> > 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.

Paul! YOU brought this up in your posts! In fact, YOU told me to "Just narrow your search by adding Bush signed april 2004" in your post #84829!

and I also suggested if you want to continue to discuss something other than SSI to take it to the appropriate thread.

I created one, we should continue this on that thread and you can get back to reading the material I provided on SSI here.

I'm not averse to discussing pension reform history on the other thread.

---

> and I also suggested if you want to continue to discuss something other than
> SSI to take it to the appropriate thread.
> I created one, we should continue this on that thread and you can get back to
> reading the material I provided on SSI here.
> I'm not averse to discussing pension reform history on the other thread.

The point is, Paul, that you accuse me of selective reading, but when I searched for a reference to a topic that YOU brought up, in the manner that YOU suggested I search, it said something completely different than what you were saying.

So, I'll try again. Give me a source for your claim that Congress or Bush are planning to loot private retirement accounts created under Social Security.

Now, just pause a minute and re-read what I asked. I'm NOT asking for your opinion that Bush has lied about anything else (the war, his personal history). I am NOT asking for opinion pieces about what Congress could do or has done with 401(k) or IRA accounts. Show me something that says there is a plan to create private retirement Social Security accounts that will be open to Congressional use for funding other projects; in other words, accounts that are not controlled by their owner--like Social Security funds. If you can't do that, then you will have given no evidence that private accounts will be treated any differently than any other private asset, and your argument on this topic fails.

>Give me a source for your claim that Congress or Bush are planning to loot private retirement accounts created under Social Security.

You will have to refresh my memory, tom.

Where did I make that statement?

If you want to paraphrase what I say to create an impression that I said something I clearly did not, you only show that you have no wish to discuss what I did say.

You want to think I said something you might defend, but nothing I said is what you ask.

Try again.... I'm not saying I won't discuss this issue, but it's appropriate for you to only refute what I really said, not try to put your own spin on what I said.

Perhaps you could rephrase your question to reflect exactly something I did claim.

---

Supreme Court to decide if benefit suspension violated anti-cutback rule


Maybe tom can shed some light on the final disposition of this case for all of us?


The US Supreme Court announced December 1 that it will decide whether a pension plan can be amended after a participant’s retirement to expand the types of disqualifying employment that will trigger a suspension of the participant’s early retirement benefits. The decision will have a direct impact on multiemployer plans and could have broader implications for other retirement plans.

_________________

I would think the findings in this case may have some bearing on the so-called 'private' accounts being proposed for SSI also.
.
.
.

.just more wild speculation, I suppose....
.
.

---

> >Give me a source for your claim that Congress or Bush are planning to loot
> private retirement accounts created under Social Security.
>
> You will have to refresh my memory, tom.
>
> Where did I make that statement?

In your post #84211 you said:

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.

That last paragraph seems to assume that those with private accounts would be out of the Medicare/Medicaid programs also.

In #84312 you said:

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...

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...

And all through this thread you have argued that private accounts could be used by Congress the same as Social Security Funds and thus not be "private" at all. Now, show me where there is any plan to do that. Where is your source for the "talk of . . ." you referred to in your post #84211?

> Supreme Court to decide if benefit suspension violated anti-cutback rule
>
> Maybe tom can shed some light on the final disposition of <a> href="http://wrg.wmmercer.com/showarticle.asp?blurb_id=34624">this[/url] case
> for all of us?
>
> The US Supreme Court announced December 1 that it will decide whether a
> pension plan can be amended after a participant’s retirement to expand the
> types of disqualifying employment that will trigger a suspension of the
> participant’s early retirement benefits. The decision will have a direct
> impact on multiemployer plans and could have broader implications for other
> retirement plans.
> _________________
>
> I would think the findings in this case may have some bearing on the so-called
> 'private' accounts being proposed for SSI also.
> .
> .just more wild speculation, I suppose....

You just told me in your #84878 that this discussion belongs in a separate thread. This is about pension plans, not Social Security or private accounts under Social Security. Do you understand your own words?

> 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.

Yes and the control is not argued by Bush, so why should you? His quote:

""..people could set aside a negotiated amount of their own money in a(n) account that would be managed by that person but under, you know, serious guidelines. As I said, you know, you can't use the money to go to the lottery, you know, or take it to the track. There would be -- it's like the -- some of the guidelines in some of the thrift savings plans right here in the federal government.""

