# Conversation and Fun > Just Conversation >  Since apparently no one tuned in...

## Pete Hanlin

I notice that most of my friends here seem to have opted to skip the State of the Union address last evening... I feel your pain- I suffered through all of President Clinton's diatribes (even the exceptionally lengthy one in, what was it- '95).

Anyway, you missed the best SOTU this President has delivered (IMHO). Now, that's not saying terribly much, but I have to note that this is two speeches in a row where W has come off looking less than his usual stiff self- I am encouraged.

More encouraging than the style (since I am a Republican, I look a bit deeper than that) was the _substance_ of his speech. It would appear as if the President has finally lit upon a true crusade- the Reformation of Social Security. I will be completely partisan here (since I can only speak from my own views), but if this President can manage to fix this ill-conceived FDR hangover program from the "New Deal," history will remember him as a great President. 

Combined with his good fortune to have been in office during a crisis (let's be honest, President Clinton waited 8 years for something of significance to happen which would give him the opportunity to lead), this has the potential to be a great two terms. Even MORE interesting is the apparent plan of action being adopted by the President- namely, taking the message to the people.

(If you are a liberal- and given to bouts of nausea- you want to stop reading here... you've been warned.)

President Bush traveling around the country to sell an idea to the people! Be still my soaring heart! This is a page straight out of the Ronald Reagen era. In fact, it could be likened to President Wilson touring the country in support of his League (of course, that tour ended up killing him...)! All the President has to do is drum up enough support to force the hands of just a few Democrats, and we can start making some real progress (I think he needs only a few in the Senate to stave off the Democrat's last weapon- the filibuster... the House is a pretty comfy place for the admin, or at least it should be).

And what if the Democrats continue to chew on their feet on the floor of Congress and on the weekly TV shows? Well, frankly, their backs are against the wall now. They literally can't afford to lose any more ground in Congress in the mid-term elections. Squabbling over confirmations, making ill-timed speeches on the floor, booing the President during a SOTU (well, it sounded like booing to me)... Ah yes, watching the Dems act like their mascot is theatre quality education.

Republicans, President Bush, Republican Congresspeople, fellow citizens- this is a time of tremendous opportunity! Let us throw off the shackles of an antiquated Social Security system and put this bast8rd child of the Great Depression to rest! Democrats, be part of the process or get out of the way- hopefully, the GOP has finally figured out they control two branches of government now!

What a fine day to be a conservative! I haven't felt this energized since Rep. Gingrich took back the House (of course, President Clinton managed to beat him like a drum soon after- so I suppose it just goes to show that all enthusiasm and movements are fleeting).

PS- Of COURSE this is one-sided, slanted, etc. Its what we all do... When my team becomes the minority again (and that day will inevitably come), it will be time once again to find myself in the "let's all brood" mode in which many of my friends both here and off-line find themsleves.  So, I won't take it personally when you start in with your _"substance???  what about this that and the other..."_ mantra.  To borrow a phrase, "I feel your pain."  I watched President Clinton and the now Senator try to hawk their socialized medical system on our country and gritted my teeth through the whole ordeal- so I appreciate your disagreement, and respect your right to gripe.

----------


## hcjilson

That fact will allow him to reap the full benefit of the Social Security overhaul (if passed) proposed last night. If he isn't happy with the result he can take comfort in the fact that the man who proposed it last night will not have to worry about living on a substandard income.Because Pete enjoys his work, he will not mind having to work till his mid seventies in order to make ends meet. He won't be worried about health issues either, because he will be too busy to be sick!  :bbg:

----------


## Spexvet

> I notice that most of my friends here seem to have opted to skip the State of the Union address last evening... I feel your pain- I suffered through all of President Clinton's diatribes (even the exceptionally lengthy one in, what was it- '95).


I will download it and read it later - W is so predictable (as are his whipped followers) that I really don't even need to read it to know what he said. All spin and misinformation, of course.




> Anyway, you missed the best SOTU this President has delivered (IMHO). Now, that's not saying terribly much, but I have to note that this is two speeches in a row where W has come off looking less than his usual stiff self- I am encouraged.


Wow, encouraged at not sounding like a second grader. Maybe I misunderestimated him. (I'll never tire of using that line :Rolleyes:  )




> More encouraging than the style (since I am a Republican, I look a bit deeper than that) was the _substance_ of his speech. It would appear as if the President has finally lit upon a true crusade- the Reformation of Social Security. I will be completely partisan here (since I can only speak from my own views), but if this President can manage to fix this ill-conceived FDR hangover program from the "New Deal," history will remember him as a great President.


Or his "fix" will turn out to really screw things up, in which case history will remember him as he really is. The Spanish Inquisition was a crusade, of sorts. Just remember that.




> Combined with his good fortune to have been in office during a crisis (let's be honest, President Clinton waited 8 years for something of significance to happen which would give him the opportunity to lead), this has the potential to be a great two terms.


Two great terms needs to start with one great term - too late!




> Even MORE interesting is the apparent plan of action being adopted by the President- namely, taking the message to the people.


If the people don't agree with his message, will he reconsider? Or will he bully his reforms through, regardless of the people's will? Remember we had this debate before?




