> Are you an optimistic Republican, or a pesimist?

I'm not a Republican at all, but my views are fairly conservative.

As for being a pesimist, the numbers scare me: a "baby boomer" glut of retirees will have to be supported by the SS payments made by gen-x'ers, many of whose parents had two or fewer kids. I'm a "boomer", so will my benefits be cut if the SS fund is short? I don't know, but this is the time to plan for shortfalls projected in 30-40 years (so the "fix" will be easier to take).

> > Are you an optimistic Republican, or a pesimist?
>
> I'm not a Republican at all, but my views are fairly conservative.
>
> As for being a pesimist, the numbers scare me: a "baby boomer" glut of
> retirees will have to be supported by the SS payments made by gen-x'ers, many
> of whose parents had two or fewer kids. I'm a "boomer", so will my benefits
> be cut if the SS fund is short? I don't know, but this is the time to plan
> for shortfalls projected in 30-40 years (so the "fix" will be easier to take).
>

This is a concern all "boomers" should have. Our generation funded the system for our parents and our children are funding for our generation.

Problem is our parents generation had 4-6 children per house hold, our generation dropped to an average of 2 children per household. This is the fundimental flaw in using present generations to fun past generations. Privatizing accounts will place the funding on the current generation for the current generation; however, for every person that privatizes their SS Account it takes away from the funding for the past generation.

If they can solve these two issue then I could see voting for it..

---

I'd rather speak my mind because it hurts too much to bite my tongue.

American Spirit BBQ Proudly Serving those that courageously defend freedom.

sure is a lot of selective reading going on....

the problem with not reading all the material is that your opinion may be based on assumptions which are incorrect.

One example, private pension funding laws were recently fundamentally changed by Congress and signed into law by Bush last April. This bill 'allowed' changes to the way pensions were funded by the corporations.

Many private pensions were created and promised under one set of accounting rules called defined benefit plans. By allowing companies to convert to cash balanced accounting rules, certain discrimanatory changes were 'legalized' and some workers now do not recieve what was promised them during the period of time they were working for the benefits.

Nope it wasn't the government who took their 'private' accounts, it was the Congress who allowed the corporations to take the money.

Congress got their kickback in the form of campaign finance donations.

Now the courts are full of cases where workers are attempting to recieve the 'promises' made while they were working.

And they called some of this legislation, the Pension Protection ACT or some such doublespeak.

---

> First, let me say that these are the first posts I remember by you in a
> political thread that discuss the issues without name-calling and insults.
> You make a much better argument this way (though I still don't agree with
> you).

(note to self, ignore holier than though attitude of those who make selective assessment)

>
> If these "private accounts" end up being treated the same as Social Security
> benefits (like a tax), then no matter what they are called the are not really
> private accounts.

Bingo..... the recent legislation gutting the Clean Air Act was called the Healthy Skies Act. The recent legislation that gutted the Forest Protection Act was called the Healthy Forest Act.

Orwellian doublespeak is the language of the day. Those with an agenda don't care that they misname something, instead it's an integral part of their strategy... I'm surprised so many miss that point right from the start.


>You are assuming that they will be treated the same as
> Social Security benefits, but the whole point of proposing private accounts is
> that they will not be treated the same. As for calling them private or
> personal or ownership accounts, these names suggest that they will not be out
> of the control of the contributing private individual. I agree that nothing
> is absolutely certain when it comes to Congress, but a “reform” that creates
> private accounts yet treats them like public funds is no reform at all.

Duh.....


> > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/06/opinion/6sun1.html?oref=login
> > ________________________________________________________
> [Edit]: I can't get to this URL.

It's easier to register than it was to sign up here, why 'can't' you get there?

> This aspect of the plan is designed to keep people from investing in such
> risky ventures that they will lose their investment and have insufficient
> retirement funds. Then the government would be responsible for bailing these
> people out because of their bad investment decisions. But it says nothing
> about who would own the individual/personal/private (you pick) retirement
> account.

That is justification being bandied about to instill confidence, yet without a concrete plan nothing is set in stone and if the whole point is 'ownership' and choice, why would it be preferrable to accept only low risk if the point is to gain exposure to risk?