So one the one hand he says you have control and you can build assets you control to do with how you please, but then he goes on to say that the value of the private retirement accounts would be used offset the benefits paid from the Social Security Trust Fund.

It can't be used for both -- at least for those who require social security benefits as a core part (if not all) of their retirement income.




> 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.

Yes.... the links had been supplied in this or the previous thread. You must have missed that.

> 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.
>
> That last paragraph seems to assume that those with private accounts would be
> out of the Medicare/Medicaid programs also.

Possible, so what is your point?
>
> In #84312 you said:
>
> 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....

Yes..... in the hearings yesterday the private accounts were referred to as part of the regular benefits with a limited personal choice component..... I'll wait for the glossary before I pretend to know what the hell that statement is supposed to mean.

> 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...

Yes..... you would have to go with your 'assumptions' that these so-called 'private' accounts will have the attributes you so freely assign to them. Until the legislation is defined, I continue to hold my reservations.

> 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...

Yes....... until I see these 'private' accounts defined in law, I cannot assume what asset class laws they will or will not be governed by. (and neither can you)

> And all through this thread you have argued that private accounts could be
> used by Congress the same as Social Security Funds

Nope, sorry tom, didn't say that at all. What I did say is on the record here and on the other thread. What I have said is that until private accounts are legally defined we can't assume they will mean any one thing at all, and Congress may or may not adhere to the various proposals and Congress may not adhere to your definition of private.

>Where is your
> source for the "talk of . . ." you referred to in your post #84211?

If you are referring to talk of annuities.



Or this talk of annuities?

---

> You just told me in your #84878 that this discussion belongs in a separate
> thread. This is about pension plans, not Social Security or private accounts
> under Social Security.

Oh, but tom, according to your definition of private accounts this may very well apply to SSI proposals.... eh?

You haven't changed your opinion of what 'private' SSI accounts will or will not be subject to alteration by the government are you?

If it's pension reform history that may not apply, I created a thread for that discussion.

---

Paul,
You talk of doom and gloom against reform that isn't even on paper yet, but then try to say concrete that it will not work.
You can't have it both ways.

You and Tom will not come to a conclusion because you just keep side stepping the points and only use rhetoric and name calling.

You really think that a 2% increase this time will take care of it for the next 75 years.

---

Red Bull Air Racing

Gas price by zip at Seti

> You really think that a 2% increase this time will take care of it for the
> next 75 years.


When the US Comptroller General, David Walker, testified to that very notion in the House Ways and Means Committee hearing yesterday and not one US Representative questioned the veracity of that statement, I have a tendency to think someone as well versed in the subject as David Walker is, does know what he's talking about and is more qualified than I am to judge that remark.

I had heard claims from other sources that talked of a 1% pay-roll tax increase doing the same thing, so I won't automatically discount the possibility that the Comptroller General is probably correct.

We are talking about a huge base and without doing the math myself and knowing all the variables to factor in..... I will go with that until I see some verifiable and legitimate refutation of the idea.

---

I'll check back later to continue any follow through that anyone may care to discuss, gotta go do some charity volunteering for now...

I put up lot's of new links if anyone cares to review the latest info on the issue...

later...

---

>
> > You really think that a 2% increase this time will take care of it for
> the
> > next 75 years.
>
>
> When the US Comptroller General, David Walker, testified to that very notion
> in the House Ways and Means Committee hearing yesterday and not one US
> Representative questioned the veracity of that statement, I have a tendency to
> think someone as well versed in the subject as David Walker is, does know what
> he's talking about and is more qualified than I am to judge that remark.
>
> I had heard claims from other sources that talked of a 1% pay-roll tax
> increase doing the same thing, so I won't automatically discount the
> possibility that the Comptroller General is probably correct.
>
> We are talking about a huge base and without doing the math myself and knowing
> all the variables to factor in..... I will go with that until I see some
> verifiable and legitimate refutation of the idea.
>
>
>
>
How can you believe that 2% once is going to take care of it for 75 years when they have increased it more than that at least 4 times in the past 40 years. Thats not counting the automatic wage cap increases each year.
Don't try to say these guys really know whats going on. They are just politicians and will say anything to support their side but really have now figures to prove it.

