On this national day of mourning, a.k.a. Inauguration Day, I am going to offer a radical idea on how to fix Social Security. Ready? Here it is.
We stop sending Americans to get killed.
Consider: At the end of “Schindler’s List,” it is stated that due to the 1100 Jews saved because of Schindler, the result was 6000 Jews who lived that would never have been born.
So over a period of ten years back in the 1960s, we lost 50,000 Americans. I’m not mathematician enough to calculate the number of Americans who were never born as a result: Americans added to the workforce, whose salaries would have contributed to social security, or who would have founded companies to hire people whose salaries, etc. But I would not hesitate to guess that would be a lot of warm bodies, all paying in to the program.
But they were killed or never existed. If, as Bush and Company believe, life begins at conception, then certainly they must give a nod toward conception that won’t occur.
Apparently, though, not so much. Because there’s already 1300 names on Bush’s list. So that’s…what? Another 6500 Americans who won’t be born over the next thirty years? We can’t even begin to wrap ourselves around the immensity of the tragedy involved in the sheer waste of young life. We can barely comprehend the “Daily News” headline that reads “Iran Next! Secret US commando teams already inside to identify potential targets, report claims.” So instead we must dwell on the pragmatic aspects, because the human horror and waste of American lives (not to mention Iraqi lives ranging anywhere from 30,000 to 100,000) is just too ghastly to contemplate.
Fix Social Security. Stop Bush’s list from growing.
PAD
• 
Sorry. Just too dámņ depressed to comment. And tired. Depressed and tired. I’m keeping the television off and the radio on sports blather all day. Don’t want to run the risk of the depression deepening by hearing the Smirking Chimp congratulate himself. Ugh. Depressed, tired and, I guess, still angry.
The only news coverage I want to see is the Turn Your Back on Bush folks silently protesting. One, because I hope there’s a lot of them. Two, to see if the media will even show them.
Of course, they’re all probably being herded into the “free speech zone” 2 miles off the course of the parade.
4 years ago I made the mistake of saying “how bad can things get? It’s only 4 years.”
I won’t be making that mistake again. I’ll spend my time battening down the hatches and hoping we can weather the storm of things to come.
Oh, I see. More Americans to tax is the new fix for social security. I’m glad to see you’ve become anti-abortion. That’d give us millions more citizens to tax!
There is only one problem I see with PADs posting, he’s assuming that “fixing” social security is the true purpose of juniors reasoning and not just the lip service excuse. As Iraq was about getting the oil, fixing social securty appears to e about linning the pockets of his cronies with $$ $2 to $5 billion dollars to be exact.
Anyone see CNN yesterday where it was revealed nearly all of the commerative crap was made in China that Bush and cronies are peddling for this Black Thursday. Commerate the selling out of America, buy chinese! Argh.
BJP
I can’t tell you how terrified I am about the next four years. I mean actually scared of our government to the point that I’m looking into the prospects of leaving. I really think that we’re not but a stones throw away from internment camps popping back up. Bush terrifies me. I think he’s the worst an American can become. Having just successfully given Cancer a beatdown…I can tell you what a mess Social Security is. I was turned down help during my illness because of my age and level of education. I guess if you have a college degree, your immune to the effects of severe chemo and radiation theropy. The truth is our health care system is a joke. I had cancer for almost two years, but couldn’t do anything about it because I couldn’t afford the insurance. I obviously finally got it together…but I lost almost three years (including therapy time) worth of my life to it. Now that I’m healthy again I’m trying to get my life back together…our government has been no help. I should feel great about having gotten through it on my own. Instead I’m depressed that my life is a shambles because of it. It didn’t have to be…I could have…should have gotten help. The money is mine…It’s been taken out of my paychecks since I was thirteen. It ain’t gonna be there when I retire. I should have gotten it now…when I needed it…that is what it’s there for. Being a Florida resident, I sent an e-mail to Jeb’s office…and got absolutely no help from them either. I had to sell my car to pay rent one month. I had to move from a three bedroom apartment to a one…while I was sick!! These past few years have made me ashamed to be American. This is my country…I beleive in the American way. Just not the way that America has become. Thanks Bush and Company.
