________________________________________
Now we know that meme didn't work out......

What's next?.............
________________________________________
"Former U.S. House Majority Leader Dick Armey said Friday that Social Security should be phased out rather than saved."
________________________________________

There are those who just don't like Social Security and they want to get rid of it. They didn't like it in the 30s when FDR first proposed it; they didn't like it in the 50s when Eisenhower made his peace with it; they didn't like it in the 60s when they nominated Barry Goldwater for president; and they didn't like it in the 80s when David Stockman briefly tried a frontal attack on benefits but then retreated to a strategic hope that rising payroll taxes would eventually inspire a workers revolt against the whole system.
(It didn't work.)

So now they've learned their lesson: not only are frontal assaults fruitless — Americans like Social Security — but they're ephemeral anyway. Sure, price indexing might cut benefits and therefore the overall size of Social Security, but so what? Even if you passed it, some future Congress would just reverse it.

Private accounts are the only thing you can do to undermine the nature of Social Security that's likely to be permanent. There are no absolute guarantees, of course, but once you start up a program of private accounts, it's almost impossible to dismantle it. In the same way that there are enormous transition costs to ditch the current system in favor of private accounts, there would be enormous transition costs in the future associated with any attempt to ditch private accounts and bring back guaranteed benefits.

And that's the key: privatization is the only plan that has a chance of permanently crippling Social Security as a system of guaranteed benefits. When FDR created the current payroll tax-supported system, he said, "With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my Social Security program." And he was right. Today's Republicans are hoping to achieve the same thing in reverse with private accounts. Social Security will eventually wither away, and they're hoping no damn politician will be able to do anything about it.
__________________________________________
But not everyone is 'on board' with the message:

U.S. Sen. Daniel K. Inouye says he doubts President Bush will be able to push his Social Security reforms through Congress this year.

Inouye says the plan is risky, costly and lacks the support of Republicans.

"The president is not going to have an easy time with Social Security; in fact, he may not make it," Inouye said.

Inouye said. "One cannot help but conclude that maybe he wants to dismantle Social Security."

---

The government should allow those that wish to opt out, do so, and do their own investing. If they fail, then they can starve.

---

---

Gruesse vom Saenger

For questions about Boinc look in the BOINC-Wiki

Treasury Secretary John W. Snow indicated Wednesday that the White House would accept a Social Security overhaul that does not divert the program’s payroll taxes into personal retirement accounts,

.... a major shift in the administration’s position.

---

Senate Majority Leader William Frist has reportedly indicated that President Bush's push for Social Security overhaul "may have to wait until next year and might not involve the individual accounts,"

With polls showing widespread skepticism of Bush's proposal and some Republicans opposed to the approach, GOP leaders signaled yesterday that they may have no choice but to put off action.

That a politician as closely allied to the White House as Frist would even raise the possibility of putting off the proposal until next year -- possibly dooming it -- was an unexpected blow to the administration.

---

Private accounts are not dead yet!
You just want all that SSI money for the government spending on useless programs.

---

Red Bull Air Racing

Gas price by zip at Seti

> Private accounts are not dead yet!
> You just want all that SSI money for the government spending on useless
> programs.
>

Do you honestly believe that private accounts for SSI would be left alone? This Administration is looking at how to get money from the TSP accounts, this is an account for Federal Employee's that's opptional, and very much like the accounts proposed for SSI.

Bottom line is this president will spend your money as he want's and not save it for you.

---

Social Security is important to our social and economic stability. Anyone who tries to mess with it will get a boot in the ass.

> Social Security is important to our social and economic stability. Anyone who
> tries to mess with it will get a boot in the ass.
>
Social Security has become a monster of a program and is waaaaaay beyond its creators imgination! The creators of SS NEVER thought it would be a persons SOLE means of support, NOR did they intend it to be! However that is exactly what it has become for some people! For those people we need to do something to ensure they do not live in a box on the street. For the rest of us, we need to not give as much money so as to make us live like kings! My father-in-law lives very comfortably off of his retirement. He takes his SS because it is MANDATORY for him to do so. He is over 70 1/2 and that is when a person MUST start taking their money out! He takes the check and donates the money to his favorite charity!!! he would be just as happy to NEVER take a dime out until he needs it, if ever. If he NEVER needs it, he is comfortable letting the Government keep it for someone that does.
Why is the system like that? Why does a system that "says" it is going to be "underfunded" and "go broke", FORCE someone to take the money?