---

Red Bull Air Racing

Gas price by zip at Seti

Okay, now I get it: Paul, you are a fraud.

You think you are some kind of intellectual liberal, but you have no substance. You are, in fact a psudo-intellectual liberal. You think when you spout your nonsense, it does not need to be backed up.

I have asked you (many times) to give me a source for one of your propositions and you simply won't--because clearly you have none. You say you never said something, so I QUOTE YOUR OWN WORDS, and you ignore me. I ask you a direct question and you refer me to something completely different.

RichardG got it right: you sidestep my questions and fall back on name-calling. Well, now that I understand that you will not engage me on the issues, that you will not support your wacko ideas with facts, that your only source is your overly fertile immagination, I won't work so hard to try and deal with your positions. At least I back up my position, you haven't done so once.

>so I QUOTE YOUR OWN WORDS,

and when you finally did, I supplied the links you seemed to require, sometimes more than once, since you hadn't bothered to read the links the first time I offered them.

From the way you respond it's quite likely your reading comprehension skills may be impaired....

evidently when tom gets caught up so far in his own bullshit that he can't back himself out without looking a complete ass he resorts to his old trick of just trying to debase someone else in an attempt to save his ass, .....er.... I mean face.

---

> How can you believe that 2% once is going to take care of it for 75 years when
> they have increased it more than that at least 4 times in the past 40 years.
> Thats not counting the automatic wage cap increases each year.
> Don't try to say these guys really know whats going on. They are just
> politicians and will say anything to support their side but really have now
> figures to prove it.


You know, richard, I think it's because of a fundamental difference in opinion about what the Comptroller General said and what he meant and how you interpretted that......

I don't think he inferred that the inflation proofing regular step increases already built into the equation of the system today would be eliminated. I think he meant in addition to the regular inflation adjustments the 2% puts the base calculation over the top.

I think you may be inferring that those step increases would be eliminated by what he said.

I could be wrong, about both assumptions. But that was my guess, in which case a one time 2% increase of the base calculation might just do it. I do know that the 'shortfall' is not as large a number as is sometimes reported.

Going back to what's posted on the other thread... there's even been some studies showing how there may not be a shortfall depending on the difference between the trustee's projections and actual economic growth.

That's supported by the fact that the date of 'collapse' keeps being pushed back in time with each new projection.

As noted in the other thread, post #71690, that projected collapse was, at one time, predicted and projected to be in the 60's, then in the 70's, then in the 80's, then in the 90's, etc etc...

Just in the last few years the projections have been revised outward to now stand around 2052 and the revised level of benefits projected to have to be cut has moved up from 70 some odd % of full benefits to, I think today they say, 84% of full benefits.

Only if our economy matches the low expectations in the trustees worst case scenerio do we ever reach some insolvency stage. And our growth has never matched the worst case scenerio that the trustees project.

If the goal is to support and maintain SSI in it's current form, the tweaking to do that is minor. Especially when compared to the costs involved in the schemes being proposed by the president which will add tens of trillions of dollars to our defecit.

Look into it, richard, there's a slew of information which is mostly sensationalist exageration, but in between there is good info on what the real story is. A 2% base increase would raise most taxes about 200 dollars a year.

What's your load of the debt and debt service if we add tens of trillions of dollars to the deficit? Somebody somehow will have to pay that sum. Think it won't be you, so you can leave it out of the discussion?

---

> You know, richard, I think it's because of a fundamental difference in opinion
> about what the said and what he meant......
>
> I don't think he inferred that the inflation proofing regular step increases
> already built into the equation and the system would be eliminated.
>
> I think you may be inferring that those step increases would be eliminated by
> what he said.
>
> I could be wrong, about both assumptions. But that was my guess, in which
> case a one time 2% increase of the base calculation might just do it. I do
> know that the 'shortfall' is not as large a number as is sometimes reported.
>
Yes, you are wrong. I and I am sure they meant that the 2% increase is in addition to all of the other changes that occur each year.


> Going back to what's posted on the other thread... there's even been some
> studies showing how there may not be a shortfall depending on the difference
> between the trustee's projections and actual economic growth.
>
> That's supported by the fact that the date of 'collapse' keeps being pushed
> back in time with each new projection.
>
> As noted in the other thread, post #71690, that projected collapse was, at one
> time, predicted and projected to be in the 60's, then in the 70's, then in the
> 80's, then in the 90's, etc etc...
>
> Just in the last few years the projections have been revised outward to now
> stand around 2052 and the revised level of benefits projected to have to be
> cut has moved up from 70 some odd % of full benefits to, I think today they
> say, 84% of full benefits.