> President Bush traveling around the country to sell an idea to the people! Be still my soaring heart! This is a page straight out of the Ronald Reagen era. In fact, it could be likened to President Wilson touring the country in support of his League (of course, that tour ended up killing him...)!


 :Rolleyes:  




> All the President has to do is drum up enough support to force the hands of just a few Democrats, and we can start making some real progress (I think he needs only a few in the Senate to stave off the Democrat's last weapon- the filibuster... the House is a pretty comfy place for the admin, or at least it should be).


True. We know there's not a goose-stepping republican in the house or senate who will break ranks to save the people from disaster. 




> And what if the Democrats continue to chew on their feet on the floor of Congress and on the weekly TV shows? Well, frankly, their backs are against the wall now. They literally can't afford to lose any more ground in Congress in the mid-term elections. Squabbling over confirmations, making ill-timed speeches on the floor, booing the President during a SOTU (well, it sounded like booing to me)... Ah yes, watching the Dems act like their mascot is theatre quality education.


Sounds alot like the good old Gingrich days, or did you forget hearing them boo Clinton? The dems are just returning the favor.




> Republicans, President Bush, Republican Congresspeople, fellow citizens- this is a time of tremendous opportunity! Let us throw off the shackles of an antiquated Social Security system and put this bast8rd child of the Great Depression to rest! Democrats, be part of the process or get out of the way- hopefully, the GOP has finally figured out they control two branches of government now!


Democrats, don't give up! Fight for the people 'til the end! Prevail over the evil W! Do not go easily into the night. The people will remember when they vote in 2008. Show them the support and compassion they will get when the house and senate are democratic, again!




> What a fine day to be a conservative! I haven't felt this energized since Rep. Gingrich took back the House (of course, President Clinton managed to beat him like a drum soon after- so I suppose it just goes to show that all enthusiasm and movements are fleeting).


Enjoy it, I hope it is very short-lived. In fact a day will be long enough (maybe too long).




> PS- Of COURSE this is one-sided, slanted, etc.


No, really? I could add some adjectives of my own... :Rolleyes:  




> Its what we all do...


No, only Patriots fans and republicans.;) 




> When my team becomes the minority again (and that day will inevitably come), it will be time once again to find myself in the "let's all brood" mode in which many of my friends both here and off-line find themsleves. So, I won't take it personally when you start in with your _"substance??? what about this that and the other..."_ mantra. To borrow a phrase, "I feel your pain." I watched President Clinton and the now Senator try to hawk their socialized medical system on our country and gritted my teeth through the whole ordeal- so I appreciate your disagreement, and respect your right to gripe.


Hope I didn't rain on your parade too much. That's a lie - I hope I thunderstormed, Hurricained and tornadoed all over your parade.

----------


## Spexvet

> That fact will allow him to reap the full benefit of the Social Security overhaul (if passed) proposed last night. If he isn't happy with the result he can take comfort in the fact that the man who proposed it last night will not have to worry about living on a substandard income.Because Pete enjoys his work, he will not mind having to work till his mid seventies in order to make ends meet. He won't be worried about health issues either, because he will be too busy to be sick! :bbg:


Send your favorite dog food recipes to:
Pete Hanlin
C/O Essilor....

----------


## chm2023

> I notice that most of my friends here seem to have opted to skip the State of the Union address last evening... I feel your pain- I suffered through all of President Clinton's diatribes (even the exceptionally lengthy one in, what was it- '95).
> 
> Anyway, you missed the best SOTU this President has delivered (IMHO). Now, that's not saying terribly much, but I have to note that this is two speeches in a row where W has come off looking less than his usual stiff self- I am encouraged.
> 
> More encouraging than the style (since I am a Republican, I look a bit deeper than that) was the _substance_ of his speech. It would appear as if the President has finally lit upon a true crusade- the Reformation of Social Security. I will be completely partisan here (since I can only speak from my own views), but if this President can manage to fix this ill-conceived FDR hangover program from the "New Deal," history will remember him as a great President. 
> 
> Combined with his good fortune to have been in office during a crisis (let's be honest, President Clinton waited 8 years for something of significance to happen which would give him the opportunity to lead), this has the potential to be a great two terms. Even MORE interesting is the apparent plan of action being adopted by the President- namely, taking the message to the people.
> 
> (If you are a liberal- and given to bouts of nausea- you want to stop reading here... you've been warned.)
> ...


Thought your evoking RR was interesting. See below.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/reaganstmts.html#1983

Reagan, Bush 1 and Clinton all took responsible steps to build up a surplus in SS that was designed to cover the baby boom bubble (what a concept, looking ahead). In one fell swoop this clown has undone all that effort. It's interesting that Bush has such faith in the financial markets when the Dow has not risen since he has been in office and the dollar has fallen 40%, he more than anyone should know that markets are unpredictable. Were it not for SS about 5 million older Americans would be living at/below the poverty level.

Having said all this, I think change is good at times: E.g. I have no issue with means testing--my husband is an established physician, he really doesn't need that paltry SS check; retirement age needs to be raised, just a fact that we need to deal with;  privatizing should be an option if that is what people want. BUT ONLY when it can be paid for without borrowing 1-2 TRILLION dollars. (To get a sense of how much money this is, the total equity of all American in their homes is between 7-8 TRILLION).