One thing to also consider, aren’t any children of people killed in government service eligible to start drawing from social security at the time of the parents death. Fewer people dying, less money being paid out.
Just the fact that this is the most expensive innauguration ever is enough to make one ill. And nevermind that “it’s all paid for by private donations” crap. Private donations aren’t paying for the security, unless taxpayer’s contributions are being classified as “private donations” these days. Neither are all the salaries of all the federal workers in the DC area, who have been on paid administrative leave since around noon yesterday. That’s thousands of people being paid by taxpayer money to sit at home for 11-16 hours instead of working so Bush can have his party. Not to mention the delay experienced in the regional offices as they have to wait nearly 2 days to interact with their HQ administrations.
But I forget. America is safer today….
I’m afraid I agree with Greg Martin…making an argument like that is uncomfortably close to similar, “pro-life” arguments.
Now, as a foreigner I don’t have any real understanding of your social security system, but I’ve been under the impression that the idea of it being “broken” is highly debatable at best.
You could try the reverse approach and implement a draft for ages 60+. That would also solve the impending SS crisis.
I understand your frustration with the policies an administration you do not like, but the convoluted logic of tying military deaths to the Social Security issue doesn’t make any sense.
One could use the same logic and say, to solve the Social Security crisis (if there even is one), we should stop driving, or stop smoking, or stop drinking, or stop swimming, or stop rock climbing, or stop overeating, etc. etc.
http://www.csdp.org/research/1238.pdf
Are deaths due to these other causes any less significant or less tragic?
Keep in mind, I made a career of the military, and every military death reported in Southwest Asia eats away at my gut. But to constantly use the war deaths as fodder to push a variety of other (usually unrelated) political agendas just cheapens the sacrifices of those who perished abroad.
Social Security isn’t broken, although many would argue that it isn’t needed. What it is, is facing impending underfunding. Currently, we pay about a 6% income tax, up to $90,000 of income. At current rates, it is estimated that the SS fund will start to pay out more in benefits than it takes in in taxes/revenue sometime in the next 10 years. It’s estimated that the fund will run out, at that rate, in an additional 10 years after that.
So, the only thing really *wrong* with the system is that it’s facing an underfunding problem. Bush has stated that he refuses to raise the tax limit, effectively placing a larger proportionate SS burden on the middle class while exempting the upper class, while at the same time stating that he wants to allow a portion of that 6% to go back to taxpayers so they can invest it into private savings/retirement funds. Which, of course, will either reduce benefits paid out, or bring the underfunding issue to bear that much more quickly.
And by the way, I think PAD’s toungue was loitering around his cheek a little with his suggestion….
While there are indeed several reasons not to have soldiers killed in questionable wars around the globe. Isn’t it possible that the increased population from the lives spared and created would add to the drain on Social Security and make the problem even worse? Please note I’m only addressing the financial premise and am addressing no political issues whatever.
Does Condoleeza Rice remind anyone else of Lucy Van Pelt?
Bush’s List
Ah, I just love Peter David…
William:
My understanding (which begs to be corrected if wrong) is that back in 1935 or so, there were 40 workers for each retiree. Now there are 2 for each retiree. Therefore, keeping up with Social Security benefits becomes more and more difficult (because the money I pay in is [b]not[/b] for me–it’s for the current retirees). Killing working age men and women (or placing them in harm’s way) hurts that ratio, and removing their potential children from the equation further hurts the ratio.
I wonder, though, if the numbers killed here are big enough to make an appreciable difference in the ratio at all.
My question with Social Security (sorry if this is a bit OT) is this: If life expectancy has gone up since Social Security was founded, why has the benefit age not also gone up? Is someone who is 65 today really equally ready for retirement as someone who was 65 back in the Depression? (I realize this is probably a hot-button issue for some folks, but I’d really appreciate an education on this.)
