Centerfield

Hrmmm, I've looked through all of the founding documents that I can find for this great nation... and not once do I see the Citizens "Right to Have the Government Care for Them In Retirement".

Social Security, seems to me, to be simply another example of a Large Federal Government (and its associated programs) failing to meet the needs of the citizens. I say scrap the whole damn thing and make people be responsible for their own retirement.

If you can't be bothered to plan for your own future, why should anyone do it for you? Either you have the necessary genes for self-preservation, or you die homeless and starving, its not a difficult problem.

FOlks,

I do not care what it is said by Bush regarding SS. ANYTHING he and the GOP proposes regarding privatization is BOUND to be horrible and sold based on LIES. Folks, do we REALY need me to run on some of the issues that about where Bush has made things worse rather than better and rellied on deceit, lies and disinformation to pedel out to the public?

So, my stance is that aside from means testing, rasing retirement age and other measeures OTHER than privatization, Bush's claims and a bunch of LIES and his proposals will make things worse.

There IS no "crisis" in SS in the same way there was NO crisis in Iraq. It was FABRICATED to push a pre-made decision. Actually, SS does face challeneges over the next 20-40 years but privatizing will make it worse. It will only serve to sell the public out ond grease Bush/GOP contributors and do I have to point out various examples already accomplishing this by Bush policy?

What is truely in a crisis is MEDICARE but Bush will not touch it because it will expose that his medicare prescription drug scam compounded the problem while selling out the public and benefiting his donors.

Carlos

Here's part of the problem (if, in fact, there is a problem), Brian. You mention the insurance aspect of Social Security. But insurance companies acquire carefully monitored piles of various securities (defined as instruments denoting ownership of equity or debt. These instruments were created to produce something, and the holders are paid from the proceeds of that production).

Social Security, on the other hand, takes all of its income into the Fed's General Fund, which is the font for all of its disbursals, including current SocSec payments. What SocSec gets for turning its income over to the General Fund is an IOU, a special-issue Treasury note. If I recall correctly, it pays about 2% interest. If you consider this for a moment, it will become clear that this is a poor way of saving for retirement, and it's a terrible way to fund an insurance policy. What the Gov't is doing is the equivalent of you taking your paycheck and putting all but $100, say, in your right-hand pocket. Put the $100 in your left-hand pocket. Then write yourself an IOU for the $100 and move it into your right-hand pocket and spend it.

Another part of the problem is that the original retirement age of 65 was set because it was about 6 months past the average life expectancy of Americans (back then).

Yet another part of the problem is new to me. I recently had the pleasure of three hours of arguing with a gent who claimed that he ran for Congress as a Democrat, way back when. He claims that SocSec cannot be means-tested since that would make it "welfare." FDR wanted the payments to go to everyone so that it would not be welfare, and thus would never be cancelled. I don't know if that is true, but it sounds plausible, given the times.

It won't be easy coming up with a plan that solves only the problems I've mentioned here - and I am sure that there are many others.

I remember when my Dad retired, after paying in for his entire working life. About that time, I saw an article (don't remember where) which claimed that at that time a retiree has gotten everything he paid in, with interest, in about 4 years. 21 years after his 4 years was up, Dad is still chuckling about that.

I don't know what my own preferences are. I'll wait to see what plans are floated by sponsors. At a minimum, I guess, contributions shouldn't be capped, and payments should be means-tested. But I'll be happy if my kids start life with sufficient capital so as not to have to rely on SocSec.

Wasn't the retirement age for SS was raised years ago to 70 for those born after 1956?

Everything you could ever have wanted to know aout the SS system can be found at their web site. Though you may need patience, persistence, and a government-speak translator to find it and put it in words that can be understood by anyone not a government bureaucrat.

Hell, the link's not working.

www.ssa.gov

It bears mentioning especially for those like Ratatosk who advocate a change that the burden of proof in debate is with the affirmative. Arguing from first principles is insufficient. Attacking your opponents is insufficient. If that's what you've got, the negative has still won. What you need to do is demonstrate that there is a need for change, that the cost of making the change now is less than the cost of making the change later, and that your solution does solve the problem. If the objective is to place Social Security on a sound actuarial basis, you should state that and your argument should support that conclusion. Otherwise the negative must be considered to have the better argument. And it doesn't help to defeat every counter-argument of the negative. If you don't meet your burden, you lose.

'Tosk, you're of course right that the constitution doesn't establish social security. So what? this is still a democracy, right? You can't seriously be arguing that any rules, programs, etc put in place post-constitution are invalid. That would be quite lame on your part.

