| Author | Message | ||
     Maple Man Citizen Username: Mapleman Post Number: 495 Registered: 6-2004  |
Also - the AARP represents people age 50-55, who apparently will be affected by the changes Bush is suggesting. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 3178 Registered: 8-2003 |
Maple Man -- AARP calls owning stocks and bonds for retirement in private accounts "gambling." Why then, don't they say "but, if you're up for gambling, try our funds!" Do they have a disclaimer that owning these funds is the same as playing the slots? No. The reason is obvious, and the hypocrisy noted. | ||
| Bobkat Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 7699 Registered: 5-2001 |
Social Security is designed to provide basic, subsidence level benefits. Many feel this should not be subject to market fluctuations and a fixed income annuity (that will not be indexed to inflation, wages or anything else). If someone has a nice pension and investable funds they are in a position to accept more risk in their private investment portfolio than a $10 per hour factory worker with no source of income other than Social Security when he/she retires. | ||
| Maple Man Citizen Username: Mapleman Post Number: 497 Registered: 6-2004 |
cjc, many people believe investing in the stock market is a good thing, but they don't do it with their grocery money. the positions espoused by the AARP are not mutually exclusive, no matter how you may try to say that they are. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 3179 Registered: 8-2003 |
Retirement money is not grocery money, and AARP is suggesting using those monies to speculate in a highly dangerous and risky way in the stock market in mutual funds that give a mediocre return. To put that money into a personal account utilizing those same types of investment vehicles is like 'gambling.' A lot of people see AARP for what they are, and that's why this reform has a decent chance of passing. Fear and ignorance, combined with willful misrepresentation to score political points and power are the only things that will stop this needed reform. | ||
| Maple Man Citizen Username: Mapleman Post Number: 498 Registered: 6-2004 |
Touche - that's what Bush is also counting on to get his "reform" passed. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 3181 Registered: 8-2003 |
The people opposing this reform say: 1. There is no problem 2. Think there's an account with their name on it sitting with cash in DC 3. Think foolishly that raising the cap/ceiling on income subject to FICA will solve the problem when it only puts the problem off for 6 years 4. Don't know or don't want to face the fact that as it stands now, they'll only get 80% or less of their benefits after 2042 as the system stands now. | ||
| Bobkat Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 7702 Registered: 5-2001 |
I just checked www.aarp.org. The AARP offers over 30 mutual funds. It is not surprising that a few of them perform below average. I would offer the criticism that the online descriptions don't give the Morningstar ratings. Some fund families supply this information. Fidelity is one of them. | ||
| Wendyn Supporter Username: Wendyn Post Number: 1396 Registered: 9-2002 |
The people opposing this reform say: 1. There is a problem, and Bush's plan does not address it. 2. The government is borrowing from my money to pay for current retirees which means I will get no money. But the government isn't addressing that issue. 3. Raising the cap/ceiling might postpone the problem, but the real issue needs to be addressed. 4. Still don't understand why supporters of the plan didn't see Bush say specifically that his plan WILL NOT ADDRESS the current "social security crisis", but hey isn't it a great idea anyway! I am ambivilant about privatized accounts. My husband and I are not expecting Social Security to take care of us in our old age, which is why we have alternative savings. The majority of the people, like us, who would use privatized accounts to their advantage are NOT the same people who NEED social security to help them after they retire. But this privatization plan will cost the country millions of dollars, and will not alleviate the current problem of running out of SS funds. I have no problem with Social Security reform, but the reform should actually solve the "crisis" we are facing. Again, Bush helps the rich and fiscally savvy while ignoring the poor who actually need this money. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 3183 Registered: 8-2003 |
Of course personal accounts don't solve the problem entirely. The other side of the SSA that has to be dealt with is the retirement age given longer lifespans, how you calculate benefit increases (using wages or inflation), how it's financed, and the level of benefits the system promises. The only way to get a better return on the money in SS is to have personal accounts. Greenspan said he didn't want 'caring' government officials picking, shorting and selling stocks. That's an accident waiting to happen. If you don't do that, you have to raise taxes. What does this mean? "The majority of the people, like us, who would use privatized accounts to their advantage are NOT the same people who NEED social security to help them after they retire." Why wouldn't all people use personal accounts to their advantage? How fiscally savvy do you have to be to own an index fund? | ||
| Wendyn Supporter Username: Wendyn Post Number: 1398 Registered: 9-2002 |
