Lets talk about Social Security - P2P-Zone

Nicobie · 13-03-05, 07:55 PM

Did someone type non-partisan and GAO in the same sentence?

Yea, and I believe in the tooth fairy too. In fact I once wrote a letter to Santa ~~~

U sillie people need to grow up and look around a bit.

Mazer · 14-03-05, 12:30 AM

Thanks for the link, TK. It didn't contain the comptroller's testimony but the report itself is informative. What I find interesting is that the report does not conclude one way or the other on Bush's specific plan and only goes so far as to say, "Some degree of implementation and administrative complexity arises in virtually all proposed changes to Social Security. However, the greatest potential implementation and administrative challenges are associated with proposals that would create individual accounts." This is weak language that doesn't actually say that this type of reform is a bad idea, just that it requires some hard work to impliment (maybe that is bad, if you're an elected official). But obviously, when Walker sat before an audience of congressmen, the opinion he expressed was meant to stir things up more than the report itself.

Weed out the spin and you find that the GAO agrees with the president on one key point: they both recognise that if something is going to be done then it needs to be done soon. When Walker said, "Social Security does not face an immediate crisis, but it does face a large and growing problem," he basically repeated what Bush said in his state of the union address but without the same sense of urgency. There's really no excuse for Congress to drag its feet on this one. When asked if private accounts would solve the problem, Walker says little more than "maybe," which is understandable. I don't believe in quick fixes and gimicks either, but private accounts could help in conjunction with other reforms. The only other suggestions so far are tax increases and benefit reductions. This early in the debate we shouldn't be limiting our options to just those three proposals. If anything we need more options to talk about, more people need to come forward and make suggestions, even if they think they're stupid ideas. It's called brainstorming, and nothing should be ruled out at this stage.

In the report's conclusion it says, "It would be prudent to move forward to address Social Security now because we have much larger challenges confronting us that will take years to resolve. The fact is, compared to addressing our long-range health care financing problem, reforming Social Security should be easy lifting." In other words, this isn't such a big deal after all if Congress would only stop the pointless arguing and fix the problem. If some think the President's plan isn't so great then they should come up with alternatives. Hell, there are three or four ideas in this very thread that are worth some consideration. But if the Democrats are just going to pout and refuse to work the problem, make suggestions, and participate then those people really don't belong on Capitol Hill, do they? Time for these men and women to earn their keep, I say. If they have legitimate concerns then those need to be brought to everyone's attiontion. If they think it's too risky then they need to do the math and show everyone their work. The President might be wrong on this one, the point is that nobody knows for sure.

ONEMANBANNED · 16-03-05, 11:03 PM

It took the world 200 years to reach a 1 billion population mark.
In the next 50 years we are going from 6 billion to 11 billion. the aging are starting to outnumber the young and it only gets worse.

tambourine-man · 22-03-05, 01:43 AM

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tem=5567661291

multi · 22-03-05, 02:29 AM

LOL..nice one !

theknife · 30-04-05, 07:12 PM

anybody still following this? if you live in the US, you should be:

Quote:

President Bush called on Congress last night to curtail future Social Security benefits for all but low-income retirees in an urgent new effort to address the popular program's shaky finances.

With virtually every Democrat, as well as many Republicans, opposed to his plan for private investment accounts, Bush sought to shift the focus of the Social Security debate to a new proposal that would reduce benefits more as workers' incomes rise.

"I believe the reformed system should protect those who depend on Social Security the most," he said in a nationally televised news conference. "So I propose a Social Security system in the future where benefits for low-income workers will grow faster than benefits for people who are better off." This is the first time Bush has backed a specific plan to reduce future benefits for tens of millions of Americans.

i believe the middle class is about to get f*cked. why should means-testing enter into the equation? you should get out of it something proportionate to what you pay into it. period. as far as i can see, the projected insolvency of the SS system is due to the government's uncontrollable binge spending of what is paid into the system. "fixing it" should mean bringing government spending under control so what comes into SS stays in.

according to the prez, fixing SS means changing the rules in the middle of the game.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...042801044.html

Mazer · 30-04-05, 11:17 PM

Being the prez means making compromise after compromise just to make a few minor improvements to the system, and that rule will never change. For now the system works. The creators of SS did the math and their projections for its future have proven to be very accurate. While social security has been a helping hand people can rely on, it was never intended to be a crutch that people depend on; the moment that occurs it'll mean that SS has outlived its usefulness. Its creators knew it couldn't last indefinitely, in fact they knew its life expectancy from the start. So if the rulse are to be changed now then it is because they must be changed, or else we wouldn't be having this discussion.