Lastly, as anyone who can spend 20 minutes on the internet knows, the real looming financial crisis is in Medicare/Medicaid. Where's the plan on this?

And PS if this Iraq debacle (speaking of p---ing away money) is any example, I'll pass on "leadership".

I watched part of the SOTU; really wasn't paying attention though, too wrapped up in Christie Whitman's new book.:D

----------


## Spexvet

This is a great, non-partisan article: http://grove.ufl.edu/~leo/fed_trust_funds.html

"The very use of the term "trust fund" when applied to federal trust funds like Social Security, Medicare, and others, is misleading. As the government itself puts it: "The Federal budget meaning of the term "trust" differs significantly from its private sector usage. In the private sector, the beneficiary of a trust owns the income generated by the trust and usually its assets. A trustee, acting as a fiduciary, manages the trust's assets on behalf of the beneficiary. The trustee is required to follow the stipulations of the trust, which he cannot change unilaterally. In contrast, the Federal Government owns the assets and earnings of Federal trust funds, and it can raise or lower future trust fund collections and payments, or change the purpose for which the collections are used, by changing existing law."(3) " 


I also like: 
"When determining the trust fund balances, the government normally considers both public transactions and intra-governmental transfers. But in determining whether a trust fund program contributes to the deficit, it can be useful to consider just the public transactions. For example, in FY 1994 the Social Security Trust Fund took in $335.0 billion in tax receipts from the public. It spent $317.6 in benefit payments to the public. This gave it a public transactions accounting basis surplus of $17.4 billion. That was a real surplus, which Congress spent. However, when intra-governmental interest and contributions transfers are included, the Social Security Trust Fund had a surplus of $56.8 billion. This is the amount of bogus securities the government issued to itself for that trust fund. *The real surplus, $17.4 billion, was used as an offset to general expenditures, an action which the government brags about as a method of reducing the deficit but which in actuality was a general tax increase hidden in FICA taxes during the 1980s under the guise of "prefunding" benefits: prior to this time Social Security had generally levied only the taxes necessary for the payment of benefits.(*5) Since the trust fund securities cannot and do not finance program expenditures, this is clearly a deceitful abuse of language." 

This must be the "made up for tax cuts" assertion by the left. It appears that in the eighties the government actually thought ahead (must have been the democrats) and tried to "pre-pay" future benefit costs, but subsequently decided to just spend the proceeds, which became necessary because Reagan cut taxes for the wealthy.   


It seems that if *presidents* and *congress* had not *stolen* the SS *surplus*, but had put it in a *real trust fund* and kept there as though it were in a *lock box* (where have we heard that before?), and realized some *interest* on the principle, there wouldn't be a *crisis*, or the crisis would be less and farther off.

----------


## Pete Hanlin

Hope I didn't rain on your parade too much. That's a lie - I hope I thunderstormed, Hurricained and tornadoed all over your parade.
Actually, you made my day... I read the vitriol and bluster in your response and am assured that President Bush is evoking the same emotions in you and your side of the aisle as your beloved philandering, Hillary-whipped, triangulating, SOB of a President did in me (see, it lingers still). So, I see this and gain comfort that President Bush is doing as good a job at being a conservative as President Clinton did at being a liberal...
Thanks for the affirmation! :)

It seems that if *presidents* and *congress* had not *stolen* the SS *surplus*, but had put it in a *real trust fund* and kept there as though it were in a *lock box* (where have we heard that before?), and realized some *interest* on the principle, there wouldn't be a *crisis*, or the crisis would be less and farther off. 
Interesting viewpoint, but its a moot point...  Fact is, Democrats AND Republicans spend more money than the government takes in, so putting some of the money aside makes no difference.  Its like having a bunch of consumer loans- but happily putting money in your savings account...  Its nice to point at the balance in the savings account, but you're still in the red at the end of the day- and the interest on your debt will always exceed the interest earned.

----------


## chm2023

> Fact is, Democrats AND Republicans spend more money than the government takes in, so putting some of the money aside makes no difference. Its like having a bunch of consumer loans- but happily putting money in your savings account... Its nice to point at the balance in the savings account, but you're still in the red at the end of the day- and the interest on your debt will always exceed the interest earned.


But the point is, there was a balance in the savings account;  it is now gone and the consumer loans are getting bigger and bigger.  Again, is this the time to look at borrowing a couple trillion to offset the privatization proposal?  YIKES!!!!!

----------


## Spexvet

> Hope I didn't rain on yourparade too much. That's a lie - I hope I thunderstormed, Hurricainedand tornadoed all over your parade.
> Actually, you made my day... I read the vitriol and bluster in yourresponse and am assured that President Bush is evoking the sameemotions in you and your side of the aisle as your belovedphilandering, Hillary-whipped, triangulating, SOB of a President did inme (see, it lingers still). So, I see this and gain comfort thatPresident Bush is doing as good a job at being a conservative asPresident Clinton did at being a liberal...
> Thanks for the affirmation! :)


My pleasure to oblige. I should have realized that you were just"stirring the pot". As for lingering pain, I still grit my teeth when Ihear the name Ronald Reagan. His administration considered ketchup tobe a vegetable when analyzing the nutrition of school lunches.