Government by and for the people continues on, as imperfectly as ever. As far as scrapping SS and making people provide for their own, that's not especially efficient, is it? No one knows whether they will live to 65, 75, 85, 95, 105, so a minimum guarantee for the aged makes sense, especially for those at or below median income levels. It especially makes sense as long as we live in a democracy, a democracy in which poor old people who run out of money will nevertheless retain the right to vote. If you believe in the no free lunch dictum, you know that all costs must be counted. In a democracy, it seems unwise to expect that a majority will ever tell the poor and old they are simply SOL.

Now many are bound to counter that most or all the people would respond to no government support by planning better. Maybe, but I kind of doubt it. Seems to me like the sort of thing that would be believed by a generation brought up to think everyone could be above average.

Carlos(and others. like tosk), I took great pains to ask that this thread be focused to a specific topic. I consider comments that fail to even TRY to do this (or even acknowledge it) to be bad form. So, for all those on each righeous side (either the "Bush is going to screw us" side, or the "let the poor old people starve, I'll get mine" side, the point is this: SS reform with the addition of private investment may happen even if you are right that it's the wrong way to go. This is supposed to be a thread about what that might look like. How hard is that? If you don't buy my premise, either don't comment, or simply comment by saying "I don't buy your premise, so I'll sit this out, since I have nothing to contribute." Notice that this latter can be achieved most efficiently via simple silence.

Me, I was waiting to see what others thought before spouting--and waiting to see how many interested parties there were who would honor a simple request on the discourse framing. You've alread heard my views on the nature of the problem. I was hoping to hear some insight on approaches, should reform ever actually reach the debate floor.

BK,

Instead of trying to figure out how to make a lemonade out of lemons (God have we democrats not learned that you cannot do that with Bush/Limbaughians), you should focus on how to DISCREDIT Bush's proposal. No wonder, democrats are a bunch of pussies run over by the GOP. We All I KNOW is that to work, anything BUT what Bush is offering will have to be tried...but it it has to be Social Security PLUS, not MINUS.

Now, you keep trying to make lemons out of a lemonade as if it will make a difference. You should be focused on how to DISCREDIT Bush and the GOP approach and compromising, ONLY if neccesary.

And NO, I will NOT stop posting. You can simply REFUSE to reply. That makes it easier. My point is that DO NOT waste you time trying to "work" with Bush or make it better. Its a change of focus that will address SS, not working with Bush.
Now, you continue wasting your time trying to pretend like you can control the agenda, instead of offering a firm opposition.

SS is NOT in crisis and TPM gets the game Bush is on to now, period. That should be our mantra and shame on Harold Ford. There are other issues he can try to "differentiate" himself on aside from SS.

Nevertheless, after much meaningless banter, Harold will eventually support an SS PLUS solution without privatization, not an SS minus. Now, you all go trying to figure out the details as if it will matter. Dont you get it...? Details do NOT win elections or Kerry would have trumped Bush!

Carlos

Actually, Carlos, he can simply edit you right out if he so chooses. If you insist on being an off-topic rant-troll, he can insist on being thread sysop. It's his thread, and entirely his perogative. Though I suspect he might let you make an ass of yourself for a bit--it's so wonderfully illustrative.

Tully,

Yes it is, aint it? I am of topic? I guess....All I am saying is that whatever is going to be done, SS PLUS is the best way...not minus with privatization. You guys figure the details. They dont win elections.

All I say is that this guy needs to figure a way to be more CONFRONTATIONAL with Bush, not male deals. Make deals as a last resort with the usuall crowd...but confront Bush.

If thats an "ass", I am a proud one.

CM

Yup. It is MY thread. Carlos, I thought I asked nicely, and clearly.

I'm not going to bounce you at the current time, but I reserve the right to do so, especially in instances where I clearly and politely request a particular focus. You're certainly entitled to your views and have the right to express them. But the views you expressed are pretty clearly outside the purview of the focus I asked that we pursue.

i care about the future nature of social security for the sake of myself and other americans, especially those less fortunate than myself. That's why I think it's worthwhile to discuss what an integration of investment into the program might look like. And I think it's worthwhile to discuss it purely in that context.

I'm not a Bush fan. At all. But I am continually placed in the awkward and frustrating position of being expected to defend him due the fact that virtually any topic thread I propose devolves into an anti-Bush rant. I have a pulse, I have ears to hear, and eyes to read with. So I am quite well aware of the fact that some 48% of Americans deeply despise George Bush. And that's fine, I don't hold him blameless. I just don't want to talk about him all the time, I'm not obsessed with him.

I think it's possible that integrating investment into SS could have a positive effect, depending on how we do it. And the topic is the nature of such plans. if you have nothing to add to that, that's OK. Surely the rest of the net provides ample opportunities to rant about GWB?

