 |
|
| Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Social Security...Your Money Or Theirs?
Interesting times ahead....
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...88485db045&e=4 Whose Social Security Stash Is It? The International Star Registry was way ahead of President Bush and his "ownership society." Long before the President ever thought of giving people their own little piece of Social Security the International Star Registry was giving folks their own little pieces of the night sky. For $54, plus shipping and handling, the organization gives you your very own star. Call it an intergalactic ownership society. Of course, stars aren't the same as retirement money. The International Star Registry is quite frank that you don't actually own your star. You just get to give it a name (which, by the way, isn't recognized by scientific authorities). In contrast, President Bush argues that the money in the private accounts really, really would be yours. "I think people ought to be encouraged to own something in America. You'll be owning a part of your retirement account. It's actually your money to begin with. It's not the government's money," Bush said on Feb. 4 in Little Rock, Ark., during his tour to promote his Social Security ideas. UNTOUCHABLE. But would you really own this money? The more you hear about the details of Bush's plan, the more you wonder whether you would actually own the money in your private account -- any more than you can claim to own a burning ball of gas thousands of light years away. One thing ownership means is being able to do what you want with something. But under the Bush plan, you'd be given just a small range of approved options of how to invest "your money." What kind of ownership is that? When money really is yours -- like your take-home pay -- the government has no say over how you invest it. Gold? Pork bellies? Santa Monica real estate? Go for it. Or a new car. If your retirement stash is truly your money, you should be able to spend some of it on a new SUV -- or a college education, or nursing care for an elderly parent. That wouldn't be allowed under the Bush plan. People wouldn't be able to touch the money in their accounts until they retired. BIG BACK DOOR. In fact, for people below a certain income cutoff, the money in their accounts might be as untouchable as Alpha Centauri. Under the plan Bush is advocating, people whose Social Security income alone would leave them below the poverty line -- a very large group -- would have to put all the money in their accounts toward buying an annuity. That's a monthly payment that would continue until they die (just like the Social Security checks they already get). Another mark of real ownership is that the thing you own can't be taken away from you. And it's true that Uncle Sam wouldn't be able to take the money out of private accounts. But the system has a wide-open back door. While the government can't take money out of private accounts, it certainly can cut back on the benefits in the traditional part of Social Security. Indeed, cutting benefits is exactly what President Bush is planning to do. The whole rationale for private accounts is that they'll earn good returns and offset the reduced benefit. LEFT POCKET, RIGHT POCKET. It doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to imagine what could happen in a decade or so. Let's say private accounts are a huge success and Americans accumulate scads of money in them. Let's also say Washington is still trying to fix traditional Social Security's finances. In that case, lawmakers will simply cut traditional benefits by roughly the same amount as the windfall in the private accounts. So the government can't take money out of your left pocket -- that's the private account. But it can accomplish the same thing by taking money from your right pocket, the traditional benefit. And you'll be just as helpless as if you never had a private account in the first place. Nothing, really, will have changed. Is this wrong? Actually, no. President Bush has good reasons for creating a system that puts tight restrictions on private accounts. LOGICAL AND DEFENSIBLE. If people can invest in anything they want, many will make stupid choices, go broke, and end up requiring help from the government. Same thing with letting people take money out in a lump sum, either before or after retirement. If they blow the money, they'll wind up on the public dole. From the viewpoint of future workers, it might even be logical and defensible for the government some day to offset windfalls in private accounts by cutting government-guaranteed benefits. The problem isn't the restrictions on ownership in the Bush plan. It's the false billing, which is aimed at drumming up support from a skeptical public. You won't really "own" the money in your private account. Likewise, you can't own stars in the sky. At least the International Star Registry is up-front enough to admit it. |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Okay, I own my house and lot. Can I cut down all the trees on the lot?
