Lets talk about Social Security

[theknife]

Originally Posted by Mazer

Hmm, I went to the GAO web site and couldn't find Walker's testimony. I'd like to know how the organization came to its conclusions.

it's there: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05397t.pdf

i'd accept the gao's take on SS over anyone else in Washington.

[Nicobie]

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]

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]

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]

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

[multi]

LOL..nice one !

[theknife]

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

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]

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.

[theknife]

Originally Posted by Mazer

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.

not sure how old you are, Mazer, but i've prolly got at least 20 years on you...so i do believe if you had been paying into it for the last 30 years, as i have, and could see retirement on your horizon, as i do, you might not be so amenable to redefining the concept. i've never counted on SS as my sole retirement income, but i rightly expect some measure of return commensurate with my contribution.

you are correct: it was never intended to be a crutch but by means-testing it, the Prez seems to be trying to cast it as such.

you are also correct about compromises needed to govern, but this president is not famous for his ability to compromise. his "compromises" on SS will not be based upon consensus for the greater good, but rather concessions to the political realities of this wildly unpopular agenda he is pursuing.

based on his track record for veracity, one also has to question his motives: why SS now? why not, f'rinstance, attempt to fix Medicare, which is certainly a crutch and is almost broke right now? why not fix the prescription drug plan, who's cost the administration completely lied about, and is arguably the biggest welfare program ever created? why not address the record high energy costs, rather than reward the oil companies with a $200 million tax break (as he has done in his new budget) at a time when the oil companies are reporting record profits?

because this President has 2 constituencies: the religous Right and his corporate campaign donors....and virtually everything on his agenda is designed to please one or the other. you'll notice the main feature of his plan to "fix" SS is account privatization, which according to every single analysis, will not do a thing to make SS more solvent but will be a huge Xmas present to the investment industry. go figure.

edit: interesting quote from Warren Buffet:

Warren Buffett, the 74-year-old chairman of Berkshire Hathaway, and his 81-year-old partner, Charlie Munger, launched an impassioned defense of Social Security at the company's annual meeting Saturday, with Munger terming Republican efforts to overhaul the program "twaddle."
While they did not directly discuss President Bush's proposal to allow Americans to divert some of their Social Security taxes to individual investment accounts, Buffett and Munger said the country faces far more pressing problems than the projected Social Security insolvency in 40 or 50 years.

Buffett said government officials should instead be focusing on trimming the budget deficit, which stood at more than $412 billion last year. "Anything that would take Social Security payments below their present guaranteed level is a mistake," said Buffett, a Democrat. "The obligation of the people who do well in this society is to provide a reasonable level of sustenance for those in their later years."

Munger, who called himself a "right-wing Republican," said, "Republicans are out of their cotton-picking minds to be taking on this issue now. "Munger cited nuclear tensions with North Korea and Iran as issues the administration should be working on instead of "wasting its good will over some twaddle."

[floydian slip]

Originally Posted by Mazer

they've already taken that money from me and I'm not going to miss it.

WOW! r u for real? do you work for the investment companies?

[Mazer]

Which investment companies would those be?

Look, I can invest in stocks with or without the help of the government, I can retire in comfort with or without the help of the government. It's still a non-issue to me, but it seems to be very important to the president's detractors. I find it hard to disagree with the things knifey writes, but I don't understand why people are so passionate about this. Maybe it is because I'm only 24 years old and for most of my life the Democrats have controlled the federal budget. I'm used to the government taking money and wasting it. But if the government is willing to give me some degree of control over how my money is wasted then I'll be happy to have it, and if not then I don't really mind.

[floydian slip]

Originally Posted by Mazer

I'm used to the government taking money and wasting it.

You shouldn't have to feel this way. But I understand.

I feel betrayed, used and angry, not just by this adimin, but all of them.

[miss_silver]

Originally Posted by Mazer

...But if the government is willing to give me some degree of control over how my money is wasted then I'll be happy to have it, and if not then I don't really mind.

Welcome to the sponsorship scandals in Canada Mazer, same shit has happened over here but it is on different issues. We, the province of Quebec are almost 25% of the population of Canada and our taxes, what we pay back to the gov, we get it back by pleading with the fed gov and what is givin back is even lower than 25% of the money we sent to them, but yet, they are able to boast about what surplus Canada has with income tax money.

The result of this, More than a year waiting to have a critical surgery, doctors are sick and tired to tell patients that they will have to wait more than 6 month because the list is full. That is why we keep loosing our doctors to US interests. They are sick and tired to see how the system works and they cannot put up with it, so they just leave to a place they can give better care to those who have the money.

Maybe you don't mind on how are things are going toward the SS in your country but I sure as hell mind as to what is happening in my country about this.

Beside, nothing is ever secured, even private companies that shut down after 80 years of operation, even tho it was private funds and a private company, even tho some ppl had been working there for 40 years and have contributed to fund their future re... they got fucked and lost all their money and security without even a notice that the company was going bankrupt. That is why a REER regime is more appealing to me.