them what they want. They have done this time and again; and yet, for some odd reason Democrats fall for it everytime, are always shocked that Bush didn't accept a "No."
But when? If they try to shove it through now, it will give voters enough time to discover what they've done and toss them out in '06. If they wait, it will give Democrats time to mount a counterattack -- sort of like they did on the nuclear option which they would have won if they hadn't blinked and settled for a draw. They'll blink again. That should be enough to let BushCo assess the situation right before the midterms. If the GOP looks to be going down bigtime, they'll shove it through before then. If they are in fairly good shape, they'll do it after the elections.
Posted by Marie at August 25, 2005 05:24 PMPersonally I would give up half of my current SS tax... Posted by Cyber Sarge
Why not give it all up and move to Iraq? I am sure that a man of your ability would quickly succeed beyond his wildest dreams there.
Hey sarge, if you're going to throw your money away, throw it at me. I'll give you a toaster, and a pat on the head.
T2, Dean's out there talking to people, organizing local efforts, getting a Dem opponent for every seat. He'll be ready next year.
Posted by iamcoyote at August 25, 2005 06:10 PMReid just had a stroke and Pelosi isn't taken seriously. Dems need to have some thunder and start howling at the press. Will someone please have the huevos to make a move on the Elephants!
Sarge, I want my money also, all of it, upfront, now, before Wall Street cronies get a hold of it! Or, I'm afraid, it will be Enron all over again!
Besides aren't Delay and Rove supposed to be in jail already?
Cyber Sarge says: "Why is letting you plan for your retirement a bad thing?"
It ain't a bad thing for those who know what they are doing in the markets, but since only about 20% of us know what we are doing, privatization is gonna hurt at whole lot of other folks. And, whether you understand this or not, the fact is that we are all in this together. This country is only as strong as our weakest cohorts.
The very best thing for the Dems is for the preznit to ram privatization down our throats. Any marketing agency in the world would kill for such an issue to run an election on. Please, please make it happen. Even if Cindy Sheehan is the Dem contender, we will win (ie. because the pugs will LOSE).
Posted by Dilbert at August 25, 2005 07:34 PMThe answer to ever rising world oil prices is a recession. At some price point, demand will be reduced and Wall Street will suffer. Equities are quite over valued by historical standards and the market it ripe for a significant move downward.
What better way to keep the investor class pacified than by diverting tax money into the market. The market goes up and at some point, those in the know get out, leaving the American taxpayor holding the bag....and it's empty.
Posted by brisa at August 25, 2005 07:39 PMThe reality is that SS does need to be reformed. Not destroyed nor even remade, but updated. I can buy an insurance policy and if I die before I collect my lifelong benefits, then my heir(s) receive a return on my policy.
Unfortunately anyone who dies at or before age 60 gets no return on their SS investment... private accounts shouldn't be created to allow 'investing' they should be created to designate a pocket of funds which are paid to the estate of someone who has not collected their Social Security at the time of death. The small pocket of funds should be the first ones withdrawn upon retirement but will guarantee a return to all participants for the money paid into the system.
I'm not going to argue this or respond. There are too many personal issues associated with my opinion so I'm not going to be open to changing my opinion and am not willing to discuss personal issues to change someone else's, so if you choose to come on here and flame me, enjoy yourself. My opinions are in the second paragraph try to target my opinions with yours, but I've forwarned you I won't be taking questions. However, I think it appropriate to register an alternate opinion - you are welcome to disagree.
Posted by OutsideTheEchoChamber at August 25, 2005 07:39 PMOK say your not to smart vis-a-vis the stock market. Ok you take your half and just put it in T bill and U.S. savings bonds. You would still come out WAY ahead of what we 40 something folks are going to see when we hit age 65 and start collecting. Ok what's the democrats plan? Oh that right tax us further and have the next generation pay for it.
Posted by Cyber Sarge at August 25, 2005 09:01 PMI think the new plan will exclude stocks. Everything will remain the same, except that individuals will own a portion of their Social Security accounts. (Which will be invested in US Treasuries only.)
It's better than what we have today. I'd prefer if they used treasury inflation protected securities (TIPS) instead.
Posted by muckdog at August 25, 2005 09:10 PMEvidently AARP thinks it is still alive. I received petitions today to be signed and sent to Congress members.
Posted by Judith at August 25, 2005 10:08 PMCyber Sarge:
Can you point me to a study that shows how you investing in T-bills and savings bonds helps you come out "way ahead" of forty-somethings (like you, I am one also) who left their money in the current system? And how would we pay the transition costs of letting all those forty-somethings like you and me take our half and move it out of the current system and into T-bills and savings bonds?