Eric
I see nothing wrong with being anti-abortion…
and truth be told abortion has taken more American lives in the past year than this war has in the past two years. If it weren’t for abortions, at the very least legalized (and thus a non-stigmatized public approach to the practice of) abortion then social security wouldn’t have the same problems because the ratios at the very worst would be slightly different.
And frankly I’d cancel Social Security. I don’t need it, I don’t plan on needing it, and there won’t be enough people to support me through it, likely. I don’t want it on principle. It’s just so much bueraucratic nonsense and a waste of money. “Reform” phooey. I’d be fine if Social Security broke and suddenly people my age got SS checks. Instead it’s like an engine running in an enclosed garage, slowly wasting gasoline and choking off life. As it is I don’t want “the government doing anything to help me”. That’s not its purpose and never was. “Freedom from want”… thank you President Roosevelt…. may your New Deal rot.
Thanks for the pro-life argument PAD.
ahem. well, there’s nothing to say that those aborted would have been able to contribute to SS. And no, that’s not a racist comment. Soldiers killed in war are highly trained individuals that are/were contributing to SS, and upon their death, their families get survivors’ benefits from SS. So not only are they no longer paying into SS, but their money is also taken out of the fund.
Those aborted Americans were untrained children, many of whom would never reach working age, others who wouldn’t work, and some who would work and contribute to SS, and some of *those* would also die before the age of 65, and thus prematurely remove their funds from the SS pool.
So, no, I don’t find PAD’s comments to be pro-life, nor do I find the “stop abortion to save SS” thinking applicable, either.
“there’s nothing to say that those aborted would have been able to contribute to SS”
No? Between 1973 and 1996 there were roughly 32.5 million legal abortions in this country. My guess is that there would have been more than a couple who would have contributed to SS.
Kingbobb,
“The only thing really wrong with the system is that it’s facing an underfunding problem.”
First, the abilty to fund something would seem to be a MAJOR problem, but it is one that was never sufficiently addressed because too many politicians on both sides of the aisle don’t like to take goodies away from their constituecies, particualarly seniors, who have grown exponentially as a group over the years.
Both in terms of raw numbers and proportion to the population. But they vote, so virtually nobody else – with exceptions of people like the late Sen. Moynihan – had the political courage to do what they all know has been necessary, and that is to change the Ponzi scheme we have had for over seven decades into something that will work when factoring in 21st century realities.
Second, the average payout on SS benefits is $790 a month. That’s AVERAGE. Which, means, obviously, some receive less. Which is unacceptable. Why not “means test” benefits? Does the family with the summer home in Florida, let alone Ted Turner or Bill Gates, really deserve a Social Security check “because they put into it”?
I say absolutely not.
The money is mine…It’s been taken out of my paychecks since I was thirteen. It ain’t gonna be there when I retire. I should have gotten it now…when I needed it…that is what it’s there for.
That’s the flaw in SS. It’s not yours, it’s your neighbors. The Bush reform will force everyone to save 2% of their income for retirement. Even if the company matching 2% goes into your personal account, 4% savings is not enough to plan a retirement around.
The personal savings rate has fallen from 10% in 1980 to 1% today, while debt is skyrocketing. I’m in my mid-30s and I’m putting around 17.5% of my income into savings and investments, and I have almost no debt. However, there are still days I think it’s not going to be enough.
The retirement/benefit age needs to be revisited, the salary caps on social security need to be lifted. That’s my idea for the start of reform. Bottom line, though, no government system is going to account for everyone’s needs.
Kinda missing the point, James, which is that the abortion line of thinking could come out to a wash, in that for every one that reaches a point where they can pay taxes, there are some that don’t. And some that end up drawing welfare, or unemployment, or commiting crimes, sentenced to jail. And some that go on to become millionaires.
Which could pretty much end up in a wash, as far as the idea that “the aborted could save SS.”
