Page 4 of 8
overhaul of social security
Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2005 2:39 pm
by unarmedman_Archive
yeah i seriously have no idea what the 'real' crisis is, or if there is one. i'm just saying what i know and what i've heard. i'm still learning about this as well! i'll check out that link.
overhaul of social security
Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2005 2:50 pm
by whiskerando_Archive
krugman is very convincing on this subject. i think bush has this as a hot topic right now because he and cheney and rove think with this term where they don't have to worry about reelection they can shoot for republican "dream" causes. it is more urgent because the democrats should take the congress in 06 making it harder to push stuff like this through. i don't think enough republican reps will go for this though, seeing as how they probably will be running for reelection and you don't win votes from old people by tinkering with social security and running up a huge debt to do it.
i'm not worried that this will happen and possibly destroy the system that keeps old people from being as hopelessly poor as they were in the 30's. i am surprised that rove has the arrogance to think they can easily pull this off. not to sound like a screeching partisan again but that guy is a cock.
overhaul of social security
Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2005 3:34 pm
by bumble_Archive
a younger bumble wrote:<snip>What struck me was the last paragraph regarding some private accounts in Texas:
Holbrook's anecdote underscores another aspect touted by backers of private accounts -- that the money paid into them is the private property of the employee. As a result, private retirement account funds are passed on to an employee's heirs upon his or her death, unlike unpaid Social Security benefits, which are forfeited to the government.
Survivors get some social security benefits currently, so whatever, but has this come up?<snip>
Confirmed--->
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59136-2005Feb2.htmlthe balance in the account would belong to the worker upon retirement, according to White House officials.
"You'll be able to pass along the money that accumulates in your personal account, if you wish, to your children . . . or grandchildren," Bush said in his State of the Union address. "And best of all, the money in the account is yours, and the government can never take it away."
overhaul of social security
Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2005 5:58 pm
by Biznono_Archive
Linus Van Pelt, I think conservative is ultimately the right word to use to describe George W. Bush. The American meanings of "conservative" and "liberal" have always been perversions of their British origins. But more than that, Bush is not the first conservative to define himself as an economic libertarian while helping to insure the continuation of big government. So many of those on the right who feel the fiscally profligate Bush has betrayed American conservatism cite Reagan (the guy who actually replaced Jefferson's portrait in the East Wing of the White House with Coolidge's) as the paragon of conservative virtues. But they seem to forget that it was on Reagan's watch that Medicare expenditures tripled, that Social Security expenditures and defense spending doubled, that SS payroll taxes went up by around 30%, and that a tight money policy was maintained obsessively in order to curb inflation but in complete defiance of the principles of supply-side economics. If by conservative you mean _what conservatives often claim to be_ in discussions about policy -- namely, economic libertarians -- you will be hard pressed to find nearly as many of them holding high office since 1960 as you'd expect to given their own claims about their numbers.
Why persist with the term without quotation marks? Because it refers to more than just economic policy or ideology. The deepest meaning of American conservatism is, I think, much closer to a pathological sense of nostalgia. In the interest of saving time let me quote the historian Peter Gay on "nostalgia" and ask that every time you read that word you substitute "American conservatism": "Nostalgia runs deep in the human [let's say here "American"] psyche; it is almost irresistible, all the more so because it generally masquerades as rational criticism of the present (where there is always much to criticize) and rational praise of the past (where there is always much to praise). But nostalgia drives reasonable criticism and reasonable praise to unreasonable lengths: it converts healthy dissatisfactions into an atavistic longing for a simpler condition, for a childhood of innocence and happiness remembered in all its crystalline purity precisely because it never existed. Nostalgia is the most sophistic, most deceptive form regression can take."
For the conservatives in this country at the beginning of the 21st century, who are more nostalgic than ever, apparently no amount of money is too great and no spending policy too irrational to preserve a way of life they relentlessly treasure.
Bush's policy on Social Security... WTF indeed! Social Security was intended as a safeguard against unhampered capitalism. If you tie it to the market, where some must lose for some to win, then you risk exposing it to vagaries against which it is supposed to protect people. Social security ceases to be "security." And for that matter it ceases to be "social." The focus of Bush's plan is (at least in theory) the individual.
