| Author |
Message |
    
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1514
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 2:09 pm: | 
|
More good points, thanks DR. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5732
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 3:33 pm: |
|
tom -- I never said the government should be involved in actual trading of securities. Just regulating them, as well as unscrupulous managers. We're talking index funds here that only have to be approved, not managed by the federal government. The government wouldn't own the securities. By the way, bonds aren't out of the picture in this scenario at all.
Maximizing the return isn't a good idea? From your mouth to your brokers ears.
And speaking of unscrupulous managers, what about the bang-up job done by the SSI administration and government overseers today? Loaning the surpluses to the government and getting crappy returning IOUs.....
Dr...I only said SSI was unsustainable given what it promises versus what it's able to deliver. Simply because cash comes in and has to be paid out there will be 'something', but not close to what people want or have been conditioned to count on. The current thinking behind it is bankrupt.
There's been a pretty good back and forth I'd say, (with thanks to tom and Hoops). Beats some of the other threads you've deigned to join. Do as you will. If you were truly in it, I'd give your immigration and contrary CBO points a shot. Given your lack of commitment to this debate, you're not worth it. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2169
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 3:58 pm: |
|
Quote:I only said SSI was unsustainable given what it promises versus what it's able to deliver. Simply because cash comes in and has to be paid out there will be 'something', but not close to what people want or have been conditioned to count on. The current thinking behind it is bankrupt
that statement is only true if you adhere to one set of assumptions. if you use a slightly different set of assumptions (the entire point of my last post) that would not be true.
here's some food for thought. a couple of articles that suggest the best course of action with SS is to do nothing right now:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_12/005312.php
http://www.slate.com/id/2096880 (this one contains some links to other good articles)
If you're really interested in a POV different from your own, and not just winning an argument, you can just read the articles. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1491
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 4:15 pm: |
|
once again your crappy IOUs are the bonds issued by the United States of America. Currently the safest investment on Earth. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5116
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 4:40 pm: |
|
It's another sloganeering trick, designed to hide the truth rather than enlighten. "Loaning the surpluses to government" is another. If you buy a Verizon bond, you are "loaning your surpluses." So what's so bad about that?
But I digress. In my comment about maximizing returns, what I was trying to get across was the difference between investing for maximum return and investing for maximum safety. It's the choice anyone makes when picking a Treasury of a few shares of a tech stock. Given the mission of the Social Security system, which by the way is one of the most efficiently run of government agencies, it always should opt for safety.
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5733
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 5:27 pm: |
|
Hoops -- "safe" doesn't mean it's good. It's not the same T-bill that you can get on the open market and it's primary characteristic is that it's return is lower. It's essentially an IOU from one government agency to another. And the measly interest on that IOU? It's paid off in....more IOUs.
Dr -- are you of the opinion that all opinions are valid even if it can demonstrably be proven otherwise? And what is the goal in a debate? A tie? Or no outcome? Even to get to a tie there's a contest involved, or should be. If I wasn't interested in alternative views I wouldn't engage and rebut one that was given. Are you in this now or is this another drive-by post?
tom -- the reason 'loaning your surpluses to the government' here is bad is because 1) there was no choice in the matter which makes sense as your contributions aren't your money I guess and 2) the vehicle purchased isn't as good as many others that are available and safe and 3) the 'loan' to the government was not at all based in the welfare of the client, but instead to feed a spending monster in DC. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5117
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 6:32 pm: |
|
I think we need to treat point 1) here as a given. If the system isn't mandatory, support for it will inevitably be undermined. That's probably fine with you in principle, but it's not germane to the point of fixing the system.
As for 2) I could be convinced that there is a possible mechanism for using some of this money for other purposes than the insatiable maw of the federal government. But I'm deeply concerned about the possible politicalization of its distribution, which in an administration like the present one would be a given; as well as the general safety of the money. Even an index fund, after all, will tank right alongside the market in a crash.