> It seems that if *presidents* and *congress* had not *stolen* the SS *surplus*, but had put it in a *real trust fund* and kept there as though it were in a *lock box* (where have we heard that before?), and realized some *interest* on the principle, there wouldn't be a *crisis*, or the crisis would be less and farther off. 
> Interestingviewpoint, but its a moot point... Fact is, Democrats AND Republicansspend more money than the government takes in, so putting some of themoney aside makes no difference. Its like having a bunch of consumerloans- but happily putting money in your savings account... Its nice topoint at the balance in the savings account, but you're still in thered at the end of the day- and the interest on your debt will alwaysexceed the interest earned.


I didn't denote republican or democrat purposely because they both areguilty. At the end of the day, the government's budget may still havebeen/be in the red, but we wouldn't have a Social Securitiy "crisis"impending. 

I find it interesting that when rep/cons refer to Bill, they alwaysinclude siparaging remarks about Hillary. I guess that Laura is such a"nothing" that she can't inspire resentment.:p

----------


## Lee Prewitt

I have a question that I have not been able to find the answer.  What is this cost of 2 Trillion dollars?  Please don't tell me that it is the money needed to replace the funds that go into the private accounts.  That is not a cost.  Just lower revenue.  Does President Bush's plan provide for the people who opt into the private accounts to draw a proportinate less amount from SS?

----------


## fvc2020

Pete


I watched and enjoyed the entire thing, but of course I'm a raging republican.  I have a questions who obviously don't get it.  If less people are putting money(they way it is now)because there are less people working, and there more people taking money out(retiring)how do we pay out the right way?  Now in my household accounting if I'm taking out more money then I am putting in, guess what happens?  Anyone?  Also in my household, I too have interest being paid on my checking/saving accounts, I don't use that extra money(not that its alot)for extra stuff.  Every president and Congress has done this forever.  I don't recall hearing the President say anyone over 55 was going to be affected, and that was a choice.  Now here is the other thing about PSA.  If you can't save for your retirement on your own(investments and such)and are given the opportunity to have a part of the money that is already being taken out into safe investments, why wouldn't you do this.  Here's the other part you didn't listen to, not all of the payroll taxes are going into this account.  

SS needs to be fixed to better take care of all.  Period.  I'm glad all out there are the left are positive they can save for retirement.  I'm glad you guys can live on the same amount SS will give you, but frankly I like the way I'm living and I don't want to change it.  Go President Bush:) 

As for the rest of the speech, it showed why we went to Iraq..It gave a time table that I'm comfortable with.  The program the First Lady is developing is incredible.  I loved the AIDS focus.  I could keep going, but someone is going to find fault.  

By the way if the left can find an acceptable way to fix SS w/o robbing Peter to pay Paul, the President in his address, stated that he was all for all ideas.  


Christina

----------


## chm2023

> I have a question that I have not been able to find the answer. What is this cost of 2 Trillion dollars? Please don't tell me that it is the money needed to replace the funds that go into the private accounts. That is not a cost. Just lower revenue. Does President Bush's plan provide for the people who opt into the private accounts to draw a proportinate less amount from SS?


Lower revenue has the same affect on your cash flow as does increased cost, right?

Well that's exactly what this is.  If the outflow is X, the inflow needs to be X to be in balance, correct?  Well if people take money out of the system, the inflow is reduced TODAY;  the outflow is not reduced until TOMORROW.  A classic cashflow problem.

My understanding is that the people who opt into the private accounts would draw proportinately less (but again, way down the line, doesn't help with revenue shortfall today);  but I heard Joe Klein talking about this and he says the money put into private accounts is somehow "held" by the government and then doled out to them???  Sounds like some sort of Enronesque accounting.

----------


## chm2023

> Republicans, President Bush, Republican Congresspeople, fellow citizens- this is a time of tremendous opportunity! Let us throw off the shackles of an antiquated Social Security system and put this bast8rd child of the Great Depression to rest! Democrats, be part of the process or get out of the way- hopefully, the GOP has finally figured out they control two branches of government now!


Pete, are you supporting the dissolution of SS? Do you think Bush does?

----------


## chm2023

> Pete
> 
> 
> I watched and enjoyed the entire thing, but of course I'm a raging republican. I have a questions who obviously don't get it. If less people are putting money(they way it is now)because there are less people working, and there more people taking money out(retiring)how do we pay out the right way? Now in my household accounting if I'm taking out more money then I am putting in, guess what happens? Anyone?


Well, you may get to a time in your household where you are paying out more than you are taking in, particularly if you have children you want to send to good schools.  If you are wise, you would have prepared for this and set aside funds to cover this.  This is the situation Bush found himself in when he took office, big surplus to deal with actuarial realities.  Now it's gone.  But of course, if I question the wisdom of this, I am a recalcitrant democrat.  Funny, I thought I was just real good at 'rithmetic!!!  (If I ran my business this way, I would not only be out of business, I would probably be in jail:  clients pre-pay for services and then I tell them, gee sorry, seems I blew the money!

----------


## Pete Hanlin

Pete, are you supporting the dissolution of SS? Do you think Bush does?

