Far be it from me to come to Dubya's defense, but his plan allows for voluntary personal private accounts, no? I haven't read into this issue as much as perhaps I should have but my understanding is that those who don't want to participate in the private accounts can still allow their money to go into the traditional government-run social security system, correct? Why is this bad? More options are always a good thing in my opinion and if I were given the option right now I'd much rather be able to invest more of my savings in the private sector than in the government's traditional social security system over the long haul.

Privatized social security accounts would be a good thing because they will most likely provide a higher return on investment than the current system. Considering that the plan calls for limiting investment to conservative mutual funds, it's unlikely that even significant market volatility will have much of an impact one way or another on these long-term investments.

There's also something kind of cool about involving people in the management of their own gov't-sponsored retirement funds. There'll probably even be "socially responsible funds" to choose from.

I think the biggest problem with privatized social security accounts is the cost to implement them, and the cost to manage them. I'm still not sure what these costs would be; I think $1,000,000,000,000 - $2,000,000,000,000, which people keep saying, is not the most reliable estimate. Still, I'm sure it'll be insanely expensive. I'm not so sure how the additional personal retirement income can be used, if at all, to offset (or at least justify) the possibly higher expense of implementation.

Another problem with privatized accounts is that they run out of money. If you live to be 150 yrs old, social security will continue to send you checks. These private funds, though, are your own money, and even if (as GWB says) the money can't be taken out in a lump sum, no one can know when they're gonna die. If you take an early retirement & live long, you'll have some fun for a while - eating good food, travelling, really living the life. But it's likely that you'll die in poverty, homeless, alone on the street; possibly eaten by your own children.

I'm still not sure why GWB et al are so hot on this topic, but I do see why they might see it as a good thing economically. It's crazy how many conflicting numbers, percentage points and $ amounts are being thrown around.

spoot wrote:I'm still not sure why GWB et al are so hot on this topic,

Because the people who own GWB want your money.

They need it.

Most thieves go after bigger and bigger scores. This is not a slam against the neo-con social Darwinists, specifically- Social Security revenue has been treated as tax money by Dem and GOP administrations alike; the military/industrial complex has a big appetite.

spoot wrote: but I do see why they might see it as a good thing economically.

Yeah- it's a way to avoid taxing the people who have the most money, like millionaires and corporations. Everyone knows that if we taxed the wealthy, that would punish achievement, so we should punish the less greedy instead. They don't fight back as hard and are easier to kill if they do.

spoot wrote:It's crazy how many conflicting numbers, percentage points and $ amounts are being thrown around.

Yes, it is crazy how many bogus numbers are treated like they have a basis in reality by the corporate media. All that disinformation makes correcting the lies a big, big job. I don't really want to do it myself. Good thing working until I die is what I always expected anyway.

spoot wrote:I've been trying to understand why GWB is so adamantly spouting these easily refuted false statistics.

Because the false statistics will go unchallenged in the media that 90% of Americans pay attention to?

Because telling the truth is impossible for him?

Because, when people refer to his administration as an "Orwellian newspeak nightmare", they aren't kidding or exaggerating?

spoot wrote: It's hard for me to believe that it's just so more money will go into the stock market.

But it is. Markets take dips ( or nose dives ) every 10 to 12 years. When they do, ultra-wealthy investors/inside traders ( the same thing ) need to liquidate their positions before they flatline. Your social security account is their ticket to the life boats.

spoot wrote:Democratic sloganeering & ideology is often a farce, too.

Correct. Which is why those of us who value democracy want nothing to do with the Democratic party. It's like saying, "I fear lions. I'll go lie down next to the tigers instead".

WTF? Let's call it what it is. Our government is re-negotiating the terms of their debt to the American People. That's like me suddenly announcing to the bank that I will no longer be paying the mortgage, and at the same time requesting a loan to add a west wing. Though, I'm quite sure the bank's response would be one with less applause.
Our government now owes us trillions, thanks to Bush, and we voted to give them a platinum card with no credit limit for four more years. We spent everything already, so what's left? Social Security. There's money to be made there....

The American majority is a masochist.


I think its ironic to even consider the social security issue as a concern when you consider the collective direction in which our country, followed by the rest of the world, is heading. I'd be willing to bet that within ten years there are only a few of us left, and the only issues to contemplate will be our means for survival...