And for point 3), well don't blame me, I voted for Gore! Remember the lockbox? It's not credible that we'd be running deficits like we are now without the several rounds of tax cuts that Bush has pushed through. Even under the most generous estimates, so far they've been a net loss for Treasury.
Don't dismiss the Dr.'s links so quickly. It's true that the economic situation 40 years out is not predictable; so the sky-is-falling theme that much of the privatization cabal relies upon is just a tad bit hysterical. The evidence for massive upheavals due to global warming is orders of magnitude more solid, but you don't see them clamoring to do anything about that. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2170
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 6:45 pm: |
|
exactly tom. and cjc, no I don't agree that all opinions are valid, especially if they can be demonstably proven false by evidence. that's why I like to, when I can, post links to data and evidence. opinions based on false "facts" are worthless. and frankly anyone who's trying to make a definitive claim without qualification about economic conditions 40-75 years in the future is debating based on shaky (if not false) evidence. the SS "debate" is a phony crisis based on uncertain assumptions. the looming crisis is more likely health care generally and Medicare (and the foolish drug plan) in particular. it's next to impossible to make proper assumptions about SS in 2040 if we don't take into account what we're going to do about health care before then.
and no, I don't have a Medicare "plan," since I'm not running for office. although repealing the Medicare drug benefit might be a good start. |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1520
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 7:26 pm: |
|
What happens when the Booomers die?
DO Boomers live to be .. what..?.. 85... 90...95... 100 ? lets take 100 yrs.
Is it fair to say that the Boomer generation was born from 1947 to 1960? If all the Boomers live to be 100, then 1/2 of them will be dead by 2053, all by 2060.
I suggest that from 2047 to 2060, SS outlays will decline. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5735
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 17, 2006 - 9:33 pm: |
|
Dr.... if we don't really know the future of SS as you allege, to say it's not a crisis could easily be applied to global warming being put on the shoulders of mankind as the determining factor. Let's wait. And I guess that surplus as far as the eye could see during the Clinton years didn't impress you either, just to be consistent. As for my claim on SSA's pending insolvency, I got it from SSA during the Clinton Administration. Perhaps you recall...Clinton said we had the business cycle beat and that SSI should try to capture the power of the market to make that puppy solvent (what a liar!). Joe Lieberman was a fan at the time, then wasn't when Gore was nominated, and I think he's back to being a fan. Clinton's desire was shot down by Greenspan not because the market would be involved, but because the government was going to be picking stocks outright which Greenspan thought would be an unholy influence on the market for a variety of reasons. It's along the lines of Government=good. Private sector=bad when it got back to Clinton and he dropped it.
I agree the numbers involved in the crisis of Medicare are bigger than those in Social Security, but as long as we're punting, WTF. You don't like the republicans plan? What grabbed you about the Democrats plan that added to the liabilities of a program that can't adequately fund itself already ?
Social Security by your and others reckoning is smaller a problem than Medicare. If you can't fix Social Security, what makes you think you can fix Medicare?
tom -- Republicans offered a 'lock box' that sealed off contributions to SSA going forward this last year. It was defeated in lockstep by your party. Oh well.
The tax cuts have been a net loss to the Treasury? I wholeheartedly disagree, but I'm sure you have data to back that up that takes into account the recession, 9/11 and the Enron scandal that touched firms not even remotely connected to that fraud. Then, place that next to the record revenues going into the Treasury. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2172
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 17, 2006 - 9:55 pm: |
|
you're going off on all kinds of tangents and not addressing either the points I made or the articles I linked to. Clinton, Gore, Lieberman, Greenspan, and GW are irrelevant to the argument I was making.
and if you're still referencing the Clinton administration, here's some news. SS is better off now than it was when he was president. SS doomsday has gotten further out into the future since then.
the data suggests waiting is a pretty prudent course. I prefer facts to opinions on such important issues. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1501
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, June 18, 2006 - 9:20 am: |
|
cjc - the democrats have no power to stop any legislation proposed by the republicans. If the dems opposed whatever 'lock box' your side proposed (and I have no knowledge of this proposal) then I am sure it was because of whatever 'strings' the republicans attached.