---

> > Social Security is important to our social and economic stability. Anyone
> who
> > tries to mess with it will get a boot in the ass.
> >
> Social Security has become a monster of a program and is waaaaaay beyond its
> creators imgination! The creators of SS NEVER thought it would be a persons
> SOLE means of support, NOR did they intend it to be! However that is exactly
> what it has become for some people! For those people we need to do something
> to ensure they do not live in a box on the street. For the rest of us, we need
> to not give as much money so as to make us live like kings! My father-in-law
> lives very comfortably off of his retirement. He takes his SS because it is
> MANDATORY for him to do so. He is over 70 1/2 and that is when a person MUST
> start taking their money out! He takes the check and donates the money to his
> favorite charity!!! he would be just as happy to NEVER take a dime out until
> he needs it, if ever. If he NEVER needs it, he is comfortable letting the
> Government keep it for someone that does.
> Why is the system like that? Why does a system that "says" it is going to be
> "underfunded" and "go broke", FORCE someone to take the money?
>

I agree that it has become a monster of a program that needs to be fixed, and that the creators did not want this to be the case. I also agree that some people do not really need Social Security to get by. But Social Security does contribute to our economy by giving older Americans a little more buying power than they would have with just a regular retirement plan. This is good for the private sector because it increases business earnings, and increases the amount of taxes that the government receives from those businesses as well. It is sad to see politicians (public servants) that earn an enormous amount of money, and can retire after only a small amount of years in office, try to reduce the amount of money that lower income people get in their retirement.

Let's look at the really big picture: even if you take all these dollars and invest it in these individual retirement accounts, even if it is managed absolutely perfectly, honestly, and honorably, it STILL comes down to laborers currently in the labor force supporting the retirees. Whether it's taken in payroll and corporate taxes to support Social Security or in increased dividend demands by a larger pool of stock and bond holders, it's still dollars that have to go to people not participating in the actual labor force. It will always be "X" amount of workers supporting "Y" amount of people in real terms.

Here's a news flash: money isn't the root of ANY economic machine, capitalist, commie, or whatever. It is just the grease. LABOR is the actual moving part of the machine (and when I say "labor", I mean everyone who actively contributes to the business enterprise, from the janitorial staff to the boardroom execs). LABOR brings the farmer's crops from the good earth to grandma's table and the televisions from the raw mineral state to in-home and tuned into HGTV. An economy with lots of money and a short labor supply simply balances out by inflation.

So, even if every baby boomer had saved massive amounts of money, they'd still be just as hosed when they came up for retirement because prices would skyrocket when all this money started re-entering circulation. The same will happen when today's young laborer attempts to use his retirement account. Again, "X" amount of labor, for "Y" amount of people. Either way, some system will determine how much "fruit of a person's labor" a current laborer actually gets to keep and how much will go to supporting retirees, so a change cannot realistically help today's labor force with their own retirement. It's still going to take a certain amount of labor to keep any given retiree fed and in his polyester-plaid golfing shorts.

From that point of view, I rather prefer social security as-is since it's "backup system" in case dear old Dad-in-law's retirement fund suddenly takes an unexpected hit because some Enron guy decided to "steal the grease from his part of the machine". At least this way, TWO separate institutions have to steal from him to cause him to starve, one of which can't claim "corporate secrets" and "right to confidentiality" to hide their misdeeds.

> The government should allow those that wish to opt out, do so, and do their
> own investing. If they fail, then they can starve.

the problem with that scenerio is that too many would choose that option and then when they were starving, they would only demand that Congress do something to bail them out again.

---

> Private accounts are not dead yet!
> You just want all that SSI money for the government spending on useless
> programs.



It's not me that's spending millions in lobbying efforts to get my hands on the assets of the program.

Maybe acknowledging who is doing that would give you some insight into just who does want that money. Figure that out and then ask what they want to 'spend' it on.

(and If you're pretentious enough to think you know what I want, why don't you just say what you think? Or is it that you're unable to elucidate your own thoughts?)