The City says NO. Can I use it for a business? The City says NO. So according to you I don't really own my house and lot. Next. I get Social Security now. Can I pass that on to my children when I die? Hell NO. How about my wife? Absolutely NOT. Can I make any decision about it? I think I can not collect it. So as I see it under the Bush Plan, I am a lot closer to actually owning something. Just because there are limitations on the Bush Plan, does not mean that it is not a huge improvement over the current Social Security. With the current Social Security, most people in their thirties will be lucky to get back the amount they put in plus about 1 percent. Now that is a dismal return over about thirty years. Currently all the excess Social Security funds are invested in Treasury Bills. I would not use any financial advisor that did not recommend some diversity. Dan Too_Many_Tools wrote: One thing ownership means is being able to do what you want with something. But under the Bush plan, you'd be given just a small range of approved options of how to invest "your money." What kind of ownership is that? When money really is yours -- like your take-home pay -- the government has no say over how you invest it. Gold? Pork bellies? Santa Monica real estate? Go for it. You won't really "own" the money in your private account. Likewise, you can't own stars in the sky. At least the International Star Registry is up-front enough to admit it. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
jim rozen wrote: In article .com, says... ...With the current Social Security, most people in their thirties will be lucky to get back the amount they put in plus about 1 percent. Now that is a dismal return over about thirty years. Ah but at least it's better than losing principle on the investment. Jim Would have to check, but the last I heard most people (average) used up what was paid in within about 26 months. After that, you are living on your kid's deposits. Koz |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think the forecast for your daughter is that she will only lose a few
percent of her principal. Dan |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 8 Feb 2005 10:28:39 -0800, jim rozen
wrote: In article .com, says... ...With the current Social Security, most people in their thirties will be lucky to get back the amount they put in plus about 1 percent. Now that is a dismal return over about thirty years. ================ Ah but at least it's better than losing principle on the investment. Jim =========================== Will Rogers observed that the return *OF* your investment was more important than the return *ON* your investment. Enron/WorldCom/Tyco/HealthSouth/AA/Delta/TWA/Kmart/steel any one? |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
You could " fix " social security by increasing the payroll tax. But
that would not make it better. As it Social Security sucks. There is no way my wife and I could live on Social Security. And I don't have a problem with that. I knew that and saved and invested on my own. What I have a problem with is that Social Security took my money via payroll taxes and gives back so little. If I had been able to invest one fourth of the money that went for payroll taxes, I would be getting about twice as much now as I get from Social Security. And some people are just getting by and can't save and invest as I did. The government is taking their money and not investing it wisely. Dan |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Koz" wrote in message ... But when you look at the real numbers, the Bush plan is not about you needing to keep your own money or "saving" social security. The notion of depletion of the SS trust is based on growth numbers at a rate about half the historical rate. However, the numbers presented of what you could earn on your own money are based on not only an increasing growth rate but the average stock price to earnings ratio increasing from about 20% to over 100% in 50+ years. You can't have it both ways. If you use the economic growth numbers that are used to justify what you could personally ean from your private investment, SS actually doesn't go broke at all. The word that keeps entering my mind when I hear the administration's statements on Social Security is "Disconnect". There is a "Disconnect" between the rhetoric of doom and the reality of the situation; SS is neither going "Bankrupt" nor "Bust" any time