We cannot immediately dissolve Social Security (not saying it isn't a grand idea, but)... Just to restate, I can understand why the programs that eventually culminated in the Social Security system were each originally put into place. My contention is that these programs should NEVER have been made permanent.

The President is clearly not asking for the dissolution of the program. Looking way, way, way forward, however- I can envision a day when we eventually wrest ourselves free of it. In my opinion, allowing for the gradual replacement of the current system with a system of required individual savings is foreseeable if we can get the pendulum swinging in that direction.

Basically, the government doesn't belong in the Social Security business any more than it belongs in the healthcare business- at least when it comes to those who are capable of providing for their own retirement and healthcare. Frankly, I do not need the government to confiscate 7.65% (I think that's the figure- times two makes it 15.3% or something like that) of my wages to provide for my retirement. Yes, I know Robert argues this isn't intended to be a retirement program- but the FICA website seems to indicate it is, and that's what I would wager most citizens view SS as.

Now, if the government tells me I am required to set aside 15% of my total income (assuming my employer gives me the % they are currently handing over to Uncle Sam), I suppose that's okay by me- as long as the money is going into an account that I control and that is owned by me (this solves the whole government dipping into the coffers problem too). In fact, I'll even allow the government to print a list of companies, funds, bonds, etc. from which I must choose for my investments.

Basically then, if you work, you will be forced to build a retirement for yourself. I guarantee if I put 15% of my income away in an account from day one and earn even a modest return I will be comfortable when I retire. For those who simply can't- or won't- work, we could create a limited program to supply basic needs (we do this anyway with Medicaid)- but the Federal government has absolutely zero business being in the retirement planning business for the rest of us.

So, long story short- I don't advocate dissolving SS simply because we've worked ourselves into a situation where we can't. I think its a crime that the program has been continued this long, I think it needs to be changed, and I hope it will be in the next two years. To repeat a Ronald Reagan mantra (sorry Spexvet), its MY MONEY!!! Yes, this is the viewpoint of someone who is capable and willing to work- I realize we have to provide for the elderly among us who aren't so blessed by God. Social Security, however, is not the best tool for this task- in my opinion.

----------


## Pete Hanlin

PS- Senator Hillary Rodham-Clinton evokes a response from conservatives because she is a powerful political figure. She was very active in not only the causes of the Clinton Adminstration, but its policies and direction as well. Nothing wrong with that- that's a choice each First Lady makes. It does, however, place her more in the political arena- and therefore, more open to a reaction from political pundits. In other words, she is mentioned so often because she was such an active participant in the political maneuverings (interpret that term however you like- I don't intend it to be negative, but some would take it so) of the administration.

Your satirical cynicism aside, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you are not seriously suggesting that the current First Lady is any less intelligent, committed to her beliefs, or noble than the immediately former First Lady. If that is your belief, I'll let you state that more plainly than your veiled rhetoric above. Personally, I think the present Mrs. Bush is doing a splendid job as First Lady- just as her mother-in-law did. 

In a very different way, I could argue that Sen. Clinton carried out the duties of her office (I suppose First Lady is an office- not elected, but...) very adeptly as well. Beyond her political policy endeavors (which weren't all that successful), I would mostly credit her with holding things together with a lot of class and nobility throughout the various escapades to which her womanizing husband subjected her.

----------


## Lee Prewitt

Here in Seattle, our local talk radio 570 KVI had a very interesting comparision.  They were talking about Galveston , TX (I think) that had opted out of SS.  They compared the two systems at retirement.  At retirement, SS would have paid about $1500 whilst the private system would pay $4000.  Which would rather have???  They were also mentioning Chile who has converted beginning back in 1980.  I felt it was a very strong argument for the private changes.


If revenue is lower and the payout will be reduced because those who choose private accounts will receive less, where is the cost???

----------


## chm2023

> If revenue is lower and the payout will be reduced because those who choose private accounts will receive less, where is the cost???


It's a timing issue-the government will need to borrow the cash (this is the 2 trillion) to cover the short term liability created by current contributors decreasing their contribution. Again, cash flow. Borrowing money _costs_ money, therein lies the cost--care to speculate what the interest on 2 trillion is over say 30 years????  Not to mention the affect of taking that kind of money out of the capital markets.

----------


## chm2023

[QUOTE=Lee Prewitt]_Here in Seattle, our local talk radio 570 KVI had a very interesting comparision. They were talking about Galveston , TX (I think) that had opted out of SS. They compared the two systems at retirement. At retirement, SS would have paid about $1500 whilst the private system would pay $4000. Which would rather have??? They were also mentioning Chile who has converted beginning back in 1980. I felt it was a very strong argument for the private changes._

The whole city of Galveston opted out of SS? How is this possible?

As for the what would I rather have, is this a trick question? First, SS is supposed to be safety net, a worst case scenario, think of it as insurance--you don't get great return on your insurance premiums, but that's not the point of insurance, the point is reliability, not growth.

Also, I really, really wouldn't point to Chile as a good example of anything. Take a look at Argentina--their privatization of pensions helped put them into financial collapse in 1999.