---

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4183-2005Mar3.html

42 Senators signed this letter to Bush.... :

We were encouraged that Treasury Secretary John Snow suggested that you might be willing to abandon your privatization proposal and move instead to an alternative approach in which investment accounts would be established entirely separate and apart from Social Security. As you know, many Democrats, including President Bill Clinton, have advocated just such an approach, with benefits targeted to working and middle class families who need help the most. So long as such accounts remain entirely independent from Social Security and do not put the program's guaranteed benefits at risk in any way, we believe they deserve serious consideration as part of a broader effort to promote retirement security.

While Secretary Snow's suggestion was initially encouraging, subsequent reports indicate that you remain committed to your privatization plan and his public comments were little more than a tactical maneuver. According to a story in today's Washington Post, "White House officials are privately telling Republicans that Bush is opposed to the idea [of accounts outside of Social Security], but does not want to say so because it would appear he is not willing to compromise."

Given the conflicting and ambiguous reports on such a critical issue, we urge you to publicly and unambiguously announce that you reject privatized accounts funded with Social Security dollars or otherwise linked to the provision of guaranteed Social Security benefits. Such a statement would eliminate a serious obstacle to the kind of bipartisan process that Democrats are seeking to deal with Social Security's long-term challenges and to improve the retirement security of all Americans.






---------------------
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A12185-2005Mar6?language=printer

Bush is pushing a Social Security plan that Vice President Cheney said would cost "trillions of dollars" in the short term. Many Republicans are expressing reservations about the plan to carve private Social Security accounts out of the current system because it would drive up deficits unless benefits are slashed or taxes raised.

This has put Republicans such as Voinovich and Graham in the uncomfortable position of having to abandon, to some extent, their anti-tax inclinations and infuriate some in their party in the process. "If you are serious about Social Security, you are going to have to say no to other things," Graham said.

-------------------------------

In other words, if you support 'piratization', ....you have to accept that it will cost more than maintaining SSI the way it is, .....you have to accept that 'piratization' can only be accomplished by increasing the deficit, or slashing benefits and raising taxes to cover the billions of extra costs.

So if your serious about SSI 'piratization', you cannot stay true to a policy of cutting taxes, and reducing government.

And at the end of all that, the solvency of SSI will still not have been addressed.

And that's ignoring the studies that show private accounts not performing as has been promised.

Now, that's sure a far cry from the story that's been claimed by the administration so far. But it does seem to be typical of public policy discussions by this administration.

Start with one version of the 'truth' and then alter it as necessary if someone sees through the first story.

All those supporters of private accounts have sure been quiet about these revelations coming from their own members.

More of that deafening silence.

---

> > Social Security is important to our social and economic stability. Anyone
> who
> > tries to mess with it will get a boot in the ass.
> >
> Social Security has become a monster of a program and is waaaaaay beyond its
> creators imgination! The creators of SS NEVER thought it would be a persons
> SOLE means of support, NOR did they intend it to be! However that is exactly
> what it has become for some people! For those people we need to do something
> to ensure they do not live in a box on the street. For the rest of us, we need
> to not give as much money so as to make us live like kings! My father-in-law
> lives very comfortably off of his retirement. He takes his SS because it is
> MANDATORY for him to do so. He is over 70 1/2 and that is when a person MUST
> start taking their money out! He takes the check and donates the money to his
> favorite charity!!! he would be just as happy to NEVER take a dime out until
> he needs it, if ever. If he NEVER needs it, he is comfortable letting the
> Government keep it for someone that does.
> Why is the system like that? Why does a system that "says" it is going to be
> "underfunded" and "go broke", FORCE someone to take the money?


NOBODY IS FORCED TO TAKE THE MONEY!!!!!!!!

---

> In other words, if you support 'piratization', ....you have to accept that it
> will cost more than maintaining SSI the way it is, .....you have to accept
> that 'piratization' can only be accomplished by increasing the deficit, or
> slashing benefits and raising taxes to cover the billions of extra costs.

That's obvious. When something doesn't work, it's costs money to upgrade and maintain that upgrade. You can't spend money to fix your car and stop there.....no, you then have to buy fuel, get insurance, change the oil, and all those little extra's you didn't worry about while you were abusing the vehicle.

> So if your serious about SSI 'piratization', you cannot stay true to a policy
> of cutting taxes, and reducing government.

Never claimed to be in favor of reducing taxes. I'm a single white male with zero dependants. I alreadypay a larger percentage of my income in taxes than every other demographic in this country. Time for the rest of you to dig a little deeper.