in the next few decades. A manageable change (or a package of small changes) made right now would keep it in the black for the forseeable future. There is a "Disconnect" between the "problem" as stated by the administration and the "cure" put forth by the administration. Specifically, the "Cure" (a 4% private account) makes thing worse! There is (IMHO) a "Disconnect" between what the administration says it wants to do (build an "ownership society" and "save" Social Security) and what it actually wants to do. Actually, what the administration wants is to gradually phase out SS as we know it and privatize it into a "401K" -type system much like most current pension plans today. Step back for just a moment and note that "guaranteed" pension plans have just about disappeared over the last 10 or 15 years, replaced by "defined contribution" plans that guarantee nothing except that money is contributed to them. Now, the government wants to do the same thing with Social Security! What that means is that if the stock market happens to crash just as it is time for you to retire, (remember 9-1-1?) you will be "double screwed". Your only alternative will be to stay in the job market. It is important to remember that Social Security is a safety net, not a retirement plan. We don't let people starve in the streets here in the US of A, so SS is there to ensure that your neighbor does not become so destitute that you have to ante-up to feed him. It protects you as much as it protects him. It must be a guaranteed minimum income! All the above said, I am actually in favor of about a 10% private account, with the lion's share of SS remaining much as it exists today however; 1) I don't know how you would ever pay for it and, 2) I don't think that is what Bush really wants. The whole thing could be immediately "fixed" by increasing the maximum amount that SS is paid upon. Additionally, there is nothing precluding you from making your own private tax free investments in addition to SS. That's what IRAs are for. True and Truer. Vaughn |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 09:09:13 -0800, Jim Stewart
wrote: I'm normally a conservative, but in this case I question Bush's motivations. I think that the banks will be the main players profiting from privatizing SS. Look what happend when the Texans let the savings and loan business loose. It wasnt just the Texans...do your studies a bit better. Greed is universal and crosses all party lines. Some even marry repeatedly for money. Look at Kerry. Gunner " We have all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare...Thanks to AOL and WebTv, we know this is not possible." |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 10:54:57 -0800, Koz
wrote: SS IS a problem though. It's a pyramid scheme. Something does need to be done. personally, I believe that SS should be rolled over into the welfare program where "need" is a factor in determing who gets paid. SS should not be a right, it should be part of a social incurance program to act as a safety net. Same is true of unemployment. 1 program instead of 3 (or 52 if you consider that states run their own unemployment programs) Social Security was not intended to be a long term program and FDR was quite vocal about people should put money into investments...includind SSI money. Gunner " We have all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare...Thanks to AOL and WebTv, we know this is not possible." |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 8 Feb 2005 15:56:28 -0800, jim rozen
wrote: In article .com, says... What I have a problem with is that Social Security took my money via payroll taxes and gives back so little. If I had been able to invest one fourth of the money that went for payroll taxes, I would be getting about twice as much now as I get from Social Security. What you call 'so little' may be a lot for some folks. Remember, there's always the chance that your investments would have gone *down* and not up. That you would have wound up half of what you put in, or nothing at all. Jim The pending investment program will have checks and fall backs put into it. What you lads seem to be forgetting is that there is NO plan on the table yet, no details, no nada. You are commenting on things that you dont have any clue about yet. Perhaps its partisanship again? "While President Bush and Republicans in Congress are working to win the War on Terror, preserve Social