I really can't see SS private accounts happening. It's just to big a hot potato for a lame duck president in a country split 50-50. Especially after the Medicare drug bill disaster. Now attacking the deficit maybe, but SS? If you were in congress or the senate would you risk your career by even letting this come to a vote?

For a president to stand on top of the ballooning deficit and announce that he will be removing money from SS, just shows that Bush will go down in history as the most clueless president since Hoover.

Yeah, OK Bob, because, after all, this is a thread about Bush, not a thread about what private accounts might look like IF they happened.

Why do I even try?

I note how interesting it is that several people have posted not to talk details, but to chime against GWB. Maybe that feels right if you lean strongly against Bush. But I hope none of you fails to notice this: if you refuse to consider the various details of possible plans for integrating investment into SS, the sum total of your contribution, should some sort of plan come to be, would be just saying no. So appreciate the delicious irony in becoming the disciples of Nancy Reagan.

And please note the opportunity lost by simply insisting on screaming "no."

Apparently it's too much of a compromise of cherished beliefs to say anything like this: "I support a plan for integrating investment into SS if it increases the overall pool of retirement resources available to all retirees, but I oppose any plan that makes things harder for the most vulnerable retirees, or that requires draconian budget cuts elsewhere to finance SS reform."

BTW, this is something I sure hope smart democrats and republicans with actual math skills start saying.

Oh come on!
Trying to direct a thread is like herding cats.
Sometimes you just need to yell, "stampede" and get out of the way.

The thread is three days old and nobody has stood up and said, "Hey, the math really works out great. Lets do this." And the reason they haven't is that it's a silly idea.

If you really want to help people with their retirement increase the amount they can put in an IRA or a 401K.

This topic kind of reminds me of theoretical physicists working on string theory. They spend their lives constructing elaborate mathematical systems that can never be applied to real world.

Bob, if you give me the funding and don't quarrel over methodology, I'll come up with a method for herding cats. :-)

I'm sticking to my guns. I'm interpreting the lack of positively directed traffic along the lines of my request as evidence of not much traffic here overall, and not much interest in or knowledge of the requested details.

To me, this suggests that there's not much interest. It doesn't say to me that the idea of examining different possible shapes for integration of investment into SS has no merit. There are some ways that I think could have a net positive effect for all collctors of benefits, and there are other approaches that run the risk of leaving some people high and dry.

It astounds me the lengths to which so many posters are going to deny that there's any chance that there's merit to exploring the options, or that there's any chance we'll need to reform SS.

I've always felt that SS was doomed to be welfare for old people (using a needs test). Anything else is just a lollipop offered up so we will take our medicine.

But I've worked for 20 years in a bureaucracy and I have learned to apply two tests before trying to change anything:
1) Is it good for my bosses' career?
2) Is it on fire right this second?

If you can't get a "yes" on one of those questions your sunk. In the end analysis you need to either kick people out of the system or raise taxes, and neither option is going to get you reelected (private accounts are just a piece of candy to lure you out of the system).

Everyone knows that the system is going to melt down someday. But if a politician can carve out a couple more pork filled terms in office before it happens, why would he risk getting involved?

If Medicare reform had been a resounding success the chances for SS reform would be better. But I talked to a lot of retired relatives over the last two holidays and I have yet to find one that received any benefits from a "drug discount card". All of them were really ticked off about the whole mess. That's not a good atmosphere to step up to the plate and say, "Now lets do SS".

As for cat herding, I think an ATV and some stun grenades would work fine. Yes, you will loose a couple every once in a while but it would be an interesting experiment.

Then again I'm not a "cat person", maybe someone would object.

BK,

It may be partialy due to a lack of traffic but I think another reason the thread isn't getting much comment is not due to a lack of interest it's due to the fact that you have to be a pretty good financial whiz and have a solid understanding of government accounting practices to discuss the issue on the level you are talking about.... and those are not skills that alot of people here seem to possess. Tully, (in other threads) at least seemed to demonstrate that he has a very sound understanding of how the system works and I, personally, would put alot of value into suggestions he might make.

For most of the rest of us, I think we are really only equiped to discuss it on a philosophical/gut level. On that level, I'm in favor of dismantling SS entirely.... failing that I would support some sort of controled private investment scheme.... but that's really not much help in terms of working out the details.

On a side note to Carlos, you keep pursuing that strategy... and tell me how well it works out for you. Meanwhile guys on my side of the aisle will keep winning elections at the national level. Not to be snarky myself.... but reflexive anti-Bush-ness isn't that great of a strategy in a nation where greater then 50% of the electorate like the guy and his stances well enough to vote for him (and other GOP candidates). Now you can write off all us Bush/GOP supporter as knuckle-dragging morons, but us knuckle-draggers also happen to vote for candidates who will determine the laws of the nation in which you live..... and, maybe it's just me, but getting in our face (i.e. "CONFRONTATIONAL") about how deluded we are ...and how our values are all wrong....doesn't sound like a terribly convincing way of getting us to agree to something closer to what you want.

