Social Security and stupid government.

[Ronald Phelps]

They feds predict that in 35 years or so SS will be unable to pay the benefits.
They missed this years budget deficit prediction by 100 billion. Trust their predictions?

Did anyone tell Washington that SS is a pay as you go system? The people today pay for the benefits of those who are retired and such. If they privatize it the capitol to pay the benefits today goes away.

[Another Texan]

Obviously you have missed the true intent of the privatization scheme. It's the financial corporations turn to benefit from Bush's 'residency, just think of the fees they stand to receive from managing all those private accounts. Yep someone is gonna have a more secure retirement too bad it won't be the average worker. BTW has anyone else noticed that the Bush admin hasn't said yet what happens to the employers' contribution.

[montelinn]

Again I say. There is no way this bill will be passed. There is too much opposition to the bill from both parties. Write or call your congressman.

[montelinn]

Someone made a comment to me in another thread about me being an employer and the employers contribution. I have no interest in reaping this "benifit" of the bill. I would be more interested in seeing some relief from Medical insurace premiums.

[gman]

I'm curious what most opinions here are on the model that Galveston Tx is using and the Chile goverment?

It seems that the Galveston model (for those that aren't aware), the "county" employees were able to "opt" out several years ago due to a loop hole, the county has taken their "matched amount" and contributed it to their private fund as well. Last time I googled the subject, I came across a few articles in which they stated, "those retiring this year, are receiving benefits which exceed what their paycheck was".

The debate will go on, however, if it's been tried, and works, why debate it?

[Larry Williams]

Originally posted by montelinn:
Someone made a comment to me in another thread about me being an employer and the employers contribution. I have no interest in reaping this "benifit" of the bill. I would be more interested in seeing some relief from Medical insurace premiums.

Bush is running his "one card Monte" routine with Social Security by creating a bogus crisis. But there is that other crisis, healthcare costs and the uninsured.

You and a lot of others want away from the high cost of health insurance. Hold on to your hat. BushCo doesn't want employers to provide health insurance anymore. It just costs too much--takes too much from the bottom line. "Trickle-down" at its trickle-on finest. An end to the crisis of the uninsured--make everyone uninsured.

Healthcare Overhaul Is Quietly Underway

Mon Jan 31, 7:55 AM ET


By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — Emboldened by their success at the polls, the Bush administration and Republican leaders in Congress believe they have a new opportunity to move the nation away from the system of employer-provided health insurance that has covered most working Americans for the last half-century....

The rest of the article is at http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&e=18&u=/latimests/healthcareoverhaulisquietlyunderway

[OvertheRiver]

Originally posted by Larry Williams:
Bush is running his "one card Monte" routine with Social Security by creating a bogus crisis.

Gee, Social Security has been in crisis my entire adult life. To that end, I have never counted on receiving any and have saved accordingly. I'll be 50 this year; and I've known about this crisis for 30 years. What cave have you been living in? http://www.geekfest.com/ubb/wink.gif

[Ronald Phelps]

Originally posted by gman:
I'm curious what most opinions here are on the model that Galveston Tx is using and the Chile goverment?

It seems that the Galveston model (