PAD’s point is that soldiers killed in Iraq have an immediate impact on SS, and for every soldier killed, there isn’t another one created that offsets that loss with his contribution. It’s not a zero sum equation, it’s a loss equation that only takes money out of the system, and puts nothing back in.
PAD,
Look, I understand that you have no respect for Bush and don’t agree with his actions. But your comments, particularly in light of Bush’s speech today, are just absurd.
If, as Bush and Company believe, life begins at conception, then certainly they must give a nod toward conception that won’t occur.
These two points are NOT logically connected. One example proves the point: Pro-Life advocates have no problem with someone who chooses to remain single and celibate. The pro-life belief is simply that when life begins at conception, it is not morally right to terminate that innocent life. The fact that a child was never conceived in the first place is beside the point. Most pro-lifers do not believe someone should have as many children as possible, which is what your statement would require for it to be logically true.
Your example also completely ignores a much bigger picture: You are assuming that those who died in defense of our country did not ultimately save far more lives. If the 1,300 who have died in Iraq prevent 13,000 from dying in terrorist attacks in the next 20 years, then Bush actually has done more to “save” Social Security than to harm it. The truth is, as of today, we have NOT had a terrorist attack in America since 9/11. Whether this is “luck” or the policies of Bush is beside the point — we have not lost another 3,000 plus like we did on 9/11. To believe we can defend our freedom without any cost to life is foolish, whether you agree with the war in Iraq or not.
The reality is Bush is not conducting a revenge operation for 9/11 or a personal attack on Iraq, he is waging a war on terror in countries around the world. And there are very solid reasons to believe we are gaining ground. The book “Shadow War” has a lot of documentation of what has been accomplished. A letter published a few days ago gives reasons why we are accomplishing a lot of good in Iraq.
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/05/breaking2453389.0680555557.html
I am obviously the minority on this site. But I am convinced that we are safer today with G W Bush as president.
Jim in Iowa
SS is a TAX. It goes out of your pocket, to the government, and they spend it. It’s no more “yours” than other income tax that’s going to pay for the war in Iraq. You have no demand right on it, and unless you can get your government to repeal that tax, you’re not going to.
It was designed to protect American employees who did not have the foresight/financial acumen/plain good common sense to put a little away for retirement. Or for those who get hit hard by life’s unexpected accidents. It’s designed to work in conjunction with private savings and employee pensions to provide for your so-called golden years.
Like Mark L, I’m putting about 16% of my income into retirement. SS is factored into that savings. Millions of Americans have spent their whole lives saving and preparing, counting on SS to be there for them when they retire. This is why Bush says he can’t cut funding.
I never said that the coming underfunding wasn’t a problem…it’s just not a sign that SS is broken. It works, it just needs to be adjusted to reflect today’s smaller workforce.
So, no, I don’t find PAD’s comments to be pro-life, nor do I find the “stop abortion to save SS” thinking applicable, either.
You ignore the fact that PAD raised this very implication in his own post when he said “If, as Bush and Company believe, life begins at conception…”. This would not necessarily come out to be a wash either. The issue is how many current payers we have versus how many go on SS. If all those children had been born, they are still years from going on SS. There would be a lot closer parity to the number of payers versus how many are getting paid than there is now.
You want to really blow your mind? It is very possible that if abortion on demand had not been legalized, a Democrat may have won the last two elections. I don’t know the exact statistics, but young adults have tended to be more Democrat than Republican, so an increase in the current youth population may well have swayed the vote. And the final anyalysis showed there was an increase in the youth vote in the last election (I did not hear a final estimate of how they broke down by party affiliation).
Jim in Iowa
Social Security isn’t broken, although many would argue that it isn’t needed.
Funny how when Clinton was saying it was broken during his term in office, the democrats seemed to agree with him, but now that Bush is saying it they want to claim Bush is somehow “creating” a crisis that has never existed.
Jim in Iowa
SS is a TAX. It goes out of your pocket, to the government, and they spend it. It’s no more “yours” than other income tax that’s going to pay for the war in Iraq. You have no demand right on it, and unless you can get your government to repeal that tax, you’re not going to.
