> > 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.
>

Oh I agree that these proposals that everyone is talking about are designed to TAKE CARE of the problem, I just think that the problem that some people are secretly referring to is Social Security itself. As for the people already on Social Security not being affected, this is not a certainty.

It seems that there is a problem with the amount of raw cash funding available in this country that is responsible for the proper funding of Social Security. We need to know why this is the case, and who is to blame so we can hold them accountable for it. I just wonder where all the money that need is going, cuz it seems that we have plenty of money for Iraq and Afganistan, but not for our own people.

> 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.
> 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'.

Talk about misleading, you talk of reducing SS benefits by the amount of a private account like that's a bad thing. Are you suggesting that people should have BOTH full SS benefits and a private retirement account? Of course the private account would substitute for SS benefits! That's the whole point of the change. That's how future retirees can help ensure their own retirement benefits when Social Security goes in the red.

> 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.

What's disgusting is your brainless, pointless use of pejoratives like "Rethugnant" and "piratization" to "sway public support" in these forums.

> It seems that there is a problem with the amount of raw cash funding available
> in this country that is responsible for the proper funding of Social Security.
> We need to know why this is the case, and who is to blame so we can hold them
> accountable for it. I just wonder where all the money that need is going, cuz
> it seems that we have plenty of money for Iraq and Afganistan, but not for our
> own people.

As I understand it, the problem is the falling number of workers and the growing number of (Baby Boomer) retirees. Funding for the war on terror is a seperate issue (though it does have an impact).

> >>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 <a> href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-02-28-poll_x.htm">piratization.[/url]
>
>
> There are now <a> href="http://www.freep.com/news/nw/social8e_20050308.htm">four Rethugnant[/url]
> 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.
>

You're right about some people trying to dismantle Social Security altogether -- they just somehow associate it with socialism, which is just not the case.

I just have a hard time believing politicians that run those now well-known glossy 30 second TV campaign ads every few years.

It may not be OBVIOUS how these reform proposals will degrade Social Security, but once they are in place, the fine print (and there's always fine print) will start to appear. Kinda like disappearing/re-appearing ink.

> > It seems that there is a problem with the amount of raw cash funding
> available
> > in this country that is responsible for the proper funding of Social
> Security.
> > We need to know why this is the case, and who is to blame so we can hold
> them
> > accountable for it. I just wonder where all the money that need is going,
> cuz
> > it seems that we have plenty of money for Iraq and Afganistan, but not
> for our
> > own people.
>
> As I understand it, the problem is the falling number of workers and the
> growing number of (Baby Boomer) retirees. Funding for the war on terror is a
> seperate issue (though it does have an impact).
>

Yes, all of these reasons play a role more or less. But it seems that we always have more strong will to solve external problems rather than internal ones. I mean, does anyone notice how much more decisive and forceful arguments given by politicians are when it comes to funding a war, rather than for funding domestic programs. It's like there is always enough money for the prior.

>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.
Tom,

Since I have seen no legal source to back up those claims I would appreciate your showing where you can prove those statements.

There is a discussion about the private account plans being under the control of 'Congress and that there will be offsets to any potential earnings.

There has been talk of a plan to shape private accounts as annuities which would end with one's death. Hence nothing there in the form of assets to pass on.

There is talk of private accounts being 'available' in the case of bankruptcy. So if one was to suffer a medical setback which exhausts all other funds, creditors would be able to tap what is considered private property in your private accounts.

All scenerios which defeat the safety net function of SSI as it's formed today.

With no clear cut plan to guarantee that which you claim and no legal precedent to guarantee your claims, it would be well to take such claims with a high degree of wariness as to their being the last word about such concerns.

---

> Talk about misleading, you talk of reducing SS benefits by the amount of a
> private account like that's a bad thing. Are you suggesting that people
> should have BOTH full SS benefits and a private retirement account?
> Of course the private account would substitute for SS benefits! That's
> the whole point of the change. That's how future retirees can help ensure
> their own retirement benefits when Social Security goes in the red.

It's important to consider those points because people are being told they have the option to make more than the guaranteed benefits in the current plan. Not even the Rethugnants are defending that untruth today. Benefit cuts do go hand in hand with the proposals for private accounts. If your private accounts do not perform as has been promised, and there's ample evidence that many won't, the end game will be that those who were promised a better deal will definitely not get a better deal. You're ignoring too much when you argue what will happen. What will happen is not what some say.


> What's disgusting is your brainless, pointless use of pejoratives like
> "Rethugnant" and "piratization" to "sway public support" in these forums.