The projections keep getting extended only because they keep increasing the caps and taxes rates. So why not stop all this tweaking and start pirvate accounts. The payments will eventually get to 1 person paying for one person anyway. Most countries in Europe are already almost at 2 for one. When it gets to 1 for 1 it could just as well be privated accounts. I pay my own way and not I pay your way.


>
> Only if our economy matches the low expectations in the trustees worst case
> scenerio do we ever reach some insolvency stage. And our growth has never
> matched the worst case scenerio that the trustees project.
>
> If the goal is to support and maintain SSI in it's current form, the tweaking
> to do that is minor. Especially when compared to the costs involved in the
> schemes being proposed by the president which will add tens of trillions of
> dollars to our defecit.
>

The cost is because congress raided the trust fund to spend on other programs and many are useless pork programs. They need to stop the raiding (unnecessary spending) and then it will be paid for.

If you look I believe the very original proposal for Social Security was to have private accounts.

---

Red Bull Air Racing

Gas price by zip at Seti

> Yes, you are wrong. I and I am sure they meant that the 2% increase is in
> addition to all of the other changes that occur each year.

Are you thinking he meant 'an additional 2% increase each year? Because that's clearly not what he said. Testimony clarified the the 2% was not something that was added yearly.

> The projections keep getting extended only because they keep increasing the
> caps and taxes rates. So why not stop all this tweaking and start pirvate
> accounts. The payments will eventually get to 1 person paying for one person
> anyway. Most countries in Europe are already almost at 2 for one. When it
> gets to 1 for 1 it could just as well be privated accounts. I pay my own way
> and not I pay your way.

Well, that;'s what your response was in the other thread.... could you provide a link that concludes it's not tied to productivity growth? Or something which shows how much of each component is responsible in each case? Be nice to see a comparitive graph if in fact that is much of the reason the insolvency date keeps being extended.

> The cost is because congress raided the trust fund to spend on other programs
> and many are useless pork programs. They need to stop the raiding
> (unnecessary spending) and then it will be paid for.

While I agree that a fiscally responsible treatment of the trust would be desirable, I have not seen the figures that prove just doing that alone will be all that is required. Where did you read that?



> If you look I believe the very original proposal for Social Security was to
> have private accounts.

'You believe' or you know.... I'd be interested in that link too. I haven't seen that one.

---

FY 2006 Budget Markup is on C-Span right now....

More good theater.....

None of the 4.4 trillion needed to begin privatization is included in the Bush budget.

Out of sight....... too bad he can't keep it out of mind....

---

>
>
> > Yes, you are wrong. I and I am sure they meant that the 2% increase is
> in
> > addition to all of the other changes that occur each year.
>
> Are you thinking he meant 'an additional 2% increase each year? Because
> that's clearly not what he said. Testimony clarified the the 2% was not
> something that was added yearly.
>
You clearly can't read and remember what was read. In post 84918 I stated:

How can you believe that 2% once is going to take care of it for 75 years when they have increased it more than that at least 4 times in the past 40 years.


Second: 2% every year for 75 years is not possible.


> > The projections keep getting extended only because they keep increasing
> the
> > caps and taxes rates. So why not stop all this tweaking and start
> pirvate
> > accounts. The payments will eventually get to 1 person paying for one
> person
> > anyway. Most countries in Europe are already almost at 2 for one. When
> it
> > gets to 1 for 1 it could just as well be privated accounts. I pay my own
> way
> > and not I pay your way.
>
> Well, that;'s what your response was in the other thread.... could you provide
> a link that concludes it's not tied to productivity growth? Or something
> which shows how much of each component is responsible in each case? Be nice
> to see a comparitive graph if in fact that is much of the reason the
> insolvency date keeps being extended.
>
You just can't see the flaws in your statements. Why have they made changes in the rates and caps so much, because they see there is a problem with SSI and are trying to patch it. Naturally the patch does help for a time so the proposed end gets extended. It has nothing to do with productivity.

---

Red Bull Air Racing

Gas price by zip at Seti