home

Selling Social Security Reform With Lies

Bush will try to sell social security reform tonight the same way he tried to sell us the War in Iraq--with lies. From a speech in early January appearing on the White House website here:

"By the time today's workers who are in their mid-20s begin to retire, the system will be bankrupt. So if you're 20 years old, in your mid-20s, and you're beginning to work, I want you to think about a Social Security system that will be flat bust, bankrupt, unless the United States Congress has got the willingness to act now."

Back to Salon:

Many economists would consider that statement very nearly an outright lie. If we do nothing at all, Social Security's accumulated trust fund will be depleted by about the middle of this century, at which point it will need to reduce, not discontinue, benefit payouts.

There is no crisis. But here is how Bush is going to spin it for you - straight from his playbook.

The Republicans left an annual retreat in the Allegheny Mountains with a 104-page playbook titled "Saving Social Security," a deliberate echo of the language President Bill Clinton used to argue that the retirement system's trust fund should be built up in anticipation of the baby boomers' retirement.

The congressional Republicans' confidential plan was developed with the advice of pollsters, marketing experts and communication consultants, and was provided to The Washington Post by a Republican official. The blueprint urges lawmakers to promote the "personalization" of Social Security, suggesting ownership and control, rather than "privatization," which "connotes the total corporate takeover of Social Security." Democratic strategists said they intend to continue fighting the Republican plan by branding it privatization, and assert that depiction is already set in people's minds.

In other words, you won't hear "building wealth" but you will hear "setting aside a nest egg." The trust fund won't be "meaningless" but it will be "an empty promise." You won't hear specific millions or trillions of dollars, but instead, hear about "your family's share."

Salon continues:

In the campaign that the White House is about to launch, the numbers won't count for much. What will count, as Republicans suggest in their playbook, are language and media, and public relations spinners will matter far more than economists. Key supporters of the White House plan -- corporate interests, mainly -- are gearing up to launch expensive ad campaigns pushing the new scheme, and after his speech, Bush himself will barnstorm the nation, invading key congressional districts to pressure Democrats and even some free-thinking Republicans to commit to private accounts. So far, Democrats have done well in pushing against the effort, but the public is still very much open to the privatization plan, experts say, and Bush's simple hard sell could work.

There couldn't be more at stake:

Players on each side agree that the debate over Social Security will constitute the defining political battle of the age. If Bush prevails, you'll hear calls for carving his mug into Mount Rushmore. If he loses, the Democrats will have proved they're still in the game.

< Ken Starr For the Defense | No Vote on Gonzalez Today >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 11:21:02 PM EST
    The Social Security "trust fund" is merely an accounting device filled with IOUs that future taxpayers must repay.

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#2)
    by rob on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 12:12:10 AM EST
    I've always read the same thing as Bendito. Namely, there is no "trust fund" or pot of accumulated money. Can anyone provide me a source for following up on this? If this is the case, Salon is incorrect, not the President.

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#3)
    by ras on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 12:19:30 AM EST
    Bush is right. Social Security is not at all sound. If it makes you feel any better, the prob is the same in Canada as it in the US ... as it is in other places, too. If you guys on the Left wanna attack Bush (did I say if?), you can maybe attack the private account option as insufficent. Insufficient, cuz tho it'll actually help a little, it'll still only nibble around the edges of the prob. Short-term - i.e. within the next 5-15 years - the problem is one of underfunding and demographics. Regardless of which party addresses the issue, the retirement age must be raised. It's as simple as that. We're all gonna live longer & healthier lives. We call that a "crisis." Is this a great time to be alive or what?

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 12:33:39 AM EST
    Well its off to the third world for any of you that want to go there. our big boys want it all and if you think that is nut's just help bush and business you will understand what a real number means, just wait and see. here are some real facts most people will never see any kind of social security because most of you will be dead long before 74 and the ones who will get any money from the system will never see what you put into that system of easy killings for the rich rats who need your money for the coming real third world ideals of class warfare and its a real warrant for our elite to make billions at your cost. our oligarchies are about to have went dearms over Bush and our government will go-a-long to get a-long, both sides. by the way congress will do what it is told to do.

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#6)
    by bad Jim on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 01:31:01 AM EST
    Social security has been running a surplus since 1983. The latest figures say it will continue to run a surplus for another 15 years. After that the surplus, which has been banked in Treasury bonds, will need to start to draw upon the interest owed these bonds, which is a general obligation which the government is required by the 14th Amendment to honor. We've been banking the surplus for twenty years against the retirement of the boomer generation, and even pessimistic projections suggest that their retirement is secure, so long as the government is competently managed. Which is not to say that we aren't screwed.

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 04:10:26 AM EST
    Ras- Up here in Canada, our pension system is actually quite sound. In fact, while I can't remember the exact statistics, there was a chart in a recent Maclean's showing projected payouts vs. projected funds, and as time goes by the funds build up a greater and greater surplus.

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#9)
    by john horse on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 04:10:26 AM EST
    As the economist Paul Krugman (log-in may be required) points out, the advocates of privatization use one set of economic projections to promote private accounts and another to show that the present system is in "crises." They have created their own Catch-22: "any growth projection that would permit the stock returns the privatizers need to make their schemes work would put Social Security solidly in the black." He issues the challenge from the Center for Economic Policy and Research. Make a projection of economic growth, dividends and capital gains that will yield a 6.5 percent rate of return over 75 years. Any takers?

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 04:21:05 AM EST
    I keep mentioning this, but it seems not to trouble very many. But when you look at the state of the US dollar compared with other currencies, we're taking a beating. The value of the dollar is dropping almost daily, and that means inflation is coming back. Which means that whatever you receive in bennies will be worth less and less. The currency has to be stabilized, or nobody gets anything in the long run.

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 04:31:58 AM EST
    The thing to remember in the whole privatization debate is that the liberals are not against it because it won't work.They are against it because it will. Mark W.......still the PRESIDENT God bless the Iraqi people

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#12)
    by soccerdad on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 04:44:08 AM EST
    Chile and England have both tried privatization plans both have failed. England is planning on revising their system to look more like ours is today. Under current proposals government would administer all small accounts under 5k. Wall street wants to be able to just deal with the most profitable. This is just another hand out to the fat corporate cats on wall street. Come on right we need more slogans and noise

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#13)
    by soccerdad on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 04:55:57 AM EST
    nemo Bill gates is betting against the dollar. LINK

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#14)
    by dead dancer on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 05:05:46 AM EST
    Social Security Strategy Guest host: Syndicated columnist Steve Roberts President Bush and Congressional Republicans plan to launch a major marketing campaign in support of transforming Social Security. We'll look at the strategy and its prospects for success. Guests Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research and co-author of "Social Security: The Phony Crisis" (Portfolio) Michael Baroody, executive vice president, National Association of Manufacturers Senator Byron Dorgan, Democrat, North Dakota Brian Jones, communications director of the Republican National Committee

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 05:31:28 AM EST
    Before anyone listens to either side on this, they should ask to see their respective portfolios. Every member of Congress currently opposed to private retirement accounts is eligible for retirement investment options under the various programs for federal workers. Almost all of these are basically 401-K type plans invested in the stock market. Nancy Pelosi says that investing in the stock market is too risky? Okay, where is her money invested? Is she counting on Social Security for her old age (on top of a generous federal pension)? Or has she been squirreling money away for years in a mutual fund? If the latter, which I suspect it is, why is the market safe enough for her but not for everyone else? Bush's ideas may not be the best solution, but they are better than anything the Democrats are putting forward at the moment.