Security and lower healthcare costs, Harry Reid and his taxpayer-funded war room are focused on obstruction." (Harry Reid is Senate minority leader) REID: CHIEF DEMOCRAT OBSTRUCTIONIST Reid Supported Strengthening Social Security In 1990s, Opposes Now: In 1999, Reid Declared: “[M]ost Of Us Have No Problem With Taking A Small Amount Of The Social Security Proceeds And Putting It Into The Private Sector.” (Fox’s “Fox News Sunday,” 2/14/99) * In 1999, Reid Said: “I Think We Have To Take Care Of Social Security …” (Fox’s “Fox News Sunday,” 7/11/99) * In 1999, Reid Said: “[W]e’re Visiting Chile Because It Is Doing Interesting Things In Social Security And Other Parts Of Its Free Market System…” (Tony Batt, “Reid To Embark On South America Trip,” Las Vegas Review-Journal, 3/30/99) Now, In 2005, Reid Is Blocking Personal Retirement Accounts. “For instance, [Reid] is against personal retirement accounts: ‘If someone wants to privatize Social Security, they are going to have to find someone else to get in bed with other than me,’ Reid told a television audience in Nevada recently.” (Terence Samuel, “A Leader From The Wilderness,” U.S. News & World Report, 11/29/04) Reid’s Social Security Record -- Voted For Higher Taxes On Social Security Benefits At Least Eight Times: * Reid Voted Twice For Clinton’s Billion Tax Hike On Social Security Benefits. (H.R. 2264, CQ Vote #190: Passed 50-49: R 0-43; D 49-6, With Vice President Al Gore Casting A Yea Vote, 6/25/93, Reid Voted Yea; H.R. 2264, CQ Vote #247: Adopted 51-50: R 0-44; D 50-6, With Vice President Al Gore Casting A Yea Vote, 8/6/93, Reid Voted Yea) * Reid Voted Three Times To Keep Hike In Clinton Plan. (S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #57: Motion Agreed To 52-47: R 0-43; D 52-4, 3/24/93, Reid Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #59: Motion Agreed To 55-44: R 0-43; D 55-1, 3/24/93, Reid Voted Yea; S. 1134, CQ Vote #169: Motion Agreed To 51-46: R 1-41; D 50-5, 6/24/93, Reid Voted Yea) * Reid Voted Three Times Against Repealing 1993 Increase. (S. Con. Res. 57, CQ Vote #142: Adopted 50-48: R 49-4; D 1-44, 5/22/96, Reid Voted Nay; H.R. 8, CQ Vote #188: Adopted 58-41: R 54-1; D 4-40, 7/13/00, Reid Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 23, CQ Vote #94: Rejected 48-51: R 48-3; D 0-47; I 0-1, 3/25/03, Reid Voted Nay) " We have all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare...Thanks to AOL and WebTv, we know this is not possible." |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 22:44:16 GMT, "Vaughn"
wrote: The word that keeps entering my mind when I hear the administration's statements on Social Security is "Disconnect". There is a "Disconnect" between the rhetoric of doom and the reality of the situation; SS is neither going "Bankrupt" nor "Bust" any time in the next few decades. A manageable change (or a package of small changes) made right now would keep it in the black for the forseeable future. http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Poli...C-RSSFeeds0312 Analysts: Social Security OK 'Til 2020 Budget Office Says Social Security Will Start Losing Money in 2020, Later Than Earlier Estimate By DAVID ESPO AP Special Correspondent The Associated PressThe Associated Press WASHINGTON Jan 31, 2005 — The Social Security system will take in more money annually than it pays out in benefits until 2020, two years later than earlier estimated, the Congressional Budget Office reported Monday in a modest change unlikely to alter the growing political debate over the program. Congress' budget analysts also estimated the program's trust funds will be depleted in 2052, "meaning that beneficiaries will be able to count on receiving only 78 percent of their scheduled benefits beginning then. "After the trust funds are exhausted, Social Security spending cannot exceed annual revenues," the analysts said. "As a consequence … benefits paid will be 22 percent lower than the scheduled benefits." In both cases, the CBO estimates are more optimistic than the most recent projections made by the Social Security Board of Trustees. In the annual report it issued last March, the board said annual income would fall behind benefit payments beginning in 2018, and the trust funds would be empty in 2042. " We have all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare...Thanks to AOL and WebTv, we know this is not possible." |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Gunner says...