If you're not persuaded by the argument based on principle, just look at what the actuaries have been quoted as saying about all this in print and on the internet. Or, I agree with the others, read Paul Krugman. He's right to say that the issue boils down to three things. 1. There is no crisis. 2. Managerial fees will negate returns even if the stock market continues to be a better investment than the bond market -- a premise no serious economist would accept. In response to this criticism Bush has said he wants to restrict investors to conservatively managed funds. But this is complete bullshit. Never mind that limiting choice in investment defeats the whole point of Bush's offer of more choice. The architects of his plan have also said that they only think choices should be limited in the short run. In the long run greater freedom will be offered. But of course that comes at the expense of greater risk, and it therefore comes at the risk of impoverishing even more of the elderly, who, once impoverished, will need to be taken care of by our taxes. Where else can this lead but to the costly reinvention of Social Security? 3. Imagining potential savings (of 30% or whatever) several decades from now as a measure against borrowing today is so speculative, and requires such superhuman foresight, that the Bush plan really falls into the realm of science fiction.
overhaul of social security
Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2005 6:14 pm
by gio_Archive
Biznono wrote:For the conservatives in this country at the beginning of the 21st century, who are more nostalgic than ever, apparently no amount of money is too great and no spending policy too irrational to preserve a way of life they relentlessly treasure.
Particularly when "way of life" is intrinsically tied to "system of power."
overhaul of social security
Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2005 6:52 pm
by brian_Archive
a couple questions for the group:
does anyone know the cost per person that is currently spent to manage
savings plans that are in-use by government workers? does the management
of the current plan negate possible earnings?
overhaul of social security
Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2005 7:39 pm
by toomanyhelicopters_Archive
i tend to think the social security issue is just like any other. the bush admin doesn't show interest in the long term. the actions and policies taken by the admin all smack of doing anything possible to exert influence in in now, everything is immediate. as though the end is near. even the peace between israel and palestine will come soon, astonishingly so. it's all part of the deal.
maybe they're trying to placate the elderly who helped put bush back in office, in hopes of not losing their vote for the next election. if they can trick old folk into thinking they give a shit, then they retain the votes next time.
changes made to social security could not possibly be made in the interest of poor, elderly folks. this administration doesn't give a shit about people, except in the sense that people are a source of revenue for their conglomerations.
i do not believe there will even be a USA by the time social security would have run out. that's got nothing to do with their motivations. it's all about gaining more power, NOW.
overhaul of social security
Posted: Sat Feb 05, 2005 2:26 pm
by Linus Van Pelt_Archive
Biznono:
I think you've got it right. I wish I could give your long post the long reply it deserves, but I don't have the time, and there's really nothing for me to add or correct.
As for terminology, when I say I prefer to put conservative in quotes, it's because I'm thinking of traditional, "true", conservatism. I agree with you, that Bush's plan is conservative in the sense of "typical of what one would expect from a conservative", and that's a completely reasonable definition.
So, with or without quotes, Bush's plan is conservative in the worst senses. Something we can all agree on...
overhaul of social security
Posted: Sun Feb 06, 2005 5:36 pm
by floog_Archive
not read all contributions in full detail, so maybe someone has already commented on this:
recent media analysis here in the UK of Bush's pensions reform ideas suggested that these ideas are both inspired by the positives and cautious of the mistakes made by the current UK pensions system.
here, back in the mid 1990s we were all told to "opt out" of SERPS (State Earnings Related Pension Scheme) and take up personal pension plans offered by various banks and a variety of financial institutions. can you imagine the frenzy as these millions of customers suddenly cast themselves adrift from the state looking for a new way to guarantee a decent retirement? naturally enough some of the pension products were badly thought out, badly invested, badly designed, badly audited and so on. people were generally in a wilderness with all the new financial terminology and huge choice of pension arrangements.
Consequently, we now frequently hear of "mis-sold" pensions and individuals trying to take companies to court allied by a band of consumer groups and regulation authorities.
Maybe the US will learn from the mistakes and apply only the successful bits to teir own scheme. But frankly, it's a fucking minefield still. It's why so many people are investing in property over here, as the returns when they sell up will generally be better than a stock-market invested pension scheme.
there's probably a lot more on this on the guardian website somewhere.
sorry if this doesn't answer your question. i guess it's just a cautionary tale.
overhaul of social security
Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 6:46 pm
by Johnny 13_Archive
I don't much care about what happens to Social Security. I never had a choice about participating, and I am not counting on it to be there when I am infirm. I think anyone who does not plan likewise is heading to a bad end.
As it is, I consider it theft out of my paycheck and I would do quite a bit to be free of it, including giving up all the money I have "paid" into the program to date.
I have no doubt Bush is up to no good. Everything I have read suggests that the plan will cost more, and return less. The original goal of the scheme was for the accounts to become private once critical mass was achieved, but LBJ and everyone after him raided the fund, and put an end to that.
Fuck Social Security, the servents are not serving. I would rather it fail if I am going to be forced to feed it.