Posted by Steve Soto at August 25, 2005 10:19 PMGood Lord, there are studies all over the place. You can't help but cyber-trip over them. It's not hard to outperform an under 2% rate of return.
Posted by muckdog at August 26, 2005 08:19 AMOK say your not to smart vis-a-vis the stock market. Ok you take your half and just put it in T bill and U.S. savings bonds. You would still come out WAY ahead of what we 40 something folks are going to see when we hit age 65 and start collecting. Ok what's the democrats plan? Oh that right tax us further and have the next generation pay for it.
Posted by Cyber Sarge at August 25, 2005 09:01 PM
So you want to take food out of old people's mouths today to pay for your pension when you retire? Thanks for the lesson in conservative compassion.
Maybe if the continual surpluses coming out of social security were held in a separate place (let's just call it a lockbox for the purposes of this discussion), and they were allowed to generate some sort of a return - like Greenspan and Ray-Gun told us they would be back when they tripled the ss rates - we wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem.
Oh, that's right - Cheney needs to buy a new underground bunker and Putsch is running short of pretzels. Let's give them a tax cut instead!
I think the new plan will exclude stocks. Everything will remain the same, except that individuals will own a portion of their Social Security accounts. (Which will be invested in US Treasuries only.)
They will own it at the expense of others who they are taking it away from right now. Then again, those old people can start working again if they don't have enough to retire on, right? They're so desirable in the workforce, after all, and they should have no problem getting a job in this booming economy, right?
Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?
It's better than what we have today. I'd prefer if they used treasury inflation protected securities (TIPS) instead.
Posted by muckdog at August 25, 2005 09:10 PM
Any factually based logic to back up these wild allegations? Would they get to but a better brand of Ramen noodles to eat, or is this more talking-out-of-my-ass-Publican-faith-based rationality here?
Good Lord, there are studies all over the place. You can't help but cyber-trip over them. It's not hard to outperform an under 2% rate of return.
Posted by muckdog at August 26, 2005 08:19 AM
Studies by whom? World Nut Daily? The American Enterprising Conservative Shills?
It might not be hard to outperform a 2% return, but my 201K doesn't seem to be able to do it. Of course I'm not still pouring money into that sinkhole, so maybe that's why it isn't growing at that awesome 2% rate. If I put 10% more money in, I can get a 5% return (after paying for all of the corporate malfeasance, executive golden parachutes, and SEC fines out of our mutual fund contributions) on that money! Financial genius!
Posted by (: Tom :) at August 26, 2005 10:28 AMThis is really scary. Please tell Josh M. to revive his war on Congress over Social Security.
Posted by Katherine at August 26, 2005 10:53 AMI'd prefer if they used treasury inflation protected securities (TIPS) instead.
Well, if "ownership" is limited to TIPS then the plan is going to lose a major backer, Wall Street. Another Bush plan D.O.A.
Stop me if we've said this before: Social Security is not an investment program; discussions and comparisions about rates of return are irrelevant. Social Security is a social insurance/senior safety net program.
If you want to augment this social insurance with your own investments, you are already free to do so; nothing is stopping you.
If you don't like having to pay into Social Security, then at least have the guts to advocate doing away with Social Security without resorting to the back door attempt to kill it through phony arguments about rates of return. At least be accountable for what you feel about this social safety net and supporting not only yourself but others as well, instead of gutlessly complaining about rates of return.
Posted by Steve Soto at August 26, 2005 11:57 AMI'd like to comment on one particular point -- Social Security is social insurance not personal insurance. It's not like going out and purchasing a policy and paying the premiums -- you can't cash it out early. There are lots of people who receive funds from SS who never pay in or only pay in for a short time. Of course there are those who pay in for all of their working lives and never receive funds. I know there is fraud and dishonest people beat the system, but with inforcement, just like with the IRS, that can be stopped or at least reduced. The system is not an individual system but a system for all of us, and especially for those of us who need it the most.
Posted by dorita at August 26, 2005 02:44 PMI see Social Security like a metaphor for the UNITED States....and those who want to opt out are like those in the civil war who wanted to secede. They don't want to be part of a community that cares for each other, its all about ME ME ME.
Posted by Sharon at August 26, 2005 07:45 PMand ME isn't Middle East in that context, that's a different dilemma
Posted by Sharon at August 26, 2005 07:48 PMGood service
Posted by FRANK JOHNSON at September 20, 2005 01:23 AM