boring post about social security

[chucK]

"If Mr. Bush were to say in plain English that his plan to solve our fiscal problems is to borrow trillions, put the money into stocks and hope for the best, everyone would denounce that plan as the height of irresponsibility. The fact that this plan has an elaborate disguise, one that would add considerably to its costs, makes it worse."

 

link

[KaskadskyjKozak]

"If Mr. Bush were to say in plain English that his plan to solve our fiscal problems is to borrow trillions, put the money into stocks and hope for the best, everyone would denounce that plan as the height of irresponsibility. The fact that this plan has an elaborate disguise, one that would add considerably to its costs, makes it worse."

 

link

 

The biggest problem with the article is that it is written by a left-wing radical extremist.

[cj001f]

The biggest problem with the article is that it is written by a left-wing radical extremist.

Anyone to the left of you is a radical extremist

[chucK]

So are you saying that the first sentence of my quote is an innaccurate description of Bush's plan?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

The biggest problem with the article is that it is written by a left-wing radical extremist.

Anyone to the left of you is a radical extremist

 

Well, I wouldn't call YOU a radical extremist and you are to the left of me on fiscal matters.

 

Krugman OTOH is about as extreme as they come. I've heard him talk on the various cable shows, and seen his articles before. He is in the same mold as Robert Reich - far far left on the economic side. If his ideas ever took hold, it would mean economic disaster, and *I* would start talking about moving to another country. :-)

 

For the record, I question all the clearly slanted right-wing arguments about SS.

[catbirdseat]

Forget about who said it for once and address what he said goddamit! You get so wrapped up in labeling people. Either you agree with the statement or you don't!

[foraker]

it's easier to label people than it is to come up with cogent arguments, supportive data, and an alternative plan. that's why there's so much screaming in politics. it plays to the lowest common denominator.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Forget about who said it for once and address what he said goddamit! You get so wrapped up in labeling people. Either you agree with the statement or you don't!

 

There are some people worth listening to, and debating.

 

There are some who are not.

 

Life is too short to waste on the latter.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

So are you saying that the first sentence of my quote is an innaccurate description of Bush's plan?

 

It describes the plan using carefully-selected, highly-connated verbiage which conveys an obvious bias. As such I do disagree with the statement as it stands.

 

We've already discussed SS on the list. Personally I just want to opt out of the program. If that means I need to sign a waiver saying that in exchange for not having to contribute anything to the program I am wholly responsible for my own retirement and will be 100% irrevocably ineligible for benefits then so be it. I think the whole program is unsalvageable and its costs far outweigh its benefits.

[Jim]

Krugman is an economist and is at his best in this arena. He can stray sometimes into subjects that he shouldn't. On SS he is right on and consistent, he gave the Clinton admin grief on their lack of attention to SS.

 

What Bush is proposing will not help the SS finanial system and will borrrow Trillions (yes-with a T) The primary intent is to kill the SS system period. This is nothing but fiscal irresponsibility. Your kids and grandkids will be paying for the lack of the Republicans fiscal will. They own Congress and the White House.

 

With minor tweaks the SS system could be solvent for another 75 years. No matter who says it, if you look at the numbers the neocon plan makes no sense.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

What Bush is proposing will not help the SS finanial system and will borrrow Trillions (yes-with a T) The primary intent is to kill the SS system period. This is nothing but fiscal irresponsibility. Your kids and grandkids will be paying for the lack of the Republicans fiscal will

 

The SS program already is a multi-trillion dollar liability for our children. It is already an irresponsible, unfair burden on taxpayers, and on our children.

 

As for "tweaking" the program, one suggested proposal going around is to RAISE the payroll deduction. Great. The government once again f***s up and the taxpayer gets reamed. A tax increase is an effective salary cut.

 

Another proposal is to raise the age at which people are eligible to receive benefits. Yet another is to lower the benefits. So, we have to work more and get less. Wonderful.

 

In a past thread I characterized the SS program as "you get back what you put in with interest". I forget the fact that you have to live to be pretty damn old for that to be true. Benefits are parcelled out each year beginning with the first year of eligibility. Many taxpayers will NOT get all the money back that they put in, yet alone with interest. By contrast, if you invest in a 401(k) or IRA, you can take out as much as you want, whenever you want, and if you die, your money goes to your designated beneficiaries. SS is a bad deal all around.

[Peter_Puget]

The always entertaining Forawker:

 

“it's easier to label people than it is to come up with cogent arguments, supportive data, and an alternative plan. that's why there's so much screaming in politics. it plays to the lowest common denominator.”

 

The never entertaining PK:

 

"They come to bury Social Security, not to save it. They aren't sincerely concerned about the possibility that the system will someday fail; they're disturbed by the system's historic success. For Social Security is a government program that works, a demonstration that a modest amount of taxing and spending can make people's lives better and more secure. And that's why the right wants to destroy it."

 

Here’s Mr Jim:

 

Krugman is an economist and is at his best in this arena. He can stray sometimes into subjects that he shouldn't. On SS he is right on and consistent, he gave the Clinton admin grief on their lack of attention to SS.

 

 

Here is PK again:

 

"Where is the crisis? Just over the horizon, that's where... In 2010...the boomers will begin to retire. Every year thereafter, for the next quarter-century, several million 65-year-olds will leave the rolls of taxpayers and begin claiming their benefits. The budgetary effects of this demographic tidal wave are straightforward to compute, but so huge as almost to defy comprehension."