Please defend the deficit and tax cuts for the super wealthy again while services and programs that are proven effective have been cut and eliminated.
Please defend why in the supposed 'time of war' 'post 9/11 world' that the rich are being given money instead of being asked to sacrifice for the good of the country.
You need not prop up a very good program like SSI and call for reform when the above issues have far more impact in the day to day lives of Americans. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5737
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 12:02 pm: |
|
Dr -- I did address the strategy of waiting. Do you want me to agree that waiting is a good thing? I won't be able to do that.
Hoops -- please reconsider your pronouncement that the Democrats have no power to stop any legislation. Think about that. Think about the Senate. Still say they have no power to stop legislation?
You don't need as many services with a unemployment rate under 5%, though I realize that the definition of compassion to you is how much you spend and how many people you can sign up for programs.
The rich aren't being given any money. They're allowed to keep what they've earned, which flies in the face of the premise "all money is 'America's'". Those tax cuts have given rise to record takes to the US Treasury.
We're all paying higher gas prices. There's just one sacrifice for you. People should stop complaining about it. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2174
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 1:11 pm: |
|
actually you did not. and no, I don't expect you to agree with me. I just figured you'd have a rationale for why immediate action is preferable to waiting. just saying you disagree is not an argument. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5130
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 1:34 pm: |
|
and anyway just what was the "lock-box" legislation, and do you have any idea why the Dems might have blocked it? What was it a part of, what was attached to it, what were the trapdoors? |
mjh
Supporter
Username: Mjh
Post Number: 609
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 1:51 pm: |
|
I smell burnt cjc all over the political soapbox today....... |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5738
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 4:40 pm: |
|
tom -- the reason the Dems blocked the Republican Lockbox legislation (Jim DeMint, R-SC was a co-sponsor) is because the surplus money would reside in an account and the sole recipient of that money would be the retiree. In essence, a private account that the government couldn't touch which I believe is the only way you're going to keep that money "locked."
Dr -- the reason for not doing something yet that's at the heart of the theories you've posted rest on the guess that things are going to turn out better than the SSA projected and we'll just have to wait and see. One article says so generally, the second off of Slate is a little more in depth. It presumes that projections by the SSA of productivity levels long-term are too low, as are immigration totals and the wealth that will create. With regard to immigration, the author isn't specific if that's all legal immigration. A preponderance of the illegal immigration at best breaks barely above even when you add in the social costs the government must pick up. If the author believes our salvation comes from a steady flow of the poor from other countries, I'm dubious. He also says these people will leave and not access the money taken (when it's paid) in our SSA system. I believe we have arrangements with Mexico where immigrants have claim to the Social Security money they pay here through their home-country's pension/SS system, as an example. McCain voted on this topic not long ago. There's a presumption that the US just won't pay out that money in spite of these agreements. I think that's doubtful too.
Productivity has zoomed of late primarily because we've entered the Information Age. Life will be grander under the Slate article than those pessimists predict at SSA. Will these levels continue on average to 3.6 or more? I'd bet conservatively against that and wait to be surprised.
Clinton and Bush Administration trustees have both come down to the conclusion that SSA is headed for rough times. Both of them advocated harnessing the markets, though in different ways. You'd have a better system with higher returns and wealth creation addressing the concerns in the worst case scenario, and a phenomenal one if those predictions don't play out. I'm just trying to imagine a government projection of spending that turned out to be lower than expected, and can't think of one. Can you? If not, will this be the first time? |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2176
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 5:20 pm: |
|
the chart I posted is one example. The trustees' prediction of the shortfall from 1994 is actually more pessisimistic than the current prediction. somehow, by doing nothing, we ended up better today than in 1994. go figure. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5131
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 5:21 pm: |
|
Well the De Mint plan was a privatization scheme. As opposed to putting the Social Security Trust Fund in a lockbox, it divvied up the surplus into private accounts. That's about as radical as privatization gets -- there's no more trust fund at all, just individual accounts.