----------


## chm2023

> Your satirical cynicism aside, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you are not seriously suggesting that the current First Lady is any less intelligent, committed to her beliefs, or noble than the immediately former First Lady. If that is your belief, I'll let you state that more plainly than your veiled rhetoric above. Personally, I think the present Mrs. Bush is doing a splendid job as First Lady- just as her mother-in-law did. 
> 
> In a very different way, I could argue that Sen. Clinton carried out the duties of her office (I suppose First Lady is an office- not elected, but...) very adeptly as well. Beyond her political policy endeavors (which weren't all that successful), I would mostly credit her with holding things together with a lot of class and nobility throughout the various escapades to which her womanizing husband subjected her.


I like Laura Bush, though I would love to get her to buy some decent clothes.  Don't you think it's rather bizarre that she is heading up a program to keep gang members on the straight and narrow?   Is this someone who oozes street cred???

Oh it's good to laugh!!!

----------


## Lee Prewitt

No trick question.  The city employees had a choice to opt out.  It is a program similar to the fed program.  Funny how Congress is not in SS.  Do you think they would have a different attitude if they were?  As for Chile, we assume that a SouthAmerican country can't do anything right.  Don't know much about Chile but Argentina had a very corrupt government.

----------


## coda

I think private accounts are a moot point for now given the lack of support within the Republic Party.  President Bush, shortly a lame duck, doesn't have the political muscle to push this through.  Fiscal conservatives will baulk at the cost, social conservatives will want to expend their political chits elsewhere (abortion, marriage, school prayer), Democrats will smack privatization around like a pinata and the AARP will use their political might in Florida to frighten the Republic Party into backing away from this political stinker.

We're seeing it already, peruse the following: http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect...-socsec04.html

It's really too bad that Bush is putting his free market obsession ahead of fiscal reality.  If he really wanted to address a looming 'crisis' he'd be taking on Medicare not Social Security but I expect that no one has given him any nifty privitization schemes for that one.

----------


## Spexvet

> Your satirical cynicism aside, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you are not seriously suggesting that the current First Lady is any less intelligent, committed to her beliefs, or noble than the immediately former First Lady. If that is your belief, I'll let you state that more plainly than your veiled rhetoric above. Personally, I think the present Mrs. Bush is doing a splendid job as First Lady- just as her mother-in-law did.


Call Laura Bush exceptionally low key.

It annoys me that Hillary was ridiculed when she admitted that she talked to the portrait of Elinor Roosevelt. Yet Nancy reagan was not ridiculed when it was revealed that she consulted an astrologer. 

"In his sensational memoir, Regan revealed that the First Lady regularly dictated the president's schedule after consulting her personal astrologer. Regan never claimed that astrology influenced executive decisions, but the ensuing frenzy raised questions about who exactly was in control at The White House. In "My Turn," Nancy attributed her reliance on astrology to her fear that her husband would be shot again."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/reagan/...s/pande03.html

----------


## chm2023

> No trick question. The city employees had a choice to opt out. It is a program similar to the fed program. Funny how Congress is not in SS. Do you think they would have a different attitude if they were? As for Chile, we assume that a SouthAmerican country can't do anything right. Don't know much about Chile but Argentina had a very corrupt government.


Congress _is_ in Social Security;  they have a personal account option on top of that.  And I still have a hard time with this Galveston thing, sounds like the "Congress is not in SS thing"--provocative but not true. I have spent time in Chile, theirs is not a system to emulate in any way.

----------


## Pete Hanlin

It annoys me that Hillary was ridiculed when she admitted that she talked to the portrait of Elinor Roosevelt. Yet Nancy reagan was not ridiculed when it was revealed that she consulted an astrologer. 
Wow, sounds like you have a lot of pent up rage (although I agree Nancy was/is a bit flakey)!  Just get it all out- I'm here for you...

As for the what would I rather have, is this a trick question? First, SS is supposed to be safety net, a worst case scenario, think of it as insurance--you don't get great return on your insurance premiums, but that's not the point of insurance, the point is reliability, not growth.
Wow, if its an insurance policy, the premiums are way out of whack!!!  Using your analogy, let's just say I'd like to look at some competitor companies... whoops, but that's the problem- isn't it?  When the government runs a program, it isn't subjected to the fiscal checks and balances that only competition can provide.   Yeah, there are monopolies in the private sector that get a bit crazy as well- but the government breaks them up when the consumer starts getting hit too hard.  I'm simply suggesting the private sector break up the government monopoly on providing a "safety net" for the elderly.

Finally, I don't think most of the public recognizes the "safety net only" aspect of SS.  Plenty of our elders are living here in St. Pete on their SS checks- not extravagantly- but living.  My point is- had they invested the same amount of money the government took from them during their working years- they'd be getting a better return now.

Finally, as to the "Lame Duckness" of the admin- keep hoping!  The GOP members of Congress (if they have any intelligence) will realize that their success is pinned to the admin- which has done a remarkable job of providing coat-tails in the mid-term and Presidential elections.  Like I said, its time for the Republicans to come to grips with the fact that they are a solid majority now.   No more excuses, its time to get some conservative legislation passed.

----------


## coda

> Finally, as to the "Lame Duckness" of the admin- keep hoping!


Care to put a wager on this Pete?  There won't be SS privatization in the during the current presidents term.