> And at the end of all that, the solvency of SSI will still not have been
> addressed.

The current situation is a dead end course. I certainly prefer any attempt at solving the situation as opposed to just waiting for it to blow up.

.

---

<a href="http://www.brainsmashr.com"><img src="http://www.brainsmashr.com/signature.gif"><img src="http://brainsmashr.com/boinc/counter_big.php?id=305369&amp;project=seti&amp;ctx=white&amp;cva=red&amp;cbo=white&amp;cbg=black&amp;linethickness=2"></a>

Look guys, it's quite simple: bother Social Security = many angry old folks.

> Look guys, it's quite simple: bother Social Security = many angry old folks.

That is simple, much too simple I'm afraid. Every proposal--every one--makes it clear that those already on Social Security, or close to it, will not be affected. These proposed changes are ALL designed to take care of a problem that will occur even if the best case scenario comes to pass, and will be a much worse problem if the economy worsens.

As the bulge of baby-boomers moves into retirement age, there are fewer and fewer wage earners to pay into the system, let alone what would happen if, for example, unemployment went to 10% or more. The proposed fixes are meant to salvage a retirement "safety net" for today's 20 - 50 year old workers who will be retireing after about 2030 or so. Look at the reports that have sparked the current move for reform: they all talk about the fact that Social Security will only be able to fund 70-80% of current benefits by the 2040's. If we wait until then to deal with this, Congress will have to cut benefits, not pay 20-30% of the retirees or place a huge burden on (future) taxpayers.

Here's someting that many opponents of private retirement funds have forgotten or just ignore: anytime Congress wants to cut SS benefits, they have a free hand to do so. The Supreme Court has ruled this is so because SS is a tax, and Congress can decide how to spend SS taxes any way they wish. That's one reason the government "borrows" from the fund when ever they want. A private retirement fund (that would have to be in an approved investment option) could not be touched by Congress--it would belong, like an IRA or 401(k), to the taxpayer but it could not be touched until retirement age (or some catestrophic life event such as those special conditions that allow a person to withdraw from an IRA). An approved private SS account would have to be low risk (which usually means low yield), so most folks would not retire "rich" because of such an account, but on the other hand, Congress would be much less likely to just take the account away from 20-30% of retirees. And as it is now, if you die when your kids are adults, the government just keeps your SS contributions, but a private account, like anything else you own, could be passed on to your heirs.

A private
> retirement fund (that would have to be in an approved investment option) could
> not be touched by Congress--it would belong, like an IRA or 401(k), to the
> taxpayer but it could not be touched until retirement age (or some
> catestrophic life event such as those special conditions that allow a person
> to withdraw from an IRA). An approved private SS account would have to be low
> risk (which usually means low yield), so most folks would not retire "rich"
> because of such an account, but on the other hand, Congress would be much less
> likely to just take the account away from 20-30% of retirees. And as it is
> now, if you die when your kids are adults, the government just keeps your SS
> contributions, but a private account, like anything else you own, could be
> passed on to your heirs.
>

This is just the type of account that was set up for Federal Employees, civilian and military. The current administration and congress are trying to get monies out of the TSP fund (401K) as we debate.
Do I agree that changes need to be made? Yes. The personal account would be a very good add on to a system that will work if Americans continue to have jobs.

---

>>Look guys, it's quite simple: bother Social Security = many angry old folks.

what we are all facing is not people who want to 'bother' SSI but people who are intent on dismantling SSI.

Even if you're not considering yourself an 'old' folk, it would behoove all of us to apply a critical eye to what is being proposed and what the consequences of those proposals will be.

Much has been put forth in the proposals that have already been proven to be false and misleading.

That's a disgusting way to attempt to sway public support for changes to public policy, but that seems to be the preferred method of operation for some in the administration today.

The American public used to be evenly divided on this issue, today, despite the efforts of Bush and his all out road show lollapalooza staged tours, Americans are increasingly against piratization.

There are now four Rethugnant versions of the plan to dismantle SSI .

All include benefit reductions that offset any gains hoped for in private accounts. None will tackle the basic solvency issues used to create a sense of 'crisis'.

Even if the public is beginning to see through the charades, now is no time to start feeling that SSI is safer from the attacks of those whose wish is to dismantle the program.

---