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 05:40:46 AM EST
    Rob @ 01:12 The Trust fund is held in Treasury Securities. Up to now the US has never defaulted on these notes. In fact, it has been said that Mr. Bush's funds were put into Treasury notes at the start of his presidency. So, if the piratization is necessary because the fund is worthless IOUs, not only is Social Security in trouble, but Mr. Bush is also in trouble, along with the cetral banks of Japan and China. Unless there is a way for "selective" default on only the notes held by the Soical Security Trust fund, how long do you think it will take before there are no longer any buyers for our Treasury Securities.

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 05:50:41 AM EST
    He will probably bring up those Health Savings Accounts that are quietly being pushed. You know, the republican "everyone has health insurance now, just no one can afford to use it" solution.

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 05:53:15 AM EST
    The congress retirement system is the old Civil Service system. They have options in addition to CS, but CS is the mainstay. On SS solvency, what happens to the numbers when we raise the amount of personal income that is subject to SS withholding? I never see that possibility calculated. Currently, you only pay SS withholding on the first $80K of income. After that, no more SS tax. The feds raise the limit on an irregular basis, but why have any limit at all? I think folks making more than $80K per year are likely to get the maximum SS benefit, but are not paying the same share of their income into the system. People can argue about what is fair, I am thinking about what is right.

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#19)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 06:04:16 AM EST
    SS is not (and should not be) a retirement package, it's a safety net. As an avid gambler I can tell you, rule #1 of gambling is don't bet what you can't afford to lose. If we turn the safety net into a retirement package run by the most inefficient bueracracy in the country (the gov't), I'll guarantee a lot of retirees will end up with no retirement package and no safety net, AKA destitute. I wouldn'trust the gov't to wipe my arse, and I'm supposed to trust them to pick investments for me? Please. And if Bush is so idealistic and resolute, why does he lie about everything to make his case? FWIW My old man just started collecting SS. It is not nearly enough to live on. But combined with the money he was able to save over 50 yrs. of blue collar stuggle, he will be able to eat and stay warm till he dies. That's all we can ask for.

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 06:19:06 AM EST
    Gee, Mark Did you write that little screed all on your own, or did your kindergarten teacher help you?

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 06:45:26 AM EST
    Maybe you ought to go back to school, Loc. Mark is right. Do the math.

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#22)
    by pigwiggle on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 07:19:43 AM EST
    Of course there isn’t a crisis. John H.- The same reasoning is used by proponents of SS. The argument goes that if we all invest in the market and it does poorly we will be in the lurch. However, as goes the market so does the economy and so goes the revenue that pays SS benefits. Further, current SS revenues aren’t invested so it is nothing short of stupid to talk of returns on SS dollars. SS returns are simply tax revenue. In place of the economy generating revenue from invested capital tax payers are generating revenue at the expense of potential purchases; a drain on the economy.

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 07:21:02 AM EST
    Mark, Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that this paragraph...
    My favorite is when some lib declares that our tax dollars could be better spent on things that the federal government was not formed to do while taking those dollars away from the things it was intended to do.IE: "The money being spent on national defense and in Iraq (what the feds are supposed to do)would be better spent on providing health care for every child in America (something the government has no business being involved in)"
    ...can be summarised as follows: "I'm happy to give money to the government as long as it uses it to kill people. "I'm unhappy to give money to the government if it uses it to save poor people's lives." Just wanted to be clear that I understand exactly where you stand.

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#24)
    by pigwiggle on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 07:33:42 AM EST
    CA- “People can argue about what is fair, I am thinking about what is right.” How is it right for you to decide where my charity dollars will be spent? “but why have any limit at all? I think folks making more than $80K per year are likely to get the maximum SS benefit,” All tax limits are imposed to protect economic growth. Countries that take and distribute all economic revenue are extremely poor, with the exception of those like Libya with a wealth of natural resources. In modern so-called socialist states they walk a fine line between maximum confiscated revenue and high unemployment and a sluggish economy. Of course those making the most money get the greatest amount back from SS, as it turns out about 50% of what they put in. Folks with a median income get around 75% of what they put in, and poor folks get around 200% of what they put in.

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#25)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 07:37:51 AM EST
    I think that sume up the position Ian. I feel that until there is a revolution of some kind, the gov't is going to extort my paycheck. That being the case, I'd rather the money go towards helping the sick and the old, instead of the war machine and lining pockets already well lined.

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#26)
    by pigwiggle on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 07:40:58 AM EST
    “"I'm happy to give money to the government as long as it uses it to kill people…."I'm unhappy to give money to the government if it uses it to save poor people's lives." Just wanted to be clear that I understand exactly where you stand.” Just as providing for the ‘common welfare’ wasn’t meant to give the federal government unlimited power to regulate everything from retirement to product safety; providing for the ‘common defense’ doesn’t mean billions spent on handouts to Israel, Egypt, South Korea, Germany, and so forth. Ian, you are correct; you and Mark are two sides of the same morally bankrupt ideology. Was that the point?

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 07:51:23 AM EST
    CA - The current income to be taxed max is $87,900. Now payouts are based on the amount paid in by an individual. I.e. If you pay in on a low amount, say $20K, your payback is low. If you pay in on $87,900 you will be paid back a much higher amount. So by moving the maximum up, the gov will take in more, but will pay out more. Any gain, if there is any, will be based on those paying in more getting less back. This is the admitted bias towards lower income people. So what you are trying to do is income redistribution. TANSTAFL - There Aint No Such Thing As A Free Lunch - Robert Heinlein SD, badjim, et al - This is what then Senator Daschle had to say: "Daschle: "Legally, there is a requirement that that money be invested, and you could call that a fund, yes." Novak: "But there is no such fund, though?" Daschle: "No there is no such fund per se." Link And this is why. "By law, the trust funds are invested solely in U.S. Treasury securities which are known as "special issues" because they have certain features not contained in those sold on the open market to investors." Link

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 07:52:44 AM EST
    Mark I think it is funny that we call these people liberals. Liberal implies, tolerance, generosity, broad-minded. I find most liberals to be anything but.