You are joking, right? You actually think the majority of the working people in the U.S. would use personal accounts to their advantage? What percentage of Americans would you say put any savings into mutual funds? What percentage of Americans who actually use their company's 401k plans (and believe me, not everyone uses them) invest any way but the path of least effort? As I said, I have no problem with personal accounts except that they will cost too much money at a time when our country can't afford it, and they won't provide significant benefit for those who need it. I agree with Greenspan not wanting government officials trading my SS money as well. I don't have any answers, which is why I'm not in a position to make a decision. I just think Bush is using the same tactic he used for the Iraq invasion. Using fear to blind people to the real issue so they buy his "solution". He makes people afraid of loosing their SS money, and then proposes a plan that will not stop them from loosing their SS money. Huh? | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 907 Registered: 7-2004 |
The moral of the story is: don't trust Bush. He's not on your side (you being the average working citizen of this country). Big business made him president. Now he's looking to repay the favor. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 3185 Registered: 8-2003 |
Wendyn -- is it that much more trustworthy if Democrats think of using private equities to shore up the system as they did in the 90s, given the unending care they used for the poor when they created that smashing success known at the Great Society? And you have to be kidding me on the poor not utilizing savings and accounts with the money they have. First of all, they don't have much money to invest, and the government sucks those FICA taxes from them and invests them into a bust of a system. Given your low regard for their financial acumen, you should be comforted to know that those boobs will only have a few mandatory options from which those funds have to by law be invested, and then encouraged (or forced to take care of the really, really stupid) to turn to bond and other cash-rich instruments as they near retirement age. I also have more faith in the public that the learning curve of how this works will improve dramatically. How did we get the investor class today? Those saps are still putting money into the market -- stocks or otherwise -- instead of doing what Charles Rangel said today on Hardball that the best investment he knew of was T-bills. What rubes he takes most of the country for, including his own side unless that was done with a knowing wink by all the 'smart' people (hello, John Corzine, Diane Feinstein and all the other millionaire Democrats that inhabit the Senate). Private accounts cost too much money, but putting 3.7 Trillion into a failed system is cheap by comparison, prolonging an even bigger slush fund for Congress to pilfer as they have done and no decent return on monies to boot. "Fear of losing their losing their SS money"?? Greedy geezers today have nothing to worry about. The kids know d--m well if nothing is done they won't have near the money waiting for them that is promised. You're blinded by your dislike for Bush, obviously, and clinging to the false choice of "well, if we do personal accounts they lose SS money" when the traditional system AS IT IS doesn't have the money you say they're going to lose. Social Security is promising something that isn't there, Wendyn. So come out for massive tax increases on the kids, the rich, and anyone else you can think of as a solution. We can't cut benefits, as that would hurt the poor following your thinking. Let's just turn this into a flat-out welfare program. And you're in the market, I take it. How have you done, and what types of investments did you use? | ||
| LibraryLady(ncjanow) Supporter Username: Librarylady Post Number: 2224 Registered: 5-2001  |
From our Senator Jon Corzine Corzine urges Bush to denounce group for attacking AARP over Social Security By DONNA DE LA CRUZ The Associated Press 2/23/2005, 6:25 p.m. ET WASHINGTON (AP) — New Jersey Sen. Jon Corzine called on President Bush on Wednesday to denounce the tactics of a group attacking AARP over its opposition to the president's Social Security plan. In a letter, Corzine mentioned an Internet ad run briefly on Monday by the advocacy group USA Next showing two pictures, one of a U.S. soldier with an "X" superimposed on it and the other showing two men kissing each other with a check mark over the image. The caption read: "The real AARP agenda." Corzine, a Democrat, called the ad "incendiary" for implying that AARP does not support U.S. servicemen but is in favor of same-sex marriage. The group has not taken a position on same-sex marriage. "The motive for USA Next's irresponsible use of such hot button issues is not difficult to decipher — if you can't attack the message, attack the messenger — no matter how dishonest and off base those attacks become," Corzine wrote. Corzine likened USA Next's tactics to that of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which ran ads during last year's presidential campaign questioning Democratic Sen. John Kerry's Vietnam War record. "I urge you, in no uncertain terms, to repudiate USA Next and these tactics and to call for a civil dialogue at this critical crossroads for Social Security," Corzine said. USA Next, based in Fairfax, Va., calls itself a national grass roots organization "dedicated to uniting the generations for America's future," and says it is the "free market alternative to groups like AARP which work to make American workers and families more dependent on government bureaucracies." Charlie Jarvis, USA Next's chief executive, did not immediately respond to a telephone call for comment. Jarvis, who worked for President Reagan and also for the first President Bush, told The New York Times in Wednesday's editions that his group plans on showing that AARP is "out of touch with a large number of their members." Last month, the AARP released a nationwide poll indicating deep public skepticism about Bush's plan to let workers under age 55 divert part of their payroll taxes into private funds that could be invested in a limited array of mutual funds. Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Copyright 2005 NJ.com. All Rights Reserved. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 3187 Registered: 8-2003 |
Bush doesn't care about the poor, and AARP loves gay marriage. I say the stupid smears are about even. Here's something from the AARP website: "We can strengthen Social Security by making small adjustments, just as we've done in the past. These include raising the cap on wages subject to Social Security (currently you're taxed on income up to $90,000) and investing part of the Social Security surplus in other vehicles that pay higher interest than Treasury bonds do. Myth: A system of private accounts would save Social Security. The buzz phrase being bandied about by those who favor privatization is "an ownership society." They favor taking a portion of Social Security taxes and diverting it to individuals to invest. They say such a system would give workers ownership of their money. It would allow taxpayers to put their own dollars into stocks, bonds, and other investments that would pay them a higher return." AARP wants to invest SS money into the market to get a higher rate of return. AARP is against private accounts investing into the market to get a higher rate of return. Government is all-knowing and all-seeing and would be a perfect person to invest in the market -- damn the implications and possible ethical problems associated with it and besides they need to use the money elsewhere and may end up using bonds to invest. In essence, buying on margin because THERE IS NO CASH THERE!. But the individual, with hard cash -- even limited to safe choices like index funds -- we can't have that. So square that one. | ||
| Maple Man Citizen Username: Mapleman Post Number: 499 Registered: 6-2004 |
if young people today believe SS won't be there for them, it's only because Bush and his supporters continue to hammer that point again and again, even though it's not true. Even under the worst case scenarios he's presenting, everyone alive today can expect to get 80% of current benefits. That's hardly nothing. I can recall when I was a college student during the Reagan years, and being told the same thing - SS won't be there for me and my cohort. Welllll, with the changes made 20+ years ago, I'll be in my 80s before the system starts taking in less than the trust fund can cover. A few tweaks to retirement age and the ceiling for SS tax, and this "crisis" could be solved. OTOH, an honest presentation of a federally supported retirement account program akin to a 401(k) would be welcomed by almost everyone, but that's not what we're getting from Bush. As is his wont, he touts a phony crisis to push through something without being honest about what the policy really entails. And after all of the misinformation and disinformation he and his administration have put forward (whether through mistakes or outright lying is not relevant) only a sap would believe him now on SS. He has spent his credibility on his phony rationale for war, his phony numbers on the prescription drug bill, his EPA's phony reports, the phony CIA intelligence, etc, etc, etc. At this point there is no way I will believe him when he talks about anything. | ||
| Innisowen Citizen Username: Innisowen Post Number: 495 Registered: 3-2004 |
God, my head aches and my teeth begin to hurt reading all the foregoing. Right now, there is no Bush administration plan for fixing the over-hyped Social Security "crisis." There is a problem looming, but it is nowhere near the magnitude of the Medicaid cost problem and the absence of health insurance coverage for an increasingly large number of Americans. At the same time, by all accounts, a larger number of Americans each year are falling into and below the poverty level, and increasing number of Americans really don't know where their next meal is coming from. All this in the midst of our trying to figure out whether we or the government should invest our money and in what type of investment programs/vehicles? The Social Security crisis? An administration squarely refusing to face real problems covers them with the smokescreen of the SS crisis. And everybody gets caught up in blathering about that issue while critical and more imminent issues go unheeded. But who cares? It's so much more fun to butt ideological heads than it is to solve problems. Rome burns, and Nero fiddles. Parturient montes et nascitur ridiculus mus. | ||
| Mustt_mustt Citizen Username: Mustt_mustt Post Number: 287 Registered: 8-2003 |
whoah!whoah! | ||
| Mustt_mustt Citizen Username: Mustt_mustt Post Number: 288 Registered: 8-2003 |
whoah!whoah! | ||
| Reflective Citizen Username: Reflective Post Number: 752 Registered: 3-2003 |
real good, M2 real good, M2 |