It's a tough world, isn't it tom? You want to be the only one to be able to affix labels and categorize and characterize and your sensibilities are so offended when anyone else calls a sham a sham..... poor tom. Grow some hide tom. Defend the issues with something other than your fragile hypocritical sensibilities.

---

> As I understand it, the problem is the falling number of workers and the
> growing number of (Baby Boomer) retirees. Funding for the war on terror is a
> seperate issue (though it does have an impact).

Beyond the 'problem' of the numbers of workers and how support for SSI can be structured, the deficit is the key point to consider.

Those who suggest we default on the SSI trust can magically make a large part of the deficit 'disappear' if they can eliminate SSI.

What's left out of that argument is the acknowledgement that implementing private accounts will cost much more than restructuring SSI to maintain it's current form.

We pay now 1 billion dollars a day in debt service on the deficit.

Without the damaging effects of the deficit, Medicare and SSI would not be the problem that we have made them.

---

\
> You're right about some people trying to dismantle Social Security altogether
> -- they just somehow associate it with socialism, which is just not the case.
>
> I just have a hard time believing politicians that run those now well-known
> glossy 30 second TV campaign ads every few years.
>
> It may not be OBVIOUS how these reform proposals will degrade Social Security,
> but once they are in place, the fine print (and there's always fine print)
> will start to appear. Kinda like disappearing/re-appearing ink.

Right you are alex and as noted earlier in this thread there are instances of the campaign to eliminate SSI ever since it was formed. That hasn't changed. Only the deceptive practices of those who harbor that desire.

Earlier in this thread, I have sourced the quotes from those supporting private accounts as admitting that dismantling SSI is the goal.

Since the administration has been shown to be deceptive at best in it's dealings with the public, it's important to look beyond the talking points and the spot ads which make unsupported claims.

---

> It's a tough world, isn't it tom? You want to be the only one to be able to
> affix labels and categorize and characterize and your sensibilities are so
> offended when anyone else calls a sham a sham..... poor tom. Grow some hide
> tom. Defend the issues with something other than your fragile hypocritical
> sensibilities.

Anyone even vaguely familiar with your writing style will agree that you call your opponents names as an intergal part of your argument. If you don't like me calling you names (your quote: "You want to be the only one to be able to affix labels"), then stop it yourself. Indeed, my hide wasn't even the target of your brainless, pointless pejoratives, which say more about your own failings than the Republican's.

> Since I have seen no legal source to back up those claims I would appreciate
> your showing where you can prove those statements.

Flemming v. Nestor

>
> > You're right about some people trying to dismantle Social Security
> altogether
> > -- they just somehow associate it with socialism, which is just not the
> case.
> >
> > I just have a hard time believing politicians that run those now
> well-known
> > glossy 30 second TV campaign ads every few years.
> >
> > It may not be OBVIOUS how these reform proposals will degrade Social
> Security,
> > but once they are in place, the fine print (and there's always fine
> print)
> > will start to appear. Kinda like disappearing/re-appearing ink.
>
> Right you are alex and as noted earlier in this thread there are instances of
> the campaign to eliminate SSI ever since it was formed. That hasn't changed.
> Only the deceptive practices of those who harbor that desire.
>
> Earlier in this thread, I have sourced the quotes from those supporting
> private accounts as admitting that dismantling SSI is the goal.
>
> Since the administration has been shown to be deceptive at best in it's
> dealings with the public, it's important to look beyond the talking points and
> the spot ads which make unsupported claims.
>

Deception and ignorance are very strong allies, that is, that if there is no ignorance by voters, deception would be more rare. I thought that I heard a lot about this reform issue from the small amount of American news that I get here in Germany, but I just keep learning about it more and more now. Yes, those were good points made by Sen. Inouye. Although I don't really care so much about any of the two big parties, I have to admit that that guy was right about what may happen with fluctuation.

> > Since I have seen no legal source to back up those claims I would
> appreciate
> > your showing where you can prove those statements.
>
> Flemming v. Nestor
>
Checkmate!

>
> Anyone even vaguely familiar with your writing style will agree that you call
> your opponents names as an intergal part of your argument.

More unarmed men... you assume I think of you as an opponent......

smirk....

---

> > Anyone even vaguely familiar with your writing style will agree that you
> call
> > your opponents names as an intergal part of your argument.
>
> More unarmed men... you assume I think of you as an opponent......
>
> smirk....

I didn't say that at all. Learn to read for meaning. I clearly said "my hide wasn't even the target of your brainless, pointless pejoratives".

smirk

>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).

Your citing obscure case law does not even address this claim of yours.

