Thread: Social Security

Originally Posted by Mr_Snafu

Yes, but the coming tax raises will not be because of an "ebb and flow," they will be because of a rising permanent tide of high water that won't go down in our lifetimes.



Translation: Reagan chickened out.

He folded.

He could have made major cuts in S.S. with the stroke of a pen but didn't because it would have made him unpopular!



The Social Security Trust Fund is a joke.

If a private company did what the government was doing with the SSTF, people would end up in jail.

Yes, the bonds and t-bills are supported by faith in the U.S. government as well as federal pension and SS.

It's an "IOU" from the government.

The faith is there for now, but the funds are not - and someone - us - will be paying for it.

Tell the Chinese or Warren Buffet that some of their holdings are mere IOUs. The IOU angle is propaganda nonsense put out by the privatizers--all bonds are paid back by future tax payers. Treasury Bonds are still the safest investment around. I've seen a proposal from Peter Diamond and Peter Orszag that, according to the CBO, will fix SS permanently through modest tax increases. My proposal would be to reverse Bush's irresponsible tax cut or restore the Estate tax to fund the notes.

I don't agree with you that SS should have been cut. I like SS and the helping hand it offers to the least of our country.

Originally Posted by KelJu

And most of us hopeed by this point you have would realized that it isn't your opinion that we dislike, but rather your personality that we dislike.

I didn't know personality mattered since this is a discussion forum. You can't read their emotions, their facial expressions, or even tell if they're being sarcastic or not. It's just a forum.

Originally Posted by clemson357

PATHETIC!! BANNED!!!!!

Originally Posted by BigDyl

PATHETIC!! BANNED!!!!!

PWN3D!!!!!

Originally Posted by Decker

Ronald Reagan took the sensible approach to meeting the projected ebb in worker to beneficiary shortfall and raised the payroll tax. The only problem was that unscrupulous politicians raided the trust fund

Isn't that similar to what happened in the S&L scandel?

Originally Posted by clemson357

PWN3D!!!!!

indeed...



























you were.

Originally Posted by Decker

The only people that will benefit absolutely from investing SS funds in the market are the brokers.

That's bad for America.

You know they are licking their chops at this....damn sharks.

Originally Posted by BigDyl

indeed...















you were.

PWN3D!!!

Originally Posted by BigDyl

indeed...















you were.

PWN3D!!!

Originally Posted by min0 lee

You know they are licking their chops at this....damn sharks.

They are. Privatization is a scam from top to bottom. I mean we already have privatized accounts, they are called IRAs. But the country's payroll tax stream is just too big of a prize to not go after for these hustlers.

correct me if I am wrong Decker, but your argument is that SS is a good thing that would work if politicians quite 'borrowing' money from it. Yet you argue against privitization? If SS was privitized, wouldn't that prevent politicians from raiding it? And couldn't you still set minimum and maximum risks allowable, to ensure the 'safety net' function?

Originally Posted by clemson357

correct me if I am wrong Decker, but your argument is that SS is a good thing that would work if politicians quite 'borrowing' money from it. Yet you argue against privitization? If SS was privitized, wouldn't that prevent politicians from raiding it? And couldn't you still set minimum and maximum risks allowable, to ensure the 'safety net' function?

Privatizing SS to protect the assets from being borrowed is like authorizing irresponsible tax cuts to keep politicians from spending. SS does work. B/c politicians borrow money from the trust is more of an indictment of their fiscal politics rather than the SS system.

Under Bush's plan for privatization, politicians could still raid the trust b/c only a portion of SS would be privatized. Take privatization to its logical conclusion--eliminate the insurance feature of SS where risk and reward is shared and have everyone stand alone. Philosophically that might appeal to you but I don't agree with that conclusion.

Oh yeah, the answer to the raiding problem for Al Gore was the 'lockbox.' Remember that gem.

Setting guidelines for prudent investing is interesting but not really effective. Anecdotally, I work in the retirement plan field and even with all the safeguards for prudent investing in place, people still run into some fairly substantial losses. But private retirement plans are wealth creating entities to begin with. SS is not.

^ I don't believe in privatization either.

Privatization is what the Roth 401K and Roth IRAs are for as well as non tax-deferred and non tax-exempt investments are for.

Privatization means more money for the incompentent, venal, and incompetent investment fund managers who rip people off.

Also look at the nation of Chile's privatization plan.

The seniors in the program are screwed.

Save, eat salad, and live in a tent.

You might have something left over after the cost of living and medical bills.....