> I don’t know how you can say on the one hand that “We don’t know any of the
> details for sure”, and on the other hand that this is a “concrete example”!

Simply because this is one of the few details that has been made public. That in my opinion points to what is proposed is different than the 'sales' brochure.



> But my view is based on a commonsense understanding of what a private account
> is, while you are speculating that Congress will do something completely
> different.

Common sense and Congress often don't belong on the same page.(one would hope you wouldn't need that explained for you)

> First, Social Security benefits are not an asset belonging to the individual
> at all. That said, if these accounts are treated the same as Social Security
> taxes then they would not be private accounts, but you’ve not given any
> evidence that this is in the works (the most you've done is note that various
> names are being suggested, but none of those names suggest that these accounts
> would be the same as the Social Security tax).

See above....

> You have not given me any information that Congress or the administration is
> planning to treat private accounts as public funds. Nothing that you have
> cited defines how such accounts (no matter what they might be called) will be
> actually treated. I am not dreaming, I am describing what a private account
> is. Here are examples of private accounts: bank accounts, T-bills, mutual
> funds, annuities . . . The government can tax the proceeds (earnings) from
> these accounts, but can not take them from you like it can with Social
> Security taxes.

See above...

> Please show me your source for your claim that these proposals will cut
> benefits to those with disabilities. I have not seen any reform plans that
> suggest this, and as far as I can tell it is nothing but speculation on your
> part.

Across the board benefit cuts are being proposed and discussed. Sure there are some 'promises' being made to sell the concept, such as Bush's promise that current retirees will see no change, but what does that really mean? What are the specific details of that 'promise'? No one knows for sure because Bush has not put to paper his loose talk.

Without specifically promising to veto legislation that includes such cuts, he really hasn't said a thing that should be relied upon.

I don't have a specific link at hand right this minute but I have posted links regarding this subissue in the many posts I have put up in this thread and others. Selective reporting and selective review of the material available causes some to question what's already been offered. I will find some links again., (though, it's commonly known that if you have a computer, you could do some searching on your own instead of just relying on whatever sources have been lacking in complete reportage)

> That statement simply means that those with disabilities would fall under the
> present system (not that anything would be cut), as do all who are already
> collecting Social Security benefits. Indeed, if you are on Social Security
> based on a disability, you wouldn’t be working to be able to contribute to a
> private account anyway, unless you are defrauding the government.

You aren't reading the proposals because this is one of the 'details' that have been lost in the generalized debate that private is good vs SSI is bad. There's a whole subset of debate over what happens to survivor benefits, disability benefits etc when benefits are cut to carve out the private accounts.... no one disputes that, it's just not been part of the coverage in the mainstream press. Much of that 'side' issue has not been explored at all by those claiming to support piratization as some preferable alternative based on miconceptions about what has actually been proposed.

---

I wish you would be clearer. I just Googled "Pension Protection ACT" and got legislation from 1995 and a change to a spouse's right to 401(k) accounts from 2002, but nothing from last year. Your statement that the Act "'allowed' changes to the way pensions were funded by the corporations", but you concluded that "Congress . . . allowed the corporations to take the money". The second claim does not necessarily follow from the first, so I would like to read what you think happened. And don't cite to the New York Times site, because they block access unless you are a member.

What I remember about this is that Enron and WorldCom employees were screwed out of their 401(k)'s and Congress tried to protect employee pensions and 401(k)'s. The looting of pension funds was done by CEO's well before Bush got into office.

> That's the main benefit of a two-party system: each party keeps an eye on the
> other for the kind of fine-print double-cross you are suggesting.


With effective control by one party of all three branches of the government much of the generally relied upon checks and balances of our system are no longer in play.....

---

> I wish you would be clearer. I just Googled "Pension Protection ACT" and got
> legislation from 1995 and a change to a spouse's right to 401(k) accounts from
> 2002, but nothing from last year.

Just narrow your search by adding Bush signed april 2004


And don't cite to the New York Times site,
> because they block access unless you are a member.

becoming a member or subscribing is no more difficult than creatiing an account. you can do it with a fictitious name if you want. it's a very simple process. I recommend it because the links stay active longer than some smaller sources with less resources.