Since private accounts in each of the 4 different plans offered to date are still somewhat nebulous as to specifics and are ultimately yet to be amended or affirmed by Congress in any way, shape or form, it's infantile to suspect that you are stating facts that are 'proved' by citing deportation related court actions about a totally different set of assets covered by a different set of precedents in law. You have no precedent for undefined plans which could be enacted under whatever rules Congress decides on....

If anything your case law upholds my argument that Congress can tell you anything at all about your so-called 'private' account, and legally structure it any way they choose.... hence guaranteeing you no right to property in any way as you so freely assume by asserting that it will be like any other investment vehicle in existence now...

Since Flemming vs Nestor does not address and cannot address unknown future acts of Congress, it's hilarious that you think you have a case....

I give you no points on your attempt to prove this claim, tom.... You haven't even addressed your assertion that private accounts will only fit your assumptions.

>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.

Flemming vs Nestor does not 'prove' what Congress is likely to do..... though Flemming vs Nestor does confirm that Congress can do pretty much what it wants to...

Again, no points....


>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.

Flemming vs Nestor does not address the fact that Congress can structure undefined 'private' accounts in any manner in which they care to structure them. One plan put forth by the Rethugnants does mandate that the private accounts will 'roll-over' into annuities upon maturation. That plan, if adopted, can be sold as 'private' accounts. and that 'private' account does not necessarily have to have your assumed property rights assigned to it. Private accounts is just a label. The proof will be in the future actions of Congress. If anything, Flemming vs Nestor affirms the rights of Congress to do just whatever it is they so choose...

So pasting Flemming vs Nestor proves nothing about your assertions....


I give you a D-, tom Though, if you tried that twice, I'd clearly have to flunk you.

You might have gotten a D if you had even attempted to address your assertions, maybe pretended that one of the 4 plans released so far was clearly stating that which you assert here, but as it is, you haven't even properly addressed your claims...

In fact, what you did offer makes me think you have little understanding of what the plans offered so far will even mean if enacted in their original forms. I don't think you have been keeping up on the course material....

You won't learn, if you don't study..... Your assumptions won't carry you on this one, tom. Your assertions cannot be but factually unfounded, mere assumptions.

Not guaranteed by law, and not, as yet, set in any legal legislative act.

Pretty unimpressive, ...based on that little demonstration of your legal prowess, one can be glad that your legal advice is not something any of us have to rely on.

---

> I didn't say that at all.

No you merely wrote it....

Learn to write for meaning....

---

> Checkmate!
>

You must not have read the material either....

Makes me think you're not a chess player of any note....

---

You asked for a source, I gave you a source. Once again, you do not seem to be able to read for meaning.

There are Constitutional safeguards that prevent Congress from taking private property without compensation. Do you want a cite to the specific article in the Constitution? Flemming v. Nestor clearly says that Social Security is not the property of a private citizen, the money is a tax and Congress is free to do with it what it wants. Private retirement accounts (do you understand the word "private"?) are the property of the citizen who funds them. See if you can get your money back from the law school you attended, since they didn't teach you anything at all about legal analysis.

Why don't you go back to calling the president names--that seems to be the only debating technique you know. Or you could squeeze your thin argument through a thesaurus to sound smart, even though it is clear you are not. How ironic that you actually think you are shooting at unarmed men!

> You asked for a source, I gave you a source. Once again, you do not seem to
> be able to read for meaning.
>
> There are Constitutional safeguards that prevent Congress from taking private
> property without compensation. Do you want a cite to the specific article in
> the Constitution? Flemming v. Nestor clearly says that Social Security is not
> the property of a private citizen, the money is a tax and Congress is free to
> do with it what it wants. Private retirement accounts (do you understand the
> word "private"?) are the property of the citizen who funds them. See if you
> can get your money back from the law school you attended, since they didn't
> teach you anything at all about legal analysis.


You provided a source which proved my argument that benefits can be altered by Congress.

Since 'private' accounts will not be the same as SSI benefits, your case law citing does not address 'private' accounts yet to be defined by Congress.

I understand perfectly what private accounts is supposed to mean.

I also know that what is said is rarely what is truly meant by this administration.

Calling these accounts 'private' does not by law require them to fit past legal precedent.

Congress can assign any set of rules they want to these accounts and call them anything they want.

These accounts will be defined by legislative act, not your dictionary.

You can do no more than 'assume' you know what legal form 'private' accounts will take.

You cannot, citing any case law you care to cite, gaurantee the end result will match your assumptions.

(Unarmed and gullible to boot....) Perhaps you should 'think' for meaning, tom...

---