It's not surprising that the Dems voted against privatizing social security, but this plan was so loopy that 8 Republicans voted against it too.
DeMint has also advocated eliminating the IRS and the Federal Income Tax, and replacing it with a 23% sales tax. So you know he's got the best interests of working people in mind.
He's also the candidate who said gays, and single mothers who live with their boyfriends, should not be allowed to be teachers. No word on the boyfriends. |
ae35unit
Citizen
Username: Ae35unit
Post Number: 113
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 9:06 pm: |
|
I've read this thread since when it started last week and I'm amazed at how long it's gone on. Here's the boil down. The president sold some snake oil about how the Republican's were going to protect us from terrorism, while a bunch of his draft dodger, boil on the butt, Vietnam veteran smearin' buddies stole an election. Then he put his plan into place to privatize, or eliminate, what's it matter, Social Security. It didn't work. It didn't work because the administration DOES NOT have the majority of America as its base. Can they steal elections though? Yes they can. Can they control terrorism, yes they can, with a call to their close family friends the bin Laden's.
Where's Straw in all this? This seems like a perfect thread for him. Is he:
Smearing veterans?
Smearing 9/11 widows?
Is he dreaming about the train wreck in Ann Coulter's shorts?
Knee-jerk simpletons (sorry ajc) will think I'm crazy, but it's that easy to understand.
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5740
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 9:52 am: |
|
tom -- there will be no lockbox if you leave control of it in DC. They'll continue to use it to fund other priorities.
You can get 8 Republicans senators to vote against anything the GOP trots out. That's not an impressive stat.
|
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1509
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 10:06 am: |
|
cjc - it is admirable how you can stick to your arguments about SSI without actually addressing the real issues that tom brought up. As he pointed out the DeMint bill was a phony lockbox. You continue to bring up phony proposals that are meant as nothing more then giveaways to big financial firms and takeaways from the actual SSI benefits.
SSI is a proven and effective hedge against poverty after retirement. It provides protections to all Americans. Not many programs that government has come up with have been as effective in providing Americans with the security that SSI does.
Conservatives want this abolished, and I can figure out why. These so called entitlement programs are good programs that help Americans with their daily lives where they struggled before. If there are problems in the administration of these programs or if there is some corruption along the line that is draining the resources then of course those issues should be addressed. The bottom line is that entitlement programs are good for America. The redistribution of your tax dollars to help those less fortunate then you provide you with safer streets, with a cleaner environment and a buy in for the American dream.
You should be thankful that you pay taxes and that your taxes provide relief to the poor and infrastructure that we can all use.
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5741
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 11:07 am: |
|
Hoops -- I'm not for giveaways to big financial firms. Don't be ridiculous. Are YOU for giveaways to big financial firms? Is that why you've invested as you have? Are you actively and knowingly selling yourself down the river with your investments. You're amazing stupid if that's the case.
SSA isn't about the poor. It's about an inefficient welfare entitlement that's extended to the middle class to keep it politically viable. Just don't tell them they're consuming more in benefits than they've earned or they'll rightfully become discouraged that they've got other taxpayers paying for their livlihood. If you feel good about being on someone elses dime and even better when others are, so be it, Hoops. Knock yourself out. Knock out the future of your children too. |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1537
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 10:07 pm: |
|
"If you feel good about being on someone elses dime"
What a cruel and inhumane comment. I wouldnt want your kids anywhere near me, when I am retired. This sort of commentary is vile & hateful. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5743
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 4:27 pm: |
|
They don't have to be near you to pay for you, Foj. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page