You raise an important point but seem to forget the debate about this. Didn’t Gore 4 years ago talk about creating a “lockbox” for SS funds? Social Security was not originally conceived as welfare, but as a means of providing for a suplement to retirement. So it is misleading to say it is just another tax. It is also why Bush’s plan makes a lot more sense — I am putting away my own money in a place where the government can’t touch it and where it will actually gain in value!
Jim in Iowa
TOTALLY OFF TOPIC: Madrox 5 was awesome! How about a new thread where we can discuss it!!
Jim in Iowa
So you’re telling us that American Social Security is like a gigantic pyramid scheme? And the only way to get the guys at the top paid is to keep millions of kids coming in at the bottom?
That’s retarded.
Face it, EVERYTHING in America is underfunded, not just the SS. With trillions of dollars in debt and an ever increasing defecit, you guys can’t afford ANYTHING.
But you’ll keep borrowing money to pay for more weapons now, wontcha?
Jim, good points, pretty much as usual…
I still think PAD’s comments were a little tounge-in-cheek, so I’ll concede that he invites the abortion comparrison, but stop short of saying his point can be turned into a pro-life discussion. I think they’re more or less unrelated, and only by twisting can you get them connected.
Your point about abortion basically winnowing the ranks of those that might vote democrat is kinda mind-blowing, and probably more than a little accurate. Let’s say that 2/3 of those 30 million reach voting age, and 60% of those vote democrat. That’s net of 12 million votes swinging the other way…giving Kerry a 9 million vote victory. Assuming enough of those are spread to Red states.
still…boggles the mind.
Just for the record, when Clinton was saying there was nothing wrong with SS, I was saying he was wrong. SS has been facing this problem since the end of the baby boom.
Not sure what you mean that SS isn’t just another tax. We have plenty of taxes that are earmarked for specific purposes. The FAA manages a financing system that is paid for through airport taxes only. Funds don’t get commingled with the common tax fund from other sources. Just because SS tax goes into a separate fund doesn’t make it any less of a tax.
From the perspective of the tax payer, it is just another tax…money they only see as a negative transaction on a pay stub.
And if you’re talking about Bush’s plan to allow 2-3% of the 6% SS tax to be invested by employees in private acocunts, how does that make sense? It reduces the amount of money going into the SS fund, meaning that benefits will need to be reduced, or the fund will run dry that much sooner. How does that “fix” anything?
John, SS have been doing fine for the past 60 years. It’s maintained a positive fund balance, and would continue to do so, except that the baby boom resulted in a large population that is nearing retirement age today. And with a drop-off in birth rate, the fund is going to run out at current funding levels. Once the baby-boomers die off, things should return to normal.
And it’s only been in the last 4 years that we’ve been underfunded. Clinton ran balanced budgets and managed to gain a surplus, which Bush had spent in his fist month.
Slight exaggeration, but the surplus was gone within Bush’s first year. And no, it wasn’t all because of 9/11.
For those of you taking PAD literally. I can’t speak for him, but based on my reading of his comments I tend to believe as some one else posted, this is a bit tongue in cheek. The point (I think) being that we don’t have the money for social secrity yet we spend billions (I think, I don’t know the exact number) on a war that was completely unnecessary (see recent accounts on how there were never any WMD’s in Iraq).
I know the money for the war and the money for social security comes from two different places, but just the juxtoposition of the two helps us see where Bush’s interests truly lie. I don’t know the percentage of families below the poverty line. What I do know is that there are many people out there who don’t have health insurance, and work for minumum wage (or more), who can’t afford to save for the future. Social security is a benifit these people might not be able to afford to live without. Giving an investment banker the oporunity to invest some of his/her social security benifits is a lot different than forcing some one who works two jobs to get by to figure out where to invest said money.
If we really are concerned with saving lives, making sure we as a people are safe, we shouldn’t focus on wars that ultimately are a waste of money and human life (american and everyone else), but better ways to spend that same money to secure our future (social security being one aspect) and a peacefull resolution for the worlds.