As for being f*cked: like I said before, they've already taken that money from me and I'm not going to miss it.

13-03-05, 07:55 PM	#1
Nicobie Registered User Join Date: Mar 2000 Posts: 5,522	Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaa Did someone type non-partisan and GAO in the same sentence? Yea, and I believe in the tooth fairy too. In fact I once wrote a letter to Santa ~~~ U sillie people need to grow up and look around a bit. __________________ May your tote always stay tight and your edge eversharp :wink:

22-03-05, 01:43 AM	#4
tambourine-man BANG BANG BANG (repeat as necessary) Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Soon to be elsewhere Posts: 1,327	Social security on e-bay http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tem=5567661291 __________________ "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction" Dick Cheney - August 26, 2002 "I did not authorise the leaking of the name of David Kelly. Nobody was authorised to name David Kelly. I believe we have acted properly throughout" Tony Blair - July 22, 2003

22-03-05, 02:29 AM	#5
multi Thanks for being with arse Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: The other side of the world Posts: 10,343	LOL..nice one ! __________________ i beat the internet - the end boss is hard Secret Temple of It

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

14-03-05, 12:30 AM	#2
Mazer Earthbound misfit Join Date: May 2001 Location: Moses Lake, Washington Posts: 2,563	Thanks for the link, TK. It didn't contain the comptroller's testimony but the report itself is informative. What I find interesting is that the report does not conclude one way or the other on Bush's specific plan and only goes so far as to say, "Some degree of implementation and administrative complexity arises in virtually all proposed changes to Social Security. However, the greatest potential implementation and administrative challenges are associated with proposals that would create individual accounts." This is weak language that doesn't actually say that this type of reform is a bad idea, just that it requires some hard work to impliment (maybe that is bad, if you're an elected official). But obviously, when Walker sat before an audience of congressmen, the opinion he expressed was meant to stir things up more than the report itself. Weed out the spin and you find that the GAO agrees with the president on one key point: they both recognise that if something is going to be done then it needs to be done soon. When Walker said, "Social Security does not face an immediate crisis, but it does face a large and growing problem," he basically repeated what Bush said in his state of the union address but without the same sense of urgency. There's really no excuse for Congress to drag its feet on this one. When asked if private accounts would solve the problem, Walker says little more than "maybe," which is understandable. I don't believe in quick fixes and gimicks either, but private accounts could help in conjunction with other reforms. The only other suggestions so far are tax increases and benefit reductions. This early in the debate we shouldn't be limiting our options to just those three proposals. If anything we need more options to talk about, more people need to come forward and make suggestions, even if they think they're stupid ideas. It's called brainstorming, and nothing should be ruled out at this stage. In the report's conclusion it says, "It would be prudent to move forward to address Social Security now because we have much larger challenges confronting us that will take years to resolve. The fact is, compared to addressing our long-range health care financing problem, reforming Social Security should be easy lifting." In other words, this isn't such a big deal after all if Congress would only stop the pointless arguing and fix the problem. If some think the President's plan isn't so great then they should come up with alternatives. Hell, there are three or four ideas in this very thread that are worth some consideration. But if the Democrats are just going to pout and refuse to work the problem, make suggestions, and participate then those people really don't belong on Capitol Hill, do they? Time for these men and women to earn their keep, I say. If they have legitimate concerns then those need to be brought to everyone's attiontion. If they think it's too risky then they need to do the math and show everyone their work. The President might be wrong on this one, the point is that nobody knows for sure.

16-03-05, 11:03 PM	#3
ONEMANBANNED Push "winky" ! Push!!! Join Date: Mar 2000 Location: north Posts: 3,529	It took the world 200 years to reach a 1 billion population mark. In the next 50 years we are going from 6 billion to 11 billion. the aging are starting to outnumber the young and it only gets worse.

30-04-05, 11:17 PM	#7
Mazer Earthbound misfit Join Date: May 2001 Location: Moses Lake, Washington Posts: 2,563	Being the prez means making compromise after compromise just to make a few minor improvements to the system, and that rule will never change. For now the system works. The creators of SS did the math and their projections for its future have proven to be very accurate. While social security has been a helping hand people can rely on, it was never intended to be a crutch that people depend on; the moment that occurs it'll mean that SS has outlived its usefulness. Its creators knew it couldn't last indefinitely, in fact they knew its life expectancy from the start. So if the rulse are to be changed now then it is because they must be changed, or else we wouldn't be having this discussion. As for being f*cked: like I said before, they've already taken that money from me and I'm not going to miss it.