 

 

[tomtom]

'Investing' SS money in the stock market is a *bad* idea. Every study has shown that the average individual makes poor investing decisions and underperforms the overall market. In the end, taxpayers will have to cover these losses since we can't let these people starve when they screw up badly with their private accounts.

 

Are the proponants of private accounts taking this into consideration?

 

Just say no.

[Peter_Puget]

Yet more PK:

There is a case for reforming Social Security; there is even a case for privatization. But we can't have a meaningful debate about reform unless the parties to the debate are willing to discuss the issues honestly.

 

President Clinton’s hand-picked Advisory Council on Social Security spent three years investigating reform options, and in 1997 recommended to Health and Human Services Secretary Donna E. Shalala two different plans involving private accounts — plans which received the endorsement of the majority of the council’s members. link

[Peter_Puget]

More reading....

[Peter_Puget]

No me gusto para nada darme cuenta lo irrespetuosos que nos hacen quedar la gente que silvaba a Fripp, ya que quedan mal con el, con Vai y Satch, con la gente...a mi tampoco me gusta lo que hace pero por una cuestion de respeto me callo...ademas duro 15 minutos nada mas como en el dia anterior... "

[Luna]

What Bush is proposing will not help the SS finanial system and will borrrow Trillions (yes-with a T) The primary intent is to kill the SS system period. This is nothing but fiscal irresponsibility. Your kids and grandkids will be paying for the lack of the Republicans fiscal will

 

The SS program already is a multi-trillion dollar liability for our children. It is already an irresponsible, unfair burden on taxpayers, and on our children.

 

As for "tweaking" the program, one suggested proposal going around is to RAISE the payroll deduction. Great. The government once again f***s up and the taxpayer gets reamed. A tax increase is an effective salary cut.

 

Another proposal is to raise the age at which people are eligible to receive benefits. Yet another is to lower the benefits. So, we have to work more and get less. Wonderful.

 

In a past thread I characterized the SS program as "you get back what you put in with interest". I forget the fact that you have to live to be pretty damn old for that to be true. Benefits are parcelled out each year beginning with the first year of eligibility. Many taxpayers will NOT get all the money back that they put in, yet alone with interest. By contrast, if you invest in a 401(k) or IRA, you can take out as much as you want, whenever you want, and if you die, your money goes to your designated beneficiaries. SS is a bad deal all around.

 

The last time the SS deduction was raised was under Regean, at the behest of Allan Greenspan. The US population has the lowest, by far, tax burden of industrial countries. I would suggest that all of your suggestions be reviewed - remove the current cap on deductions, take a look at the retiremenr age, and review the payout. SS has been an extremely successful program. The Bushies plan to borrow Trillions so a small percentage can be put in the market is idiotic. As is there proposal to cook the books while doing it. As if foreign bond holders will not notice.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

The last time the SS deduction was raised was under Regean, at the behest of Allan Greenspan. The US population has the lowest, by far, tax burden of industrial countries.

 

Lowest, true, but still a huge burden. And the socialist European nations are not to be emulated.

[Luna]

Oh I didn't mean that, but SS is not such a burden. the biggest problem is that Reps and Dems alike can't keep their mitts off the trust fund, and the current administration is spending like there is no tomorrow. What happened to true fiscal conservatives?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

the biggest problem is that Reps and Dems alike can't keep their mitts off the trust fund, and the current administration is spending like there is no tomorrow. What happened to true fiscal conservatives?

 

You'll get no arguments from me on that one. I think a Dem could have made more headway against Bush if he proposed fiscal responsibility - all Kerry could promise was more spending above and beyond Bush's already exorbitant levels.

[Luna]

Agreed. I think that what we need for a leader these days is someone who is fiscially conservative, socially moderate, with a moderate view on the environment instead of lining the pockets of industry. I would consider

[ChrisT]

Howard Dean!

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Agreed. I think that what we need for a leader these days is someone who is fiscially conservative, socially moderate,

 

I could definitely live with that!

 

with a moderate view on the environment instead of lining the pockets of industry. I would consider

 

I've never heard a Republican articulate an environmental policy of any sort. Lack of a policy leads to bad outcomes. I think conservation and regulation of industry for clean air, water, etc. are legitimate roles for government and are needed to balance "pure capitalism".

[Peter_Puget]

Things to consider:

 

1 The trust fund is a myth.

 

2 Social Security reserves are restricted by law to interest-bearing obligations of the United States or obligations whose principal and interest are guaranteed by the U.S. government.

 

3 Social Security benefits are now tied to wage growth, and wages are rising faster than prices. The result: over the next 75 years benefits are expected to increase nearly 18x, while prices will go up 9x!

 

4 Social Security is a transfer scheme, not a pension plan.

 

5 A least two dozen countries have reformed their state-run retirement programs to include private accounts including Chile, Sweden, Australia, Peru, the U.K., Kazakhstan, China, Croatia and Poland.

[cj001f]

As usual the PP spin game:

1. Only because lawmakers want it to be. The tax revenue for Social Security is drawn from a single source (payroll taxes), there's no reason it need be lumped with the rest of government revenue, except it provides a convenient way to cover for prodigal spending.

2. US government obligations are the most secure investment in the world. Would you prefer we invest in Enron stock? Argentine national debt? If you'd prefer that - is the government going to cover your losses?

3. Easily changed. 75 year predictions of that sort are economists taking hits from the bong.

4. Any defined benefit pension scheme without a teired age/benefit relationship is necessarily so.

5. Gee, can we be like Sweden? It'll make me feel so much better when I can choose how 10% of my retirement account is invested