But that’s just one man’s opinion.
I feel I just need to put my 1.673 cents in. None of this is even barely on topic.
I keep hoping that “Dub” will draft the old and infirm and send them off somewhere as canon-fodder. That would help out both healthcare and social security. It’s always cheaper to bury than cure. This will give the old a chance to die with dignity and get buried at govenment expense. Plus it has the added benifit of clearing out the old-age homes for those baby-boomers. I think we’re going to need a bigger war if we want to get rid of them.
And on the abortion/pro-life debate, I don’t know anyone who celebrates their conception date. Aside from the fact that I have to admit that my parents actually had sex, the thought of celebrating the day they had sex to make me just seems creepy.
From the perspective of the tax payer, it is just another tax…money they only see as a negative transaction on a pay stub.
From that perspective, I can see your point. In fact, half of the SS is hidden because the employer pays it. If people had to pay the full 15.3% for SS and medicare like those who are self employed to, they might realize how much they are truly paying.
Why does Bush’s idea make sense? You are right that it lessens the amount going in right now, but it greatly increases what those who do get to invest it get at retirement. I have no financial savy, but just putting my money in an IRA has given me over a 6% or more return. That is far more than 1.5% for SS. Bush’s fix is not a short term fix but a long term change that I think is long overdue.
Jim in Iowa
“I have no financial savy, but just putting my money in an IRA has given me over a 6% or more return.”
Sorry for the horrible grammar. Lack of sleep. Long story, won’t bore you.
Jim in Iowa
Jim, that part makes sense. But SS doesn’t pay out today, it pays out 30 or 40 years from today. Maybe the numbers would work out, but if we reduce the income going into the fund today, we’re going to hit that predicted shortfall a lot sooner, and that’s going to mean that the money is going to have to come from somewhere, either in diverting funds from other programs, or in reduced benefits to those that haven’t had the time to divert enough investments to cover the reduction.
However, maybe I’m missing part of Bush’s plan. Will money invested by the taxpayer still put that money into the general SS, fund, or will it accrue only for the taxpayer’s benefit? If it goes into the fund, then the long-term effect should be to cover the shortfall to a certain degree. But my impression is that people are expecting to get that money to invest for themselves, and to keep it. While that will eventually work out, you would still have to insure that some portion of the population retains SS benefits, and determine a cut off point, basically allowing people to opt out of the program as they invest and cover their future SS income.
In other words, it seems like a much more complex program than Bush’s proposed solution seems to address.
On return rates, a low rate usually comes with low risk. That 6% sure sounds better than 1.5%, but it comes with more risk that, come time to use it, it might only be 0.5%, or maybe not be there at all. What little financial savy I have is that spreading your investment risk between a mix of investment options is the safest thing to do. Anyone who puts all their retirement dollars into a single fund is just asking for that fund to go broke.
Well, maybe they’re actually asking for it to have a 33% return, but the risk they’re taking is that they’ll lose everything.
Just the fact that this is the most expensive innauguration ever is enough to make one ill.
Kingbobb, I just read an article that said that when adjusted for inflation, Clinton’s celebration in 1997 cost 25% more than this year’s bash by Bush.
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050119-103531-1062r.htm
Jim in Iowa
if we go by the current plan being floated by the white house, then we’re looking at an estimated 42% reduction in benefits to CURRENT recipients due to the loss in revenue, as well as a minimum of 1 TRILLION extra debt to fund the new private accounts and the switchover.
Meanwhile, if we were to leave social security exactly as it is, everybody gets the same benefits until 2042, when benefits would have to be reduced by 30%.
however, if we raised or eliminated the 87,000 earnings cap and instituted a means test, social security could go on the same way its been.
then there’s this fact:
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v64n2/index.html
Calculations of the median voter’s return from “investing” in Social Security suggest that for a majority of voters the U.S. Social Security system provides higher ex-post, or actual, returns than alternative assets.