Social Security was not intended to be a long term program and FDR was quite vocal about people should put money into investments...includind SSI money. Exactly right. There's *nothing* to prevent folks from doing that right now. They can invest money in the market all they want. SS is an income redistribution system. It taxes folks with money, and gives it to other folks. Socialism - welfare for old folks. Like most programs like this, it's very efficient at what it does (income redistribution). It's also been called "the third rail of american politics." So-named because, if you touch it, you die. Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
snip
Interesting times ahead.... http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...88485db045&e=4 Whose Social Security Stash Is It? huge snip ============== Major/Fundamental problem is that both parties are totally obsolete and are anachronisms in today's' society/economy. While both parties have "solutions" unfortunately, these are not for any current problems. The Republicans and Democrats have no more role to play than the Whigs and Federalists, and are now simply the 21st century version of the "Blues" and the "Greens." The depression is over. The cold war against Russian Bolshevism has been won. We have moved on to a post-industrial abstract/service economy from one based on small free holder agriculture and mass-production manufacturing. Washington is again (still?) engaging in a "deck chair rearranging contest" as the Titanic continues to take on water. What is it about the immediate dangers of out-of-control federal deficits, out-of-control current account trade deficits, and out-of-control immigration that is so hard to understand? As in most cases when the magic stops working, the preferred solution is apply more potions and shout the spells louder, not examine the situation and see what has changed. At some point is becomes evident that it is no longer cost effective (or even possible) to keep repairing the old car, and the time has come to get a new one. GmcD |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
What I am complaining about is that it Social Security could be a lot
better and provide more to those that really need it. Consider that I started paying into Social Security in 1951 and stopped in 2005 ( Yeah I worked a little this year ). There has never been a time where diversified investments did not produce a positive return over a period close to that. So I disagree that I could have ended up with less than I put in. This is not to say that I have never made an investment that tanked. I have speculated on small companies, and lost everything. But some of those went the other way. Take a look at what $1000 dollars invested in Nuclear Corp of American in 1960 would be worth today. Dan jim rozen wrote: What you call 'so little' may be a lot for some folks. Remember, there's always the chance that your investments would have gone *down* and not up. That you would have wound up half of what you put in, or nothing at all. Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gunner wrote:
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 09:09:13 -0800, Jim Stewart wrote: I'm normally a conservative, but in this case I question Bush's motivations. I think that the banks will be the main players profiting from privatizing SS. Look what happend when the Texans let the savings and loan business loose. It wasnt just the Texans...do your studies a bit better. Greed is universal and crosses all party lines. Some even marry repeatedly for money. Look at Kerry. I thought it was on Reagan's watch, with VP Bush as the point man. Where am I wrong? |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 08:44:00 -0800, Jim Stewart
wrote: Gunner wrote: On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 09:09:13 -0800, Jim Stewart wrote: I'm normally a conservative, but in this case I question Bush's motivations. I think that the banks will be the main players profiting from privatizing SS. Look what happend when the Texans let the savings and loan business loose. It wasnt just the Texans...do your studies a bit better. Greed is universal and crosses all party lines. Some even marry repeatedly for money. Look at Kerry. I thought it was on Reagan's watch, with VP Bush as the point man. Where am I wrong? By that criteria..Enron was Clintons fault. Correct? Gunner Rule #35 "That which does not kill you, has made a huge tactical error" |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Gunner says...
By that criteria..Enron was Clintons fault. Because the energy businesses were deregulated during bush, sr's tenure, right. That makes sense. Sure. Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Gunner" wrote in message
... I thought it was on Reagan's watch, with VP Bush as the point man. Where am I wrong? By that criteria..Enron was Clintons fault. Correct? There's a lot of truth in that. Clinton had the business deregulation bug, which started under Reagan, and the banking/finance/corporate-accounting debacles festered and grew during his administration. His economic advisors were actually pretty conservative, in that sense, from NAFTA to allowing stock brokers to be involved in investment banking. And we've all been paying for it ever since. It isn't over yet. It's the system we have, which provides great incentives, as well as opportunities, for dirty dealing. It's too much for many people to resist. -- Ed Huntress |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gunner wrote:
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 08:44:00 -0800, Jim Stewart wrote: Gunner wrote: On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 09:09:13 -0800, Jim Stewart wrote: I'm normally a conservative, but in this case I question Bush's motivations. I think that the banks will be the main players profiting from privatizing SS. Look what happend when the Texans let the savings and loan business loose. It wasnt just the Texans...do your studies a bit better. Greed is universal and crosses all party lines. Some even marry repeatedly for money. Look at Kerry. I thought it was on Reagan's watch, with VP Bush as the point man. Where am I wrong? By that criteria..Enron was Clintons fault. Correct? Yes. |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
Andy Asberry wrote: On 8 Feb 2005 08:45:30 -0800, wrote: Okay, I own my house and lot. Can I cut down all the trees on the lot? The City says NO. Can I use it for a business? The City says NO. So according to you I don't really own my house and lot. Next. I get Social Security now. Can I pass that on to my children when I die? Hell NO. How about my wife? Absolutely NOT. Can I make any decision about it? I think I can not collect it. So as I see it under the Bush Plan, I am a lot closer to actually owning something. Just because there are limitations on the Bush Plan, does not mean that it is not a huge improvement over the current Social Security. With the current Social Security, most people in their thirties will be lucky to get back the amount they put in plus about 1 percent. Now that is a dismal return over about thirty years. Currently all the excess Social Security funds are invested in Treasury Bills. I would not use any financial advisor that did not recommend some diversity. Dan Social Security is already a mutual fund. Instead of "investing" it in Treasury Notes, it could be invested in an index of stocks. 500, 5000, pick a number. That increase in earnings plus raising the taxable ceiling would pretty much solve the problem. (In my simple way of thinking) Not meaning to be a jerk here and start a war, but is there anything really wrong with raising the ceiling on SS taxable wages? I know that conservatives here will condemn it as increased taxing but that's not what I wanted to get at. The average guy pays SS on 100% of his/her income. Geo Bush Jr pays SS on about 30% of his income from being the Pres. A high end CEO earning about 10 mil a year pays it on about 1% of their income. If the standard "income" tax were arranged this way, people would revolt because the richer you are, the lower your tax burden is. Since this tax is actually about the social welfare of the country (safety net), wouldn't it be wiser to have it on ALL income but at a lower overall rate? Those who receive the most benefit pay at the same rate as those who receive little (with regards to income)? The argument that it would take tons of money from the econony as the "rich" wouldn't be spending is moot here...gross SS intake would be the same, just the distribution changed to cover all income. Koz |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Koz says...
Not meaning to be a jerk here and start a war, but is there anything really wrong with raising the ceiling on SS taxable wages? Sure there is. Then the rich folks would be paying more of it. Next thing, you'll suggest that SS be taken out of *all* income, not just wages. Like investment income etc. What are you, some kinda commie? etc. Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
There is something really wrong with raising the ceiling on SS taxable
wages. First the number of people it would affect would be pretty small, so I doubt if it would fix the problem without some other changes too. But the second thing that is wrong with it is that the SS system is already tilted way in favor of the low wage earner. I forget the exact numbers, so go to the gov site and get the right ones. But of the first thirty thousand dollars of earnings per year, 100 percent of the earnings count toward figuring what you get when you start to draw. From 30,000 per year to maybe 60,000 per year only half of that amount counts in figuring what you get. And from $60,000 up only 15 percent counts in figuring what you get. Now thrown in on top of that, if your total income is below something like $35,000 (filling jointly ), you pay no income tax on your social security income. Above that it scales up until you pay tax on 85 percent of you social security income. So that high paid CEO already pays a bunch of income tax, you want to collect another 12.7 percent on top of that ( on that 10 million that would be 1.27 million ) and when he retires he would pay income tax again on what he gets from Social Security ( money he already paid income tax on before he sent it off to the SS system. ) In short you want him to pay something like 1.27 million per year into the SS system , in order to collect about 18,000 per year when he retires, and pay about 6,000 income tax on that. Those CEO's would fight that. And since they contribute to campaigns, that idea will never pass. Note that only applies to the CEO. It does not apply to the president or any member of Congress. You surely don't think Congress is going to vote that they have to pay into the Social Security system. Never happen. It is a good enough system for you and me, but not for that Congressman behind the tree. Dan |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