----------


## Spexvet

> Wow, sounds like you have a lot of pent up rage


More like unresolved annoyance, and more at the the two political "gangs" pointing fingers at each other, and never looking in the mirror. Neither the Sharks nor the Jets can admit wrong, and will deride and criticize the other side for doing exactly what they, themselves, do. It makes me ill.

----------


## chm2023

> It annoys me that Hillary was ridiculed when she admitted that she talked to the portrait of Elinor Roosevelt. Yet Nancy reagan was not ridiculed when it was revealed that she consulted an astrologer. 
> Wow, sounds like you have a lot of pent up rage (although I agree Nancy was/is a bit flakey)! Just get it all out- I'm here for you...
> 
> As for the what would I rather have, is this a trick question? First, SS is supposed to be safety net, a worst case scenario, think of it as insurance--you don't get great return on your insurance premiums, but that's not the point of insurance, the point is reliability, not growth.
> Wow, if its an insurance policy, the premiums are way out of whack!!! Using your analogy, let's just say I'd like to look at some competitor companies... whoops, but that's the problem- isn't it? When the government runs a program, it isn't subjected to the fiscal checks and balances that only competition can provide. Yeah, there are monopolies in the private sector that get a bit crazy as well- but the government breaks them up when the consumer starts getting hit too hard. I'm simply suggesting the private sector break up the government monopoly on providing a "safety net" for the elderly.
> 
> Finally, I don't think most of the public recognizes the "safety net only" aspect of SS. Plenty of our elders are living here in St. Pete on their SS checks- not extravagantly- but living. My point is- had they invested the same amount of money the government took from them during their working years- they'd be getting a better return now.
> 
> Finally, as to the "Lame Duckness" of the admin- keep hoping! The GOP members of Congress (if they have any intelligence) will realize that their success is pinned to the admin- which has done a remarkable job of providing coat-tails in the mid-term and Presidential elections. Like I said, its time for the Republicans to come to grips with the fact that they are a solid majority now. No more excuses, its time to get some conservative legislation passed.


The lame duck thing is real.  Nothing against Bush, happens to every 2nd term President.  Kind of a twist on "what have you done for me lately?"  The SS issue I predict will wither because of democrats and fiscally conservative/responsible republicans resisting the borrowing that the Bush plan (as it currently exists) would entail.  I think it might be time to look at some other means of keeping the system sound--raising retirement age, means testing.  If Bush is sincere about privatization, he should tie it to getting the deficit under control.  Doing the latter would enable the other, otherwise, no dice.  It would be nice to see some bi-partisan effort to attack Medicare/Medicaid as that is the more pressing issue.

----------


## Pete Hanlin

The SS issue I predict will wither because of democrats and fiscally conservative/responsible republicans resisting the borrowing that the Bush plan (as it currently exists) would entail.
I think we may get somewhere with the SS deal...  If W can convince the >55 crowd that they are truly "safe" (that is, they will actually get the crappy return on all the money that was confiscated from them), he will get a lot of support from those of us under 38 or so (who will get screwed even worse by the system).  The problem people (as usual) will be the Baby Boomers between 40-54... I'm still working hard to find some positive contributions to our society from this generation- seems like all they've caused are problems (nah, that's just me ribbing my elders- I guess some of ya are okay).

I think it might be time to look at some other means of keeping the system sound--raising retirement age, means testing. 
Well, that would seem to be the going Democrat line of thinking.  So, we'll keep this dog of a system going by screwing the people that contribute the most to it even harder...

If Bush is sincere about privatization, he should tie it to getting the deficit under control. Doing the latter would enable the other, otherwise, no dice. 
Can't argue too much there- still, fix the stupid system.  Rationale, if its broke, fix it- and SS was figuratively broken the day it was conceived... the Boomers will just break it literally as well.

It would be nice to see some bi-partisan effort to attack Medicare/Medicaid as that is the more pressing issue.
Just to maintain my evil-republican image, this isn't a particularly pressing problem for me...  My parents thought ahead to provide for their medical coverage in their advanced years, and I won't be thinking about Medicare for a while.  Hopefully, that can be privatized soon after SS starts down the path.

----------


## Spexvet

We probably wouldn't be in such a bind if all Americans had the disposable income level that would allow them to save for retirement on their own. Instead we have a society where some (wealthy) folks don't need SS, and have plenty that they can save, then we have those who can just get by, and would have to scarifice the few niceties they have in order to save for retirement. Yes, I'm going to the disparity between rich and poor theme, yet again.  :Cool:

----------


## shanbaum

> I have a question that I have not been able to find the answer. What is this cost of 2 Trillion dollars? Please don't tell me that it is the money needed to replace the funds that go into the private accounts. That is not a cost. Just lower revenue. Does President Bush's plan provide for the people who opt into the private accounts to draw a proportinate less amount from SS?