——-
and from Paul Krugman:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/11/opinion/11krugman.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fPaul%20Krugman
Advocates of privatization almost always pretend that all we have to do is borrow a bit of money up front, and then the system will become self-sustaining. The Wehner memo talks of borrowing $1 trillion to $2 trillion “to cover transition costs.” Similar numbers have been widely reported in the news media.
But that’s just the borrowing over the next decade. Privatization would cost an additional $3 trillion in its second decade, $5 trillion in the decade after that and another $5 trillion in the decade after that. By the time privatization started to save money, if it ever did, the federal government would have run up around $15 trillion in extra debt.
These numbers are based on a Congressional Budget Office analysis of Plan 2, which was devised by a special presidential commission in 2001 and is widely expected to be the basis for President Bush’s plan.
Under Plan 2, payroll taxes would be diverted into private accounts while future benefits would be cut. In the short run, this would worsen the budget deficit. In the long run, if all went well, cutting benefit payments would reduce the deficit.
All wouldn’t go well; I’ll explain why in another column. But suppose that everything went according to plan. Even in that unlikely case, privatization wouldn’t even begin to reduce the budget deficit until 2050. This is supposed to be the answer to an imminent crisis?
While we waited 45 years for something good to happen, there would be a real risk of a crisis – not in Social Security, but in the budget as a whole. And privatization would increase that risk.
———
bottom line is, social security is fixable with a few minor tweaks, not a plan that could cost at least a trillion (and aren’t we supposed to be reducing the deficit?)
If you want to invest, go wild. Get yourself a Roth IRA or a 401k. nobody’s gonna stop you. but don’t take that money from social security.
why? cause it’s not yours. It’s not an IRA, it’s a contract with society. You agree to pay for the elderly, the infirm, and the widowed. Future people will pay for you when you need it. You’re not paying in now to get the same money back later. that would be a pension plan.
social security needs work, its true. but what it doesnt need is to be hobbled by private accounts.
I just read an article that said that when adjusted for inflation, Clinton’s celebration in 1997 cost 25% more than this year’s bash by Bush.
That’s just the liberal media pushing their agenda again. Oh, wait a sec…
Yeah, I was afraid of that. Such a waste on both sides. Thus proving that, regardless of their political positions, the parties are probably more alike than different.
Although did DC Feds get time off for Clinton’s bash? I have no idea. It all seems so extravagant, and at a time when millions of people suffering after the tsunamis are stuggling to put their lives back together. And after the way the adminstration pouted after getting called stingy for offering $15 million in aid, to then turn around and spend $200 million on a party seems, well, tacky.
But I guess that’s US.
Just wondering, how does everyone feel about the White House being given money to run the many, many dances Bush will be attending over the net few weeks from big corporations?
Just wondering, how does everyone feel about the White House being given money to run the many, many dances Bush will be attending over the net few weeks from big corporations?
In other words, it seems like a much more complex program than Bush’s proposed solution seems to address.
Well, the government is involved, so of course it will be complicated! I do think it is an improvement, but only if we do keep it as simple as possible. Given both parties track record, I won’t hold my breath.
On return rates, a low rate usually comes with low risk. That 6% sure sounds better than 1.5%, but it comes with more risk that, come time to use it, it might only be 0.5%, or maybe not be there at all.
Actually, the 6% came during a down time in the stock market, and I did not put it all in one fund. The version I heard would have a “safety net” where it would be only certain approved programs that you could invest your money, and you were then “guaranteed” at least the 1.5% (or thereabouts) that everyone else would get.
I think you are right, though, that the money would be privately invested and not put in a government fund. So that would pose a cash flow problem for the government. While we may disagree on where we should cut spending, I think most agree we have to do so somewhere!
In addition, I personally think raising the amount subject to the SS tax makes sense rather than raising the percent taken out. I don’t agree in general with taxing the wealthy at a higher rate, but in this case, it is just taxing the wealthy at the same rate as everyone else. If that was raised from the current level (something like $90k?) to $150K or $200K, that would help cover the shortfall.