One thing regarding SS I've never heard mentioned lately (ever?). It
is one Govt. program among many. It's been operating at a surplus as long as I can remember. It's expected to continue at a surplus for the next 15-30 years depending on who's guessing. The govt in general has been operating in the red for the bulk of my lifetime (some short exceptions). No surplus. Unimaginably huge debt. No end in sight. From that perspective SS looks like a pretty successful program to me. So why is GW telling me that SS is in a catastrophic crisis but the other CURRENT enormous deficit is no big deal? Sounds like BS to me. I think they want to dismantle SS for idealogical/political reasons. SS seems like a program that a LOT of Americans do rely on, if its really going to be a safety net I think its worth fixing instead of junking. I'd like to keep it even if we have to put more into it. What do you guys think about that? Eric |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 9 Feb 2005 09:13:20 -0800, jim rozen
wrote: In article , Gunner says... By that criteria..Enron was Clintons fault. Because the energy businesses were deregulated during bush, sr's tenure, right. That makes sense. Sure. Jim But Clinton was in charge during the time Enron was robbing Grandma blind. So it has to be his fault. Right? Gunner Rule #35 "That which does not kill you, has made a huge tactical error" |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Gunner" wrote in message ... I thought it was on Reagan's watch, with VP Bush as the point man. Where am I wrong? By that criteria..Enron was Clintons fault. Correct? There's a lot of truth in that. Clinton had the business deregulation bug, which started under Reagan, and the banking/finance/corporate-accounting debacles festered and grew during his administration. His economic advisors were actually pretty conservative, in that sense, from NAFTA to allowing stock brokers to be involved in investment banking. And we've all been paying for it ever since. It isn't over yet. It's the system we have, which provides great incentives, as well as opportunities, for dirty dealing. It's too much for many people to resist. -- Ed Huntress Oddly enough, a major pipeline of Enron is traversing what Baltic state that Clinton sent troops in ... Hum. Martin -- Martin Eastburn, Barbara Eastburn @ home at Lion's Lair with our computer NRA LOH, NRA Life NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article .com,
"curly" wrote: One thing regarding SS I've never heard mentioned lately (ever?). It is one Govt. program among many. It's been operating at a surplus as long as I can remember. It's expected to continue at a surplus for the next 15-30 years depending on who's guessing. Ponzi operated on a better surplus than SS SS seems like a program that a LOT of Americans do rely on, if its really going to be a safety net I think its worth fixing instead of junking. I'd like to keep it even if we have to put more into it. If you think a Ponzi scheme is a safety net I have a bridge to sell you,  -- Free men own guns, slaves don't www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/ |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
"curly" wrote in message oups.com... From that perspective SS looks like a pretty successful program to me. So why is GW telling me that SS is in a catastrophic crisis but the other CURRENT enormous deficit is no big deal? Sounds like BS to me. I think they want to dismantle SS for idealogical/political reasons. SS seems like a program that a LOT of Americans do rely on, if its really going to be a safety net I think its worth fixing instead of junking. I'd like to keep it even if we have to put more into it. What do you guys think about that? At least some of us guys agree. Vaughn |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Nick Hull" wrote in message ... In article .com, "curly" wrote: One thing regarding SS I've never heard mentioned lately (ever?). It is one Govt. program among many. It's been operating at a surplus as long as I can remember. It's expected to continue at a surplus for the next 15-30 years depending on who's guessing. Ponzi operated on a better surplus than SS No; actually Ponzi operates on a debt. SS seems like a program that a LOT of Americans do rely on, if its really going to be a safety net I think its worth fixing instead of junking. I'd like to keep it even if we have to put more into it. If you think a Ponzi scheme is a safety net I have a bridge to sell you, Social Security is, in fact, a safety net. It is not a retirement plan nor is it a savings plan. It is just a system to ensure that your neighbor puts aside enough so they can have the basics in their retirement, so *you* won't have to be taxed to pay for their welfare when that time comes. The bottom line is that there are few western countries where people are allowed to starve on the streets. We all pay for this one way or another. Vaughn -- Free men own guns, slaves don't www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/ |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Johnny Carson, late-night TV legend, dies at 79 | Metalworking | |||
| I made a lot of money doing this! Nothing to lose! | Woodturning | |||
| Windsor Plywood Scam - Saskatoon | Woodworking | |||
| OT Guns more Guns | Metalworking | |||
| easy money | Home Ownership | |||
Linear Mode