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 07:56:26 AM EST
    It doesn't mater whether or not Social Security was intended to be a retirement or pension program or just a safety net. What matters is that the government forced a deal on the country (you can argue that the people who were signed up in the 1930s chose it since they elected the people who created the system, but everyone else has been born into this system) in which they promised a certain amount of future benefits for a certain amount of present taxes. Today we are being told, even by those who claim there is no crisis and will be no crisis, that people currently paying into the system who retire after a certain date will face a benefits cut, another increase of the age at which they can retire (which is itself just another way of cutting benefits), higher taxes to pay for the benefits they've already paid for, or any combination of the three. But no one is suggesting that these people, who will receive less than was promised in the deal forced on them, will be allowed to pay less into the system. If a privately run pension provider or insurance company took someone's money for 35 years under an agreement that they would then pay the person back at an annual rate of 10%, then, on the day the person retired, told them "we're sorry, but we're only going to give you back 7%", would anyone here claim that this was perfectly acceptable, or would everyone be screaming that this was unfair and/or illegal? I don't see Social Security as a retirement plan. In fact, I don't see Social Security as likely to be around at all when I retire, and I have planned accordingly. I never wanted into this system, the government signed me up against my will and takes 6.2% of my income without my approval. But since the government has done this to me, it is damn-well obligated to meet its end of the deal. I don't want to be told that I will not be eligible for benefits until I'm 70 just because medical science has increased my life expectancy. That wasn't part of the deal. I don't want to be told that the government screwed up when it failed to invest the money wisely (or at all for that matter) and now cannot pay the benefits it promised me based on the taxes it took from me. That too was not part of the deal. The deal was that I would get a certain amount of benefits based on what I paid into the system. I held up my end, even if it was against my will. All I'm asking is that the government hold up its end of the deal, even though I have no expectation that it will because there are simply too many people unwilling to face reality on this issue and nothing will be done until it is far too late (which it may be already). As I've said before, a very simple out for the government is to allow people to sign out of the system now. They can keep all of the money that they have taken from me over the last 32 years and pay me nothing in the future if they will just stop taking money out of my paychecks from here on out. They can spend their surpus revenue on paying benefits to those who stay in and stop worrying about how they will pay for mine. I can do better than what they promise just by putting my money in a non-interest-bearing account, since at least the money will still be there when I retire, which it will not be if I give it to the government. And I can do much better if I invest it in the market, as my current portfolio, which is outperforming even the most optimistic expectation of return from my Social Security payment with a much lower percentage of my salary being invested, shows handily.

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 07:57:33 AM EST
    The liberal bias against "Private/Personal/fredomized" accounts in social security reform, is simple they do not fix the problem and like most of the Bush plan's so far, there is no way to pay for them without creating money out of thin air. Inflation, the new tax option paid for by the unborn. Hey, I just got it! This is why the Republicans are so strong about the rights of the unborn, it is their funding source.

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 07:57:56 AM EST
    et al - In case you were too busy to hit the link: "The interest received by the Social Security Trust Fund has now become a major revenue source (see figure). In 1997, it received almost $40 billion in interest from its portfolio of Treasury securities. This represented more than half of the $75 billion increase in the Trust Fund that year. The problem is that all of this is a paper transaction with absolutely no substance whatsoever. Unlike private pensions, they do not consist of real economic assets. Rather, the trust fund simply represents future claims on the Treasury that will have to be financed by raising taxes, cutting benefits or borrowing from the public. Look, when you are being robbed, at least stand up with dignity and acknowledge the theft.

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 08:06:35 AM EST
    What everybody is forgetting is the real question: should the government borrow $2 trillion now, despite record deficits and record war spending, to solve a possible "crisis" that begins in 2052 or 2020? The $2 trillion additional deficit will create a genuine crisis now and inflation later. The second item being overlooked is the benefit cuts for everybody, even those who opt out of the private portion of SS, and of course for the people who receive SS disability and survivors' benefits. And here's a suggestion for privatizing now without borrowing: extend the SS tax to all incomes above $90,000 and invest that money as private accounts for everybody under a certain age.

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 08:09:55 AM EST
    Wow! This seems to be an example of level 2 troll agitation - spewing lies to scare everyone. Ya, I can see how much the Idiot Son Of an A$$hole cares about the rest of us. And that causes me to realize exactly how much this reform will help that average citizen, and how much it will help rich elitist fatcats like the Pinhead in Chief. And TANSTAAFL is dead. Drinky McDumbAss has been getting a free lunch (with a silver coke spoon, no less!) since before he can remember... Posted by: Mark on February 2, 2005 05:31 AM The thing to remember in the whole privatization debate is that the liberals are not against it because it won't work.They are against it because it will. If, by saying that piratization will work, you mean that it will screw the system and make seniors go dumpster diving for supper in their golden years, then yes, you are correct. Liberals most definitely do not want that to be a part of America's future (at least the ones I talk to).

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 08:23:31 AM EST
    ppj @ 0857 Look, when you are being robbed, at least stand up with dignity and acknowledge the theft. I agree, ppj has a point, and the theft started with the Bush tax cuts.

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#35)
    by pigwiggle on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 08:41:13 AM EST
    “I've always read the same thing as Bendito. Namely, there is no "trust fund" or pot of accumulated money. Can anyone provide me a source for following up on this? If this is the case, Salon is incorrect, not the President.” Clinton’s FY 2000 budget. Page 326. “These balances are available to finance future benefit payment and other trust fund expenditures-but only in a bookkeeping sense. These funds are not set up to be pension funds, like the funds of private pension plans. They DO NOT CONSIST OF REAL ECONOMIC ASSTETS that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits, they are CLAIMS ON THE TREASURY that, when redeemed, will have to be FINANCED BY RAISING TAXES, BORROWING FROM THE PUBLIC, OR REDUCING BENEFITS or other expenditures.” Private accounts have been hyped by a number of folks over the years. Has everyone forget President Clinton’s proposal to fix the looming SS crisis with privatized accounts? All the things you folks have been calling hype and lies are contained in President Clinton’s FY 2000 Budget and his State of the Union from that year. “The Administration proposes tapping the power of private financial markets to increase the resources to pay for future Social Security benefits”

    "Has everyone forget President Clinton’s proposal to fix the looming SS crisis with privatized accounts?" Whoa up, there piggle. What Clinton proposed wasn't private accounts. He proposed putting some of the surplus (remember the surplus?) into the private equity and bond markets on behalf of the SS trust fund. In other words, the government would own the account, not individual taxpayer/investors. Apples. Antelopes.

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 10:59:41 AM EST
    With President Bush and the GOP launching an all-out campaign for their misguided Social Security privatization plan, Perrspectives has assembled a library of resources to help you evaluate the pluses and (endless) minuses of the Bush proposal. The Perrspectives Social Security Document Library includes the Republicans' cynical game plan, the Trustees' 2004 Report, the 2001 report of the Presidential Commission, CEPR's simple fact sheet, and resources from AARP, the Center for Economic and Policy Research, the Campaign for America's Future and ThereIsNoCrisis.com. Recent articles on studies and articles on the pension and retirement system reforms in Argentina, Chile and the UK are also included. You can access the Social Security Document Library here.

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#38)
    by pigwiggle on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 11:04:51 AM EST
    “In other words, the government would own the account, not individual taxpayer/investors.” You’re absolutely right; it was a poor choice of words on my part. However since, the argument usually seems to revolve around the volatility of the stock market I thought it was important to point out that only a few years ago the democrats received the idea of investing in private ‘markets’ quite well. “He proposed putting some of the surplus (remember the surplus?)” If I read his proposal correctly he was referring to the SS program surpluses (we are still running a surplus in the program), not the federal budget surplus. The idea was to quit spending the SS surplus, which would eventually need to be replaced with tax revenue.

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#39)
    by soccerdad on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 11:06:24 AM EST
    If a privately run pension provider or insurance company took someone's money for 35 years under an agreement that they would then pay the person back at an annual rate of 10%, then, on the day the person retired, told them "we're sorry, but we're only going to give you back 7%", would anyone here claim that this was perfectly acceptable, or would everyone be screaming that this was unfair and/or illegal?
    So what do you say when private pensions go belly up, are stolen or do pay pennies on the dollar. Check Enron and the crisis in the pension funds in the Airline industry. Of course private accounts make no guarantee on return. The market crashes and your screwed. I've seen my annunity go up and down over the last 20 years. Justpaul tries the usual tactic of mischaracterizing the original plan and then fails to hold up the new plan to the exact same examination. But what else is new. Here's a question, in the case, although unlikely, of the stock market going in the toilet would you like access to no money or some money?

    "The idea was to quit spending the SS surplus, which would eventually need to be replaced with tax revenue." Correct. And why did that seem possible at the time? Because the general fund was running a surplus. The excess of SS taxes over benefits paid didn't need to be borrowed by the general fund. They hadda do something with it. So again, I say: Apples. Antelopes.

    a privately run pension provider or insurance company took someone's money for 35 years under an agreement that they would then pay the person back at an annual rate of 10%, Where can I get some of that? What's that? Nowhere? Then what's the point? You're comparing the SS system against an imaginary system?

    What everybody is forgetting is the real question: should the government borrow $2 trillion now, despite record deficits And that's just in the next 10 years. We'd have to borrow another $3 trillion in the following 10 years and another $10 trillion in the 20 years after that. Altogether, we'd borrow twice the amount of the entire current national debt to solve a problem everyone agrees doesn't happen for at least another 40 years. How is that a good idea?

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#43)
    by pigwiggle on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 11:44:20 AM EST
    “And that's just in the next 10 years. We'd have to borrow another $3 trillion in the following 10 years and another $10 trillion in the 20 years after that.” You’re going to need to show me how you got these numbers. The CBO’s projection of the Bush plan only shows the ~2trillion cost.

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#44)
    by Adept Havelock on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 12:03:03 PM EST
    Sorry....at this point of defecit spending, it's difficult for me to relate to "only" 2 trillion in admin. costs. This is nothing more than a money grab by Wall Street, salivating over the thought of collecting all those trillions in admin. fees. Anybody remember the outrage and screaming from the banking industry when the govt. had the gall to cut them out of the student loan program, and created the Direct loan system and deprived them of all of those fees? This is the same thing on a larger scale.

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 12:05:07 PM EST
    "Justpaul tries the usual tactic of mischaracterizing the original plan and then fails to hold up the new plan to the exact same examination." Soccerdad once again misrepresents what someone else has said as evidence of, what exactly? Where have I misrepresented the original plan, SD? The government did in fact force an agreement with me that they would take a certain percentage of my income now in return for future benefit payments to be based on the amount I piad in? Where is the misrepresentation in this? Please be specific. The new plan? What new plan? Please provide a citation of where I mentioned the plan, let alone failed to uphold it to what you claim is my "examination" of it. I offered no examination of the original plan nor did I discuss the new plan. I don't believe that your reading comprehension is that flawed, so I am forced to assume that you are once again lying. Please provide the details to show that I'm wrong in that assumption.

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 12:15:58 PM EST
    SS was always intended to be an insurance program. The purpose was to spread risk of saving for retirement across the population. Thus two concepts were inherent in the program. First, returns on the investment would be low i.e. investment of the tax proceeds into treasury bonds. Second, individuals wold still have to supplement savings for retirement through riskier private investment or savings. The SS trust fund should work. It takes long range planning and fiscal prudence. The government would not have to borrow as much money on the bond market with SS taxes used to purchase bonds. However, Congress and the Presidents have failed to restrict borrowing. Now the government must face the cost of fiscally imprudent actions. Note that the individuals who paid their taxes into the trust fund will now be asked to bear the cost. Unfortunately, those who bear the cost will be those least able to afford the consequence. Note that the Clinton private investment program was aimed at (1) increasing the return on investment of surplus revenue to the fund and (2) did not allocate the risk of poor investment decisions to an individual. The commitment to provide a certain level of benefit still remained with the government. The looming problem with SS has been hyped. First, the problem could only be magnified by changing from a 75 year budget forecast by going to an infinite projection of the future. Something that most actuaries have decried as misleading. Second, the potential return on private accounts assumes extremely generous returns in the stock market while the SS projection assumes very conservative economic growth. Mark - No one wants to deny individuals the right to invest their money. That is why we have 401k's and other self directed retirement accounts. We are trying to avoid the situation that existed prior to SS. You would not be remember the abject poverty the many of the elderly lived in because they did not have the insurance provided by SS. This was before your time and you were sheltered from the reality beause the elderly benefited from SS.

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#47)
    by pigwiggle on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 12:25:54 PM EST
    “You would not be remember the abject poverty the many of the elderly lived in because they did not have the insurance provided by SS. This was before your time and you were sheltered from the reality beause the elderly benefited from SS.” This is the funny thing about perspective. What you considered abject poverty would have been considered relative comfort by a previous generation. Likewise what we consider poor today was solidly middle class for my grandparent’s generation. Things aren’t getting worse, people’s expectations are getting better. It’s hard for me to sympathize with the guy screaming about his ‘right’ to a medication that didn’t exists for his parents or theirs. People expect their standard of living to somehow reflect the current general affluence.

    piggle, I picked that up from today's (2/2) Daily Howler. Somerby quoted a Krugman column from Jan. 11. The $2 trillion transition cost is the number most often tossed around for the first 10 years, assuming taxpayers can divert up to 4 percentage points of their payroll taxes into private accounts. Four percent is also a number that's thrown around often. On the other hand, the summary of the Kolbe-Boyd version released today (see Talking Points Memo) proposes a graduated scale that would reduce revenues by just over 2 percent of payrolls. If that version was adopted, then the transition costs wouild come closer to $1 trillion in the first 10 years.

    An additional note: That estimated transition costs assumes that the government will make good on its obligations to the SS trust fund. If, as some here seem to think, the trust fund is "just empty promises" the cost of transition will be even higher.

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#50)
    by pigwiggle on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 02:13:15 PM EST
    “If, as some here seem to think, the trust fund is "just empty promises" the cost of transition will be even higher.” I don’t think anyone is claiming the feds wont pay this obligation. There are a lot of folks here calling for higher taxes to pay for the benefit/revenue deficit. Usually when I bring up the empty fund it is to remind these folks that taxes will need to be raised to meet the current obligation, irrespective of the scheduled benefit reduction in ~2045.

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#51)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 02:23:00 PM EST
    Whew! I have to confess, despite my Ivy league education and years of accounting and math experience, I've never taken an economics course which must be why I'm so confused by the competing views and projections on this subject. As I feel I generally have a better grasp on policy and politics than most, how the hell are the "common" people (I saw that term recently on TL - it apparently excludes liberals) going to wade through this??? However, the problem itself seems quite simple. NOTE: On this issue, I am not reflexively partisan - My mistrust of Mr. Bush is based on the fact that he's lied to us in the past about issues affecting our lives and he has everything to lie about here. So... I'm approaching this problem as a upper-lower, lower-middle class 43 year old worker who currently has extremely moderate savings and who is counting on at a minimum, the projected amount on my Soc. Sec. statement I get every year. The Regan/Gingrich/Bush Republican platform believes in "individual responsibility". This translates to me to mean "you're on your own". I believe that Bush agrees with some commenters here that it's not the Government's job to provide a safety net. I need a safety net. A study published by Harvard coming out today says (paraphrasing) that almost half of California residents filing for personal bankruptcy got there due to catastrophic medical problems. With no safety net, I'd have to sell the house I'd paid for for the last thirty years to cover my Hernia operation. And again, we have a safety net because we didn't have one before and the "common people" revolted,swinging the pendulum the other way and establishing socialist and communist governments that provided uber-safety nets at the expense of capital investment. So it's not like we always had protection and started revolutions to end it! I dare say that tourists to countries that don't have safety nets (e.g. India) are roundly offended by the sick, mishappen, malnourished beggars they have to pick their way over to take a "clean" picture of the Taj Mahal. So cancel Christmas for all of you who are for SS Reform as a first step in getting the government out of the safety net business. A pox on you and your houses. The thinking, feeling folks in this country who think that people are important even when they're not contributing to the work force will never let it happen. Once the "no safety netters" are factored out of the discussion, what remains are people who feel that there should be "guaranteed" pensions for retirees. To these folks I pose several non-technical questions that I still don't understand the answers to. 1. I know several folks who have retired in the last few years with considerably less of a nest egg than they had planned on, and others who have had to go back to work or adjust their retirement plans due to their portfolio losses. SS Reformers talk about a sustained return rate averaged over time. How are retirees to plan their retirements and budget given the short term rises and falls in returns? 2. If the SS fund is an accounting tool, why do we talk about it independently of other government revenues. Why don't we just appropriate accordingly if we know there's no problem for twenty years - or do what most families would in an analogous situation - putting money aside for retirement. 3. If we can borrow the trillions of bucks needed to pay for a re-vamp (sounds insanely high to me) why can't we just put the trillions into SS or at least the amount we would be paying on the loan? What effect would that have on the "crisis"? 4. Is the money (approx. $1200/month for me) that my SS statement says I will get going to be adjusted for inflation by the time I retire? Twelve hundred is not enough to live (even frugally) on now? How much will bread and milk and rent and health insurance cost in 2030? 5. Why are other workers subsidizing my retirement? Shouldn't the businesses who have profited off of my labor throughout my working life be sharing or shouldering this burden? 6. ... and, finally... 6. Where is Al Gore's "lockbox"? Note to Pigwiggle: I expect you know that I abhor your "it's my taxes and should be spent the way I want them" argument - it ultimately is selfish and ignores the many benefits you recieve (albiet unsolicited) for your relatively modest tax contributions. One of your typical comments re: this is posted above:
    How is it right for you to decide where my charity dollars will be spent?
    How do you then justify your statment that:
    ...providing for the ‘common welfare’ wasn’t meant to give the federal government unlimited power to regulate everything from retirement to product safety;
    I would say that your contributing to the "common welfare" by providing tax revenue wasn't meant to give YOU unlimited power to regulate everything from what I buy with my welfare money (LoL drinking my Starbucks right now!) to who is "deserving" (your words, as I recall) of "charity". Given all of the above, I advocate for the following: a. Raising the standard retirement age from 65 to 70. This seems like a no-brainer, provided there are means for earlier retirment for specific needs. I plan on working until at least 70 if not much later. b. Guaranteeing that all workers will have a minimum of a retirement income of at least 200% over the poverty line. Sure, invest in mutual funds or whatever to increase the COLLECTIVE return. c. Adjusting/amending the federal budget accordingly. You'll never convince me in a million years that Soc. Sec. couldn't be "saved" (kind of like GW being saved lol) by trimming military waste. Even aside from the waste, did we gain more for our future seniors by spending revenues on aggressive foreign policy than helping them pay their rent and prescription costs? (i.e. "I sure feel safe rummaging for bottles in this here trash can.") I am very afraid of being old and poor. I have been working for the past 26 years and over time, have seen inflation outstrip my earning power. In my twenties, I could splurge and buy clothes "at retail". IIn my thirties, making 10K-15K more, Ifound that my food and medical costs (and especially housing here in Mass.) ate into my disposable income significantly more and I could only shop at discount retailers such as Marshalls. In my early forties, I'm making even more, yet I'm finding Isaac Mizrahi at Target to be a challenging price point. Assuming I have no catastrophic medical conditions that prevent me from working, and the employment rate doesn't drop, I might be able to scrape together enough in a 401K to subsist on. But this is EXTRA, on top of the paltry SS pension, in case I want to play a little Bingo in my old age, or buy my grandchildren Holiday gifts. What would George Bush do for my needs? If nothing, he should say nothing - that I don't deserve anything except the hourly rate my employer pays me. Don't insult and patronize me, however, by throwing the word "reform" at me garbled with "personal responsibility" and "freedom" to garner knee-jerk support from the pigwiggles and so-called patriots in this country for taking away my only relief from penury in old age. **I know pigwiggle... I should start saving and investing my Starbucks $$** However I am a typical American iin that I have a hard time trading my instant gratification for future security.

    piggle, I want to back up to your cite of Clinton, above: "They DO NOT CONSIST OF REAL ECONOMIC ASSTETS that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits, they are CLAIMS ON THE TREASURY that, when redeemed, will have to be FINANCED BY RAISING TAXES, BORROWING FROM THE PUBLIC, OR REDUCING BENEFITS or other expenditures" This is a correct statement. There isn't a pile of dollar bills or stacks of gold bars that will be taken from the trust fund and used to pay SS benefits. However, the claims on the treasury are quite real. If a company holds a "claim on the treasury" that's an asset. If the central bank of Germany holds a "claim on the treasury," they can expect it to be paid. If George W. Bush holds a "claim on the treasury" (and his financial disclosure statements show he holds plenty of 'em!) the government is good for it. So why are these claims--and only these claims--imaginary, empty, nothing but IOUs? Here's a hint. When outfits like the Club for Growth talk about redeeming the SS trust fund, they use a phrase a lot like the one Clinton used in his SOTU that you cited. Except for one thing: they like to leave out that part about "borrowing from the public." They'll say to pay redeem the trust fund, the government will have to raise taxes or cut benefits. They leave out that third option. Why? Because that's how our treasury manages its debt. Debt instruments have maturity dates. When those debts mature, the government pays the creditor. It's in the budget. If the government has the revenue, it retires the debt outright. (That, by the way, is what we were doing during Clinton's second term.) If it doesn't have the revenue, it borrows more. So when people say "we don't know where the money to pay that debt will come from," they're funnin' ya.

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#53)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 02:35:34 PM EST
    Nemo, is so right, and the bennies will mean nothing in the end game, that is the real plan.

    Excellent post, mfox. Fine questions too. Isn't it amazing that you can't find straightforward answers to obvious questions like those anywhere in the big newspapers? If I may, I'd like to address just your second question: "2. If the SS fund is an accounting tool, why do we talk about it independently of other government revenues. Why don't we just appropriate accordingly if we know there's no problem for twenty years - or do what most families would in an analogous situation - putting money aside for retirement." We talk about SS independently of other government revenues because it's structured that way by law. The Social Security payroll tax is a separate stream of revenue the government collects for the specific purpose of running the Social Security system. Now hang onto your hat. Here's where it starts to get complicated. If the total amount of SS taxes collected is more than the amount of benefits paid out, there's a surplus. Ever since the beginning of the SS system 70 years ago, surpluses have been loaned to the general fund of the government or used to retire debt. In no case has the money ever been deposited in a bank or invested in the stock market or anything like that. If the money wasn't loaned to the general fund, the general fund would have to borrow from somebody else, most likely at higher rates. So the transfer of money from SS to the general fund reduces interest cost. When it comes time to pay back the money borrowed from SS, then the money has to come out of the general fund--tax revenues or more borrowing. This debt is no different from any other debt held by any part of the government. One more wrinkle. Since the Johnson administration, the government presents a unified budget to the public. That is, the general fund and the social security fund are reported together. This provides the basis for the charge that "the whole thing is just an accounting trick." When the federal government reports a budget deficit of $400 billion, they're really reporting a deficit of $550 billion in the general fund and a surplus of $150 billion in SS. Regardless of what anyone believes about the level of debt held by the government or the solvency of the trust fund, the debt to the SS fund will be paid.

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#55)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 02:43:27 PM EST
    Pigglewiggle-p You really are fairly ignorant. I was not using my perspective in stating that a far larger percent of our elderly lived in poverty when SS was created. That was the finding of the Congress when the system was brought into existence. Howver, I am glad that you believe that people should expect to live no better than we did during the depths of the Great Depression. Let us see, the United States becomes the greatest economic power on earth, has the greatest technological and health developments. However, unless you are in a certain class, expect nothing. Even Henry Ford realized that the "common" people had to earn a decent living in order to sustain the economy. Pigglewiggle would say to someone dying of a heart attack should not be given emergency resuscitation unless the money is upfront.. After all, it would not have been possible in 1929.

    I gotta take #6 too, mfox: 6. Where is Al Gore's "lockbox"? I think Al took it with him. At least, George isn't using it. Al's lockbox consisted of using SS surplus revenues to pay down the national debt. Paying down the debt would free up the treasury's borrowing capacity for the years when it comes time to pay back the SS trust fund for all the money it has loaned the general fund. Of course, the "lockbox" concept relied on a continuing surplus in the general fund. If you use the SS surplus to pay down debt, then the general fund can't borrow it and spend it. That's good. But if spending doesn't decline, then the general fund has to borrow from somewhere else. So you're paying down debt with the SS taxes and borrowing money from somewhere else for the general fund. It's a wash. The short answer is: the "lockbox" got swept away in a sea of red ink. The huge budget deficits since 2001 have made the lockbox a moot point.

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#57)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 03:02:30 PM EST
    Mfox, Bravo! Great post.

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#58)
    by pigwiggle on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 03:08:54 PM EST
    “How do you then justify your statment that:...providing for the ‘common welfare’ wasn’t meant to give the federal government unlimited power to regulate everything from retirement to product safety” Like I said in the very post you cut that from; why would the authors of the constitution bother to carefully enumerate the feds powers I if they had intended for the feds to derive almost unlimited powers, far in excess of those enumerated, from the ‘common welfare’ provision. It simply doesn’t make sense. What makes sense its they didn’t, and the fed has used the common welfare provision, much like the interstate commerce provision, to usurp powers meant for the states and people.

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#59)
    by soccerdad on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 03:22:14 PM EST
    justpaul you cant be serious

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#60)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 03:41:48 PM EST
    mfox - Uh, exactly what did Bush lie about? BurgerBoy - You are confusing radicals of the Left, with liberals. They also like to call themselves Progressives, which was the title the communists went to in the late 40's. nohelp - So, you want to tax all income %87,900, invest it and give the ROI to EVERYBODY? Why do you think you have to take their income from them? That's just socialism. J.Moir - Correct it was started as an insurance plan. Problem is the tax rate as become so high - 12.4% - that many do not have any funds left to invest in private accounts.

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#61)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 03:43:38 PM EST
    ...make that "all income above $87,900, invest..."

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#62)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 03:43:53 PM EST
    Pigwiggle seems to be longing for the past. People should expect nothing better than we saw in the 1930's. Increased national wealth should not raise the poor's expectations of any standard of living. Now Pigwiggle believes that the world stopped in the late 1790's. Get rid of the FAA. Was not needed or expressed in the Constitution's enumeration of federal powers. Oh yeah - get rid of the interstate system. Get rid of NATO. Get rid of the WTO. Get rid of FDA, FCC, IRS. We may not like complicated federal institutions, however, some are necessary and many of them very beneficial to businesses and the very conservative supporters who dismiss them.

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#63)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 03:54:05 PM EST
    Poker Payer - Good to hear from you. The 12.4% is combined employer and employee contribution. The little over 6% that comes from the employee still leaves plenty to invest. If not, how about increasing the min. wage. As a small business owner in my retirement, I know of the impact of the employer's portion of SS. However, I am very leary of privitization. The plan will have 2/3 of the employee's contribution go into a fund. I wish I could believe that everyone will see a return on investment that would justify optimism. It won't happen. I watched my father's retirment savings take a big hit in one stock market mini-crash. It took years to recover. Fortunately, my parents had time to recover. I watched a fair portion of my 401(k) go down the toilet when the economy slipped. I did not have as long to recover.

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#64)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 04:09:09 PM EST
    Soccerdad, Oh but I am. And your running away from your own posts doesn't change that. You accused me of misrepresenting the original plan. Show me where I did that. You accused me of failing to hold the new plan to the same standard I used for the original plan. Show me where I did that. You can't, because I didn't. Is this the "progressive" model? Lie about what someone says, call what you claim they said a lie, and then act surprised when someone asks you to back yourself up with something that proves they said it in the first place? No wonder you can't convince anyone of anything. All you do is lie about other people lying and expect to get away with it. Classic.

    justpaul, I questioned the same thing SD did. You wrote:
    If a privately run pension provider or insurance company took someone's money for 35 years under an agreement that they would then pay the person back at an annual rate of 10%, then, on the day the person retired, told them "we're sorry, but we're only going to give you back 7%", would anyone here claim that this was perfectly acceptable, or would everyone be screaming that this was unfair and/or illegal?
    Did SD and I misunderstand? Didn't you intend this to be analogous to the current SS system?

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#66)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 04:26:08 PM EST
    Quaker, No, that was an example of what I had thought everyone would agree was unethical or illegal behavior. Although the specific percentages were based on some number being bandied about a few weeks ago in which Soccerdad predicted that, under the current predictions, Social Security would be able to pay future recipients 70% of their expected benefits. I don't believe there is anything in that post saying "the original plan was set up to promise you 10% but only deliver 7% upon retirement". So where is the misrepresentation?

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#68)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 04:59:24 PM EST
    Don't be fooled by what Bush and Banker/business Rats are tell you. its about control and robbery of your tax money, and remember you pay tax on social security after you get it, so you never stop paying into this system.

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#67)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 04:59:55 PM EST
    insulting comment with profanity deleted.

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#69)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 05:05:14 PM EST
    Mark - Please mind your manners. My response was to pigwiggle. I do presume that you born sometime after 1935. If I am wrong, then I appologize. I did not realize that you lived through the Great Depression and were old enough to appreciate the life styles and living conditions of the elderly in various social economic conditions. If this is not the case, then I guess that one's perspective would not be as accurate as the legislative record and other contemporary sources surrounding the formation of SS. Indeed, a review of statistics indicates a very high incidence of poverty by then contemporary standards and adefinite downward trend in poverty amongst the elderly after the introduction of the SS plan. This is why I think that a lot of us, you included unless you are a lot older than I am (and I retired to open a small business two years ago), really fail to understand why some insurance of retirement savings was necessary. The same is true now.

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#70)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 05:14:27 PM EST
    [deleted, filled with insults. This commenter was limited to four posts a day. This is his fourth today. If he posts again, he'll be banned. He doesn't follow the commenting rules and he's a chatterer.]

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 05:15:03 PM EST
    We must stop Social Security reform at all costs. I think that everyone will agree when they consider the probable results: We would have people with some control over their own money! THE MONEY BELONGS TO THE GOVERNMENT!!! They in their benevolence let us use it. If we let the common people start thinking that they could or should have any say so as to the disposition of what they THINK is their money all hell will break loose. Why we could have ordinary citizens demanding lower taxes so that they could fritter away their money on foolish things like educating their children or retirement savings or even worse they could invest it in a business (EEEEK)! What would the liberals do then? Can you imagine if liberals could no longer tell the common people how tax dollars could be better spent than they are currently? My favorite is when some lib declares that our tax dollars could be better spent on things that the federal government was not formed to do while taking those dollars away from the things it was intended to do.IE: "The money being spent on national defense and in Iraq (what the feds are supposed to do)would be better spent on providing health care for every child in America (something the government has no business being involved in)" Partial Privatization of Social Security could very well start us down that slippery slope of making liberals completely immaterial. And THAT would be a real shame. Mark W.........still the PRESIDENT

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#71)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 09:01:39 PM EST
    J.Moir - Actually, I don't think the "plan" is cast in concrete, but 4% is not a huge amount. As to "safety," Bush mentioned several common sense items. But nothing is 100%. Most people are acting as if the money would be 100% in common stock. Bush mentioned stocks and bonds. Why not a fund that buys only Treasury Notes? I mean if it is good enough for Social Security....and 100% safe....and paying 6%... Also I am unclear as to what the 4% is. Is it 4% of the 6.2%, or is an actual 4%, leaing 2.2% for SS. i.e. Let's say the person's FICA taxes is $3000. Four percent of that is $1200. If it 4% of the 6.2%, the total would be around $2000. As to how much is left, don't you think it ia a lttle on the snob side to tell people that they should save more than 6.2 of their adjusted gross income? I mean, a family of four making $30K, that's a tad over $1800 a year, about $30. a week, a sizeable chunk of change to these folks. As to whether or not the employee could get any of the employer paid, is an argument I'll leave till later. Of course the employer gets to reduce hs AGI by the amount he has paid in as part of the employer payment, so he isn't paying the full amount. (Thank you DA.) Yes on increasing the wage. And let's shut off the illegal aliens, the chief source of cheap labor and a real drag on the working poor who are citizens. And if my Big Mac goes up 25 cents, so be it.

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#72)
    by john horse on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 04:27:18 AM EST
    1. Social security is set up so that current workers are paying the benefits of today's retirees. How can you divert funds from the Social Security Trust Fund to private accounts and continue to pay current payments? The proposed solution is to borrow the funds. This will also be kept off the books. Sounds like voodoo economics to me. The problem according to the privatizers is that the government has borrowed off the trust fund and the trust fund consists of nothing but IOUs. The solution according to the privatizers is to borrow substantially more funds, creating more IOUs. 2. Proponents of privatization like to point out that when the government buys Treasury bonds, this money is only "IOUs" and the "Trust Fund has already been spent". So the solution is to allow individuals to buy treasury bonds, which are "safe and secure." But aren't these the same treasury bonds, regardless of whether the government or an individual buys them? If treasury bonds bought by an individual are "safe and secure", aren't they also "safe and secure" if bought by the government? and vice versa. 3. The Social Security Administration actually did 2 forecasts of future economic growth. The advocates of privatization use the more pessimistic projection of course. However, as more real data becomes available the pessimistic projection of the date of the "crisis" keeps getting moved further into the future. Why take drastic action now?

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#73)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 07:09:39 AM EST
    Thank you very much, Quaker, for your astute answers and bit of levity injected re: the "lockbox". lol Thanks also, Che. It felt good to get all that off my chest, and I appreciate you reading the whole darn thing. Pigwiggle: I realized on the way home that my comparison had some logical flaws aside from our basic disagreement about "income confiscation and re-distribution". If I am correct, the constitution does not mandate an income tax, either. The problem with an "evolving" constitution (I always hear that the Founding Fathers intentionally left it malleable) is, like the bible, we can't ring up the authors and ask if this policy or that interpretation was "what they meant". Given this, one could make, (as I'm sure some have) an argument that since slavery existed and women were legally categorized as chattel in America at the very moment that the words "all men are created equal" were penned that the Fathers intended that slavery and the disenfranchisment of women were, in fact, "constitutional". Others point out that if the Fathers (I wish there was at least one founding Mother!!) believed this to be true they would have expressed these views specifically by stating that "All White American Landowners" are created equal and everyone else is sh*t. This country was founded on a principle that every human being is entitled to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". The evolving and subjective definition of these ideals is what I feel gives me the right to ask the government for equal health care for everybody, a justice system that allows me the "liberty" to pursue my own happiness" If that means I want to spark up a giant spliff or safely abort a baby I don't want, that's between me and my God (if I have one). If the people, by way of their elected officials, state that pure capitalism does not permit the working classes to aspire to life, liberty or persuing happiness and therefore want to re-distribute some of the profits of their labor to help them when they can't work, or to provide infastructure, or shelter orphans, feed the hungry, invade other countries to keep us safe, etc., then the constitution does not specifically PREVENT the U.S. from taxing income instead of property. Well, that's my best argument - but I fear it's to no avail!

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#74)
    by pigwiggle on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 08:35:38 AM EST
    J.Mohr “We may not like complicated federal institutions, however, some are necessary and many of them very beneficial to businesses and the very conservative supporters who dismiss them.” I am in favor of eliminating all of the institutions you named, in their current manifestation. I don’t care how beneficial they are to business; it isn’t my responsibility to fund institutions that are beneficial to business.

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#75)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 08:50:40 AM EST
    Pigwiggle, J. Mohr assumes you are a conservative and therefore a supporter of big business. The conservative argument is that unregulated business practices and unfettered trade and tax breaks for the rich all promote business growth. This is pretty obvious. The argument then assumes (erroneously, in my opinion) that the better businesses do, the more jobs there will be for workers, the better workers are getting paid, etc., etc. (Remember Reagan's "trickle-down" theory)? However, in my opinion the absurdly unrealistic conservative scenario goes something like: Corporate Exec. #1: "Gee, we're making record profits and our accountants have virtually eliminated our taxes, what should we do with the extra money"? Corporate Exec. #2: "Lets give the workers an across the board increase proportional to our increased profits - or at least increase our health plan contribution"! In the real world, Exec. #2 replies: "We're the bosses, we're the ones responsible to the shareholders. If the company is doing better, we should be rewarded. How about divvying up the extra profits between the top managers - Bill's been dying to get a spot in the Hamptons." So, I'm not in favor of breaks to big business. Capitalism naturally favors them and money goes first to those who already have it. I see you as on the anarchist side of libertarian, Pigwiggle.

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#76)
    by pigwiggle on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 09:00:34 AM EST
    “Given this, one could make, (as I'm sure some have) an argument that since slavery existed and women were legally categorized as chattel in America at the very moment that the words "all men are created equal" were penned that the Fathers intended that slavery and the disenfranchisment of women were, in fact, "constitutional".” A few of them did realize the contradiction, and the rest were just wrong. Perhaps you were lucky enough to see CSPAN’s ‘a peoples history’ on the 30th? The reading of Susan Anthony’s sentencing after her conviction for voting killed me. There are a lot of great ideas in the constitution that hopefully will have their day. I value liberty and justice above anything. It is also obvious to anyone paying attention that government at its best can scarcely ensure either, and most often destroy both. It shouldn’t surprise you that I am in favor of strict enumeration of government powers, INCLUDING the states. The constitution is an inspired document, but it is flawed in many respects.

    mfox, I think your hypothetical conversation between executives shortchanges the conservative ideal. It's really a little more complicated than that: Corporate Exec. #1: "Gee, we're making record profits and our accountants have virtually eliminated our taxes, what should we do with the extra money"? Corporate Exec. #2: "Let's expand our business. In addition to producing widgets, we can develop an entirely new product--quidgets! We'll need to do a bunch of research, build a new factory, and order up a whole bunch of machine tools an stuff. Oh yeah, we'll need to hire lots an lots of workers and that will make labor more scarce and raise wages for everybody." Corporate Exec. #1: "Or we could tell our accountants to book all the revenue for quidgets into this year. Who cares if we haven't actually made any quidgets yet? On paper, our profits will go through the roof, the price of our stock will go up and we can cash in all our options." Corporate Exec. #2: "I'm good with that."

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#78)
    by pigwiggle on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 10:01:29 AM EST
    QITB- Corruption is a feature of all human endeavors; hardly restrained to private institutions. The difference is semantics; in government it’s called pork.

    "Corruption is a feature of all human endeavors;" I'm well aware. It's conservative "free market" advocates who pretend the corruption doesn't exist, even when the evidence is available in spades.

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#80)
    by pigwiggle on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 11:48:31 AM EST
    “I'm well aware. It's conservative "free market" advocates who pretend the corruption doesn't exist, even when the evidence is available in spades.” Not any less than collectivists; many argue the need for collectivism is rooted in the inherent corruption of anything private. Take the arguments posted here about the SS debate. The feds have consistently funded other budget items with SS revenues and surpluses, yet when privatization is discussed most immediately regress to talk of the ‘fat cats of wall street’ poised to raid retirement accounts. SS has been raided, spent on who knows what, and now the feds are going to take more money out of my check to cover these costs. How could it get worse?

    SS has been raided, spent on who knows what, and now the feds are going to take more money out of my check to cover these costs. How could it get worse? You're referring to the SS trust fund. This isn't corruption, it's just the way the system works. The practice of lending any payroll tax surpluses to the general fund in exchange for Treasury obligations was part of the original design. It's nothing new or underhanded. At any rate, my version of the hypothetical conversation was mostly for laughs. Let's not let it devlove to broadbrush condemnations of all of any group.

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#82)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 02:04:02 PM EST
    I didn't see the CSPAN special although I'm a great admirer of Susan Anthony's. I think I read that speech in one of my women's studies classes but will make a point to review it. I also see your point and am very sympathetic to it. I elaborated a few minutes ago but my post got trashed en route. I don't have time to go into detail right now but want to highlight your contention that collectivism exists because of a mistrust of privatization. I think collectivism exists because of the natural tendency of a country's wealth and resources to flow into the coffers of the investors in business, infastructure, etc. Thinking of jails, for example, things that folks are forced to buy or use (eg utilities,jails, schools) should not be for profit. And I think collectivism rejects the argument that private sector agencies are less corrupt or operate more efficiently than not-for-profit entities. So, I'm not an outright Communist (although I think Jesus and the early Christians were!)but feel that the workers have a right to/stake in any profits generated by capital investment. Anyway, very thought provoking comments Pigwiggle and Quaker. If I was president, you'd both be in my cabinet (LoL to pigwiggle and free Starbucks for everybody!)

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#83)
    by pigwiggle on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 05:34:24 PM EST
    “Thinking of jails, for example, things that folks are forced to buy or use (eg utilities,jails, schools) should not be for profit. And I think collectivism rejects the argument that private sector agencies are less corrupt or operate more efficiently than not-for-profit entities.” Disregarding the fact that only folks wanting to educate their children need schools; the private sector cuts cost, enhances product quality, and provided innovation remarkably well. For every life saving, ease making item produced by someone with altruistic goals there are thousand made by folks wanting to make money. I have good reason to believe that greed has enhanced my life more than anyone’s compassion. We need cheaper, better, and more innovative services traditionally provided for by our government. I want private interstates, private public transportation, privately run judiciary, private police, private FAA, private military, all of it. If the government is going to pay the bill I want them to pay private contractors who have bid the best quality/price.

    Re: Selling Social Security Reform With Lies (none / 0) (#84)
    by pigwiggle on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 01:10:44 PM EST
    QITB- I was wrong, Clinton was advocating using the budget surplus (60%) not the SS surplus.