Though you may think I said Bush changes all laws, what I said is Bush signed some specific legislation and Congress wrote some more. It may have been Clinton, Bush the elder, or whoever that signed a certain other piece of legislation. The key in that case is to look for the changes to funding accounting changes for defined benefit plans that allowed cash balanced accounting. It may have been buried in some Securities and Exchange commission legislation. I don't recall right at this time. (but that doesn't mean it's only speculation on my part)

---

> > First, let me say that these are the first posts I remember by you in a
> > political thread that discuss the issues without name-calling and
> insults.
> > You make a much better argument this way (though I still don't agree
> with
> > you).
>
> (note to self, ignore holier than though attitude of those who make selective
> assessment)

I see you are back to your rude insulting behavior. Then please don't complain when I point out your intellectual failings. That's IN-TUH-LEC-SHOO-UL . . . it means you're not smart.

> Simply because this is one of the few details that has been made public. That
> in my opinion points to what is proposed is different than the 'sales'
> brochure.

Where is it made public? Give me something besides your questionable, biased word. A website (that I don't have to reveal personal info to log onto), a publication, a bill, a source for crying out loud!

> > Please show me your source for your claim that these proposals will cut
> > benefits to those with disabilities. I have not seen any reform plans
> that
> > suggest this, and as far as I can tell it is nothing but speculation on
> your
> > part.
>
> Across the board benefit cuts are being proposed and discussed. Sure there are
> some 'promises' being made to sell the concept, such as Bush's promise that
> current retirees will see no change, but what does that really mean? What are
> the specific details of that 'promise'? No one knows for sure because Bush
> has not put to paper his loose talk.

It comes down to this, and you've said as much, you can't show me anything that says private accounts will not be treated as private property. Put up or shut up. Your irrational paranoia about this administration completely negates any claim that you can not substantiate.

> so
> if nothing is done now, the options of cutting benefits or removing some
> people from the system completely may be the only options available,

Why would those be the 'only' options available when clearly there are a myriad of other options available.....

Funny statement to make....

You evidently hadn't bothered to read what Comptroller General David Walker said yesterday in Congressional hearings.

""""He also said that a less than 2% rise in payroll taxes would fully fund, support and maintain the system as is for another 75 years without any cuts to benefits.""""

Clearly sounds like another viable option to me...... eh?

---

> > so
> > if nothing is done now, the options of cutting benefits or removing some
> > people from the system completely may be the only options available,
>
> Why would those be the 'only' options available when clearly there are a
> myriad of other options available.....
>
> Funny statement to make....
>
> You evidently hadn't bothered to read what Comptroller General David Walker
> said yesterday in Congressional hearings.
>
> """"He also said that a less than 2% rise in payroll taxes would fully fund,
> support and maintain the system as is for another 75 years without any cuts to
> benefits.""""
>
> Clearly sounds like another viable option to me...... eh?

Read for meaning: "if nothing is done now" includes a raise in payroll taxes, which, if not implemented NOW would be much more than 2% in 30 years.

Read for meaning: I said, "may be the only options available". What is funny about that? You of all people ought to understand speculation about an uncertain future. It is the basis of every argument you have made in this thread.

> IN-TUH-LEC-SHOO-UL . . . it means you're not smart.

Asking for respect while simultaneously acting in a manner which will guarantee respect is not deserved is assinine. You seem to have a double standard as to what applies to others. I do my best to ignore your attempts to discount everything I say because you say I'm just a Bush hater. But your assessment of 'what I am' means nothing as to the information I provide. Everything that I have supplied links for supports the information I provide, none of what I provide is merlely wild unfounded speculation. Get over it.


> A website (that I don't have to reveal personal info to log onto), a
> publication, a bill, a source for crying out loud!

Like I said you can subscribe to any of the newspapers without disclosing any personal information. use an alias.


> Put up or
> shut up. Your irrational paranoia about this administration completely
> negates any claim that you can not substantiate.

My my..... testy today, tom?