Meanwhile, folks like BK and Rick can actualy get some traction with some of us conservatives, because they are actualy willing to take some of our intersts/arguements/desires into account, give them a fair hearing and even see how they might work. That traction can translate to a willingness to compromise on our part, support plans they might forward.... heck even consider changing/modifying our viewpoint.... and that translates to practical changes in the polling booth. All the attitude you seem to espouse will achieve (IMO) is a reflexive desire by a large portion of the electorate to tune you out.

Folks,

The AARP apparently has LEARNED from its disastrous attempt to make lemons out of a lemonade with Bush vis a vis medicare scam he passed. As as result, they are following EXACTLY in the footsteps I suggest regarding SS. First, CONFRONT and discredit Bush and compromise as a last resort, if neccesary. Way to go AARP! You all here should learn a little from it.

Besides, Bush could GET away with bullying opponents before because he was still popular due to 9/11. HOwever, he is MUCH more vulnerable now than in 2002 due to his high unpopularity EVEN on foreing policy. So, STABB the bum and compromise last. Lets make sure 2006 is our 1994 by haning SS, Tom Delay etc around the GOP's neck. No PUSSIES allowed and yes you can do this with a DLC "centrist" angle.

Carlos

Folks,

I am not a reflexive anti-Bush etc. I just LEARN from the GOP's asendance to power. Did the GOP gain majority power by "compromising" with CLinton and democrats? or did they create and take advantage of factors to help create a GOP tide? I say the latter.

The GOP has employed what I call the BITCH SLAP theory. Meaning, the say....we have an agenda to implement...either your with us or your an enemy and we will treat you as one. I suggest we take a page from the GOP. Now, you all sound like pussy accomodationist and appeasers. I dont mind that attitude but SECONDARY to bithc slappers.

We should BITCH slap FIRST and THEN accomodate/compromise on OUR terms.... as close as possible. Lord, knows that there are tons of factors democrats can mold into a large anti-GOP/BUsh mood but ONLY if we BITCH SLAP FIRST and then compromise.

As far as conservatives winning? Dude, there is NOTHING conservative about Bush/LImbaughians. They are not "conservatives" but CORRUPT POWER MONGERS who care about power and power alone, not principles. You should treat such movement as such and BITCH slap it first to soften potential comrpomises.

Carlos

Some thoughts about SS privitization:

SS is solvent until 2040. Yes, other areas of the budget are out of whack and the extremists want that pool of money available to cover other budget items in the future.

how can investors invest in the markets when corporations refuse to clean up their book-keeping? you have to have accurate and honest statements from companies to make investment decisions so the first step in the privitization process should be stricter accounting practices with stiff jail terms (felonies) for abusers. For example: how many companies expense options today?

Can you trust mutual funds? Spitzer has barely scratched the surface here. No jail terms here either so what's the incentive to stop fraud?

Privitization will provide a great incentive for corporate insiders to dump options. With large amounts of money coming into the market from SS accounts will raise the indexses no matter how well a company performs and insiders will use this opportunity to dump options.

Clinton did put forward another option that the SS extremists want to forget about. The government can put a certain amount of SS assets in the market itself. Corporations don't want this option because even 2% of SS money is a lot and the government would hold the voting rights to a lot of stock. They would also be in a position to wield influence over corporate accounting practices and other policies.

Individual accounts are the least safe and most extreme reform that can be made to SS.

Thanks for the chance to let me express my views

John,

Thanx for distilling this in very simple terms. NOw, what we have to do is take those terms and bitch slap the GOP on this and other stuff...and compromise last.

CM

Carlos,

before worrying about the GOP you need to keep the democrats in line. There is a crew of extremist dems itching to abolish SS. I would include the extremists at this website who have taken the most extreme position on SS and are trying to hide it behind all this centrist talk.

John,

I am aware of that. Mostly red state democrats. However, in the end I believe they will make a decision that they will be targeted REGARDLESS what they do with SS. So, they will go fighting and lose (if they do) with all guns blazing. Finally, they will make a calculation that Bush will be so unpopular by 2006 that the GOP will be running away from him.

Carlos

Carlos,

Your attitude reminds me of Japan right before Pearl Harbor. Your going for broke and you VASTLY over-estimate the effectiveness of your forces and under-estimate the enemies effectiveness for responding.

The reason why the GOP was able to employ the "bitch slap" strategy is that thier views were more closely harmonized with the majority of americans then the liberal wing of the Dem party.... and they still are. It's sad that one electoral defeat after another you guys have failed to realize that. Be prepaired to go down in flames. Tora! Tora! Tora!