Bottom line, I like the principle of what Bush wants to do, but it is still a concept. It must be fleshed out. I think it is premature to rule it out until all of the facts are put on the table.
Jim in Iowa
Paul:
>Just wondering, how does everyone feel about the White House being given money to run the many, many dances Bush will be attending over the net few weeks from big corporations?
Given the dance steps I’ve seen, I’d call that bad money management….
As far as the social security proposal, from what I can gather it appears that the only people who could potentially profit from this are those who are educated in investment and/or those with an excess of income already. It doesn’t take into account those who actually will need this money and would seem to actually hurt that population.
From the few commentaries that I’ve heard, it sounds like the Prez’s hopes will not reach fruition as most “experts” are stating that only some parts of this plan have any hopes of being passed.
Fred
I agree that the funding issue needs to be addressed, and I think raising the tax cap on SS is the way to go. It’s currently set at $90K, up from $87K, but that’s it. If the numbers held up, I’d probably go a step further and only tax a certain amount, say income made over the poverty line (is that like $25K for a family these days?). So, impose the 6% tax on income from say $30Kto $200K. It would spread the burden out a little more on those best able to bear it, and address the funding issues all at once.
Then, carve out 2% of that 6% and allow people to choose how to invest it. At retirement, they either get their guaranteed 1.5%, or whatever amount their 2% has resulted in. That way, if they invested poorly, they still get 1.5%, and if they invested well, they could get say 3-5%. Plus, since that money comes from their private fund, it would reduce the strain on the general SS fund, which after 20 or 30 years, could result in a reduction in SS tax overall.
And after the way the adminstration pouted after getting called stingy for offering $15 million in aid, to then turn around and spend $200 million on a party seems, well, tacky.
I have no problem with the festivities in general, but your point does bring some perspective to the actual amount involved. As a friend would say, “this isn’t Monopoly money.” For some, anything spent would be too much, so I don’t know the balance, but I personally think it was excessive.
Jim in Iowa
I agree that the funding issue needs to be addressed, and I think raising the tax cap on SS is the way to go.
Wait! Someone on this site agreed with me on something! I must go listen to 15 hours of Rush and find out where I went wrong . . .
(just kidding!)
I could support the plan you proposed. It would be better than what we have today, and more fair on both sides of the equation.
Jim in Iowa
Anyone see any Riders of Doom coming?
Plagues? Not counting the squid that washed ashore in CA today, of course (by the way, how’s that for a bummer of an omen on you swearing in day?)
I mean, what else can it mean when a conservative and a liberal agree on something, other than that the End Times are upon us?
In terms of tongue-in-cheek, I was absolutely as serious as Jonathan Swift was with his essay, “A Modest Proposal.”
As for claiming my post was an anti-abortion argument, that just take some kinda stretch. First, all I’m saying is that Bush is a hypocrite, claiming reverence for unborn life while having no regard for it once it’s born.
Second, the notion that if abortion was illegal, then that would result in millions of new babies, is based upon nothing except wishful thinking. There is no way of comparing the number of legal abortions over the past years to the number of illegal abortions that we simply don’t know about in the years previous to that. And that’s not even counting the young women who died from internal hemorrhaging through back alley abortions.
Obviously, though, Bushies are uncomfortable enough with the simple truth that Bush’s List has pointlessly cost us 1300 Americans and tens of thousands more who will never be…with more to come, plus Iran in the hopper…and so quickly try to steer the conversation into something they’re far more comfortable with: Railing against a woman’s right to choose. It’s a nice dodge. A deft slight-of-hand. And as transparent as…well…as a Bush rationalization.
PAD
I just read an article that said that when adjusted for inflation, Clinton’s celebration in 1997 cost 25% more than this year’s bash by Bush.
That’s just the liberal media pushing their agenda again. Oh, wait a sec…
Actually, that would be the conservative media pushing their agenda. (Do you know who owns the Washington Times?)