Considering that the plan calls for limiting investment to conservative mutual funds, it's unlikely that even significant market volatility will have much of an impact one way or another on these long-term investments

right now, social security gets invested in treasury bonds, the most secure possible investment(arguably.)

the problem i have is the old liberal, commie issue of social justice. poor people won't have enough money to invest in high-yield stocks or funds, so they have the possibility of investing badly and getting less of a return than they would in a treasury bond but they won't invest in that because they could possibly make more in the market elsewhere.

meanwhile, rich people have money to risk. they will invest widely and probably more shrewdly. they will be just fine.

so why revamp a system set up to aid people in need by only benefitting people with absolutely no need?

whiskerando wrote:right now, social security gets invested in treasury bonds, the most secure possible investment(arguably.)

the problem i have is the old liberal, commie issue of social justice. poor people won't have enough money to invest in high-yield stocks or funds, so they have the possibility of investing badly and getting less of a return than they would in a treasury bond but they won't invest in that because they could possibly make more in the market elsewhere.

meanwhile, rich people have money to risk. they will invest widely and probably more shrewdly. they will be just fine.

so why revamp a system set up to aid people in need by only benefitting people with absolutely no need?

You're against even giving "poor people" the option of what they can do with their social security tax money? I probably classify as "poor" but I'd sure like to have some say in what I can do towards funding retirement rather than have the government make all my decisions for me on that matter. If it were up to me, I'd just as soon they not take any FICA taxes out of my meager paycheck and let me have that money to invest on my own now.

You're against even giving "poor people" the option of what they can do with their social security tax money?

no.

i'm against the idea that social security is the government taking my money and then giving it back to me when i'm old. that's not what happens. they are taking your money and giving it to people collecting social security today. so how long do old people go without benefits while you save your own money?

i'm not against privatizing social security on principle. if i saw a plan that was feasible i'd support it but i have seen no such plan. i think what the administration is doing is painting a picture of personal responsibility and "choice" when in actuality they want you to give money to businesses even if you end up losing a safety net for when you're old.

so how long do old people go without benefits while you save your own money?

that's where the 1-2 trillion comes in. there's going to be a generation gap in s.s. benefits that will need to be compensated for by borrowing.

i think someone asked earlier why GWB is so hot on this - someone answered earlier - to take the burden off the government. my understanding of this argument is that at some point there will be a greater portion of money being taken from s.s. than is being put in. with the baby-boomer generation heading into retirement, this reality could come quicker than expected. population growth is exponential, so bearing the burden of supplementing s.s. benefits to future generations will supposedly be greater than just supplementing the current generation. this will come out of taxes, not just for the wealthy, but everyone.

the idea that we are just being left to fend for ourselves though is a little drastic. the new accounts sound similar to annuities in function and should give a reasonable rate of return. i don't know what the rate of return is on the s.s. benefits right now, but annuities are typically guaranteed (at least in florida) around 4-5%. that's fairly conservative. also, there haven't been any experimental market fluctuations that would relate to this since UL policies came out in the 80's.

i don't know enough about the current system or the private accounts to give a full answer on whether i am for or against this change, but it does seem like some sort of change will need to happen eventually.

unarmedman wrote:my understanding of this argument is that at some point there will be a greater portion of money being taken from s.s. than is being put in. with the baby-boomer generation heading into retirement, this reality could come quicker than expected. population growth is exponential, so bearing the burden of supplementing s.s. benefits to future generations will supposedly be greater than just supplementing the current generation. this will come out of taxes, not just for the wealthy, but everyone.

This is a false crisis.

The generation difference/retirement problem was foreseen and there is already a reserve of social security funds; from what I have read, these reserve funds will not run out for decades. Even after the reserve runs out and without any changes to the current system, social security payments will not disappear - they just won't be at their full levels.

I don't know if I'm against private accounts in principle (I'm definitely not down with the currently proposed execution), but it is pretty clear that there is a lot of manipulative crisis-mongering going on.

But why listen to me?

Listen to Krugman: http://www.pkarchive.org/column/120704.html He's a lot smarter than I am.

Projections in a recent report by the Congressional Budget Office (which are probably more realistic than the very cautious projections of the Social Security Administration) say that the trust fund will run out in 2052. The system won't become "bankrupt" at that point; even after the trust fund is gone, Social Security revenues will cover 81 percent of the promised benefits. Still, there is a long-run financing problem.

But it's a problem of modest size. The report finds that extending the life of the trust fund into the 22nd century, with no change in benefits, would require additional revenues equal to only 0.54 percent of G.D.P. That's less than 3 percent of federal spending - less than we're currently spending in Iraq. And it's only about one-quarter of the revenue lost each year because of President Bush's tax cuts - roughly equal to the fraction of those cuts that goes to people with incomes over $500,000 a year.

Given these numbers, it's not at all hard to come up with fiscal packages that would secure the retirement program, with no major changes, for generations to come.