Check my posts.... read the links.... seems to me I've 'put up' a fair amount ....


and not to worry, I will continue to 'put up'...... only don't bitch if you don't bother to read the material.

---

if nothing is done now.....

if what is proposed is done now, SSI will be in worse shape than doing nothing.

---

Out of 43 trillion dollars in total unfunded liabilities.... the SSI trust fund accounts for 3 trillion dollars.....

source:Congressional record 3/9/05

There's a crisis alright? Is anyone addressing what that crisis is?

Or are there a lot of smoke and mirrors in play designed to take everyone's mind off the real problem?

---

just go read....

---

publicly financed deceptions?

---

> Asking for respect while simultaneously acting in a manner which will
> guarantee respect is not deserved is assinine. speculation. Get over it.

What? I'm not a mindreader. I don't have any idea what you are trying to say.

> My my..... testy today, tom?
>
> Check my posts.... read the links.... seems to me I've 'put up' a fair amount
> ....
> and not to worry, I will continue to 'put up'...... only don't bitch if you
> don't bother to read the material.

The problem is not that I don't read, I do read local papers and keep up to date with other news sources. The problem is, and you have demonstrated it over and over, you read something and don't understand what it says, so you post that it says something else entirely. So you talk about the Pension Protection Act, which does nothing of what you claim.

The websight I found (though you should have provided me the URL) said that Bush signed legislation in 2004, and that:

This law says to corporate accountants: the high standards of your profession will be enforced without exception; the auditors will be audited; the accountants will be held to account.

This law says to shareholders that the financial information you receive from a company will be true and reliable, for those who deliberately sign their names to deception will be punished.

This law says to workers: we will not tolerate reckless practices that artificially drive up stock prices and eventually destroy the companies, and the pensions, and your jobs.

And this law says to every American: there will not be a different ethical standard for corporate America than the standard that applies to everyone else. The honesty you expect in your small businesses, or in your workplaces, in your community or in your home, will be expected and enforced in every corporate suite in this country.

You said the law, which you described in your post #84811 as the "Pension Protection ACT", allowed: "companies to convert to cash balanced accounting rules, certain discrimanatory changes were 'legalized' and some workers now do not recieve what was promised them during the period of time they were working for the benefits."

See, you don't understand what you are reading, and that explains why you say your sources say something that they do not.

> The websight I found (though you should have provided me the URL) said that
> Bush signed legislation in 2004, and that:


Which totally discounts the possibility that the web site you found may not have been comprehensive in it's coverage of all that is included in any one bill.

I suggest if you want to argue an off topic subject we could start a new thread and we can then see if what you accuse me of is true or not.

This thread is about SSI and there's plenty of material for you to read so you can get up to speed on what's being proposed for SSI that obviously didn't make it into the Honolulu hack sheets.

I'll start another thread for private pension plan changes and history of legislative changes for you...... then you can learn what you may have missed in your brief scans of the 'news'.

---

> """"He also said that a less than 2% rise in payroll taxes would fully fund,
> support and maintain the system as is for another 75 years without any cuts to
> benefits.""""
>
> Clearly sounds like another viable option to me...... eh?

GOD you are a selfish piece of garbage. A 2% increase in taxes will sure as hell cut into MY benefits and the benefits of others who work for a living.

Did the thought ever enter you mind that the reason the population is in a decline is because of the steady increase in the cost of living?

NOW you want to increase taxes on the working man even further so you can sit on your ass and play on the computer all day.

I'm f**king ashamed to call you American.

.

---

<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>

that's ok brainsmushed... your opinions are less than relevant to any discussion of reality anyway.... I don't have you on any ignore-ant list, but I do discount every one of your posts because you are extremely unversed in reality.

---

> that's ok brainsmushed... your opinions are less than relevant to any
> discussion of reality anyway.... I don't have you on any ignore-ant list, but
> I do discount every one of your posts because you are extremely unversed in
> reality.


LAF

I might would be offended at that if you didn't have nearly 500 posts inside of 3 months.

One of us certainly spends to much time on the computer and not enough in the REAL world.

But I guess if all I had to do was sit on my ass to collect a government check, I'd be a shut-in with only the internet for a friend too.

.

---

<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>