In 2003, the payroll tax brought in $681 billion dollars. If I understand the plan-that-doesn't-quite-yet-exist correctly, one-third of the payroll tax could be diverted to private savings. So, that's around $227 billion per year - let's say $200 billion, because persons 55 and over don't get to divert. That amount (more or less, as wages rise and maybe fall, especially for persons whose earnings don't hit the cap) would be missing from revenues, without any offsetting reduction in expenses, for some period. Since Bush mentioned 55 as a cut-off point, and those people get to retire at age 66, there's an eleven-year period during which we would be missing around $200 billion in revenues per year. So, that's $2.2 trillion dollars right there. Assuming that people who are at the high end of the age scale (age 54) will not accept the same cuts in benefits as people who are at the low end (say age 20) - after all, the latter will have privately saved for 47 years, while the former will have saved for 12 - if that issue is worked out fairly, the transition will take another 36 years - that is, it will take 47 years altogether before everyone will have had the same opportunity to save for his own retirement, at which point, it would be fair to expect everyone to accept the same reductions in benefits.

The cost of that part of the "transition"? I really can't calculate it right now (not having the personal bandwidth), but I'd make a WAG that it's on the order of the initial $2.2 trillion, anyway. I also can't calculate when that point in time at which the reductions in benefits meet the reductions in revenues would occur. If life were linear, it would presumably be somewhere near halfway through the process - or around 24 years into it.

Of course, there's another problem which really renders all of this moot. Because, under present conditions, it's considered immoral to raise taxes, the missing revenue will simply be borrowed, which is to say, we will be borrowing money publicly in order to save it privately. Over a period of time, if, in all those private accounts, people can earn more than the interest on the debt that's incurred to fund them, that actually does something (if the investments are in Treasury notes - so that interest earned equals interest paid - it would do precisely nothing). It would simply be wrong to consider the net gain as anything other than the earnings in those accounts net of the interest expense on the debt incurred to fund them (as opposed, say, to some comparison with the theoretical "earnings" on payroll taxes paid in, which Congress can change at any time). 

And keep in mind that the spread between the earnings on savings and the interest on the debt incurred to fund it could very easily be a negative number.

Note that there is nothing in this scenario that describes how the $2.2 trillion (plus whatever) actually gets repaid, which would depend on the behavior of the governments of the (rather distant) future, assuming that we don't have a total financial meltdown first.

If you think that once the reductions in benefits meets the reduction in revenue, the government will start repaying that debt, it's probably worth reflecting on what happened the last time the government got itself into a position in which it was actually reducing its debt. Do you really think that some yokel won't come along spouting attractive nonsense like, "that thar's the peepuls' money an' we oughter be a-givin' it back to 'um"?

----------


## chm2023

> In 2003, the payroll tax brought in $681 billion dollars. If I understand the plan-that-doesn't-quite-yet-exist correctly, one-third of the payroll tax could be diverted to private savings. So, that's around $227 billion per year - let's say $200 billion, because persons 55 and over don't get to divert. That amount (more or less, as wages rise and maybe fall, especially for persons whose earnings don't hit the cap) would be missing from revenues, without any offsetting reduction in expenses, for some period. Since Bush mentioned 55 as a cut-off point, and those people get to retire at age 66, there's an eleven-year period during which we would be missing around $200 billion in revenues per year. So, that's $2.2 trillion dollars right there. Assuming that people who are at the high end of the age scale (age 54) will not accept the same cuts in benefits as people who are at the low end (say age 20) - after all, the latter will have privately saved for 47 years, while the former will have saved for 12 - if that issue is worked out fairly, the transition will take another 36 years - that is, it will take 47 years altogether before everyone will have had the same opportunity to save for his own retirement, at which point, it would be fair to expect everyone to accept the same reductions in benefits.
> 
> The cost of that part of the "transition"? I really can't calculate it right now (not having the personal bandwidth), but I'd make a WAG that it's on the order of the initial $2.2 trillion, anyway. I also can't calculate when that point in time at which the reductions in benefits meet the reductions in revenues would occur. If life were linear, it would presumably be somewhere near halfway through the process - or around 24 years into it.
> 
> Of course, there's another problem which really renders all of this moot. Because, under present conditions, it's considered immoral to raise taxes, the missing revenue will simply be borrowed, which is to say, we will be borrowing money publicly in order to save it privately. Over a period of time, if, in all those private accounts, people can earn more than the interest on the debt that's incurred to fund them, that actually does something (if the investments are in Treasury notes - so that interest earned equals interest paid - it would do precisely nothing). It would simply be wrong to consider the net gain as anything other than the earnings in those accounts net of the interest expense on the debt incurred to fund them (as opposed, say, to some comparison with the theoretical "earnings" on payroll taxes paid in, which Congress can change at any time). 
> 
> And keep in mind that the spread between the earnings on savings and the interest on the debt incurred to fund it could very easily be a negative number.
> 
> Note that there is nothing in this scenario that describes how the $2.2 trillion (plus whatever) actually gets repaid, which would depend on the behavior of the governments of the (rather distant) future, assuming that we don't have a total financial meltdown first.
> ...


http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/02/reti...funion_socsec/

What's interesting is how this is going to work if passed.  I think most people assume their SS contribution will be lowered, which it will not.  The idea that this money will be invested privately, but under government control makes my head hurt.  No potential for corruption here!!!! :Eek:

----------


## Spexvet

> ...
> The idea that this money will be invested privately, but under government control


from a list of "government recommended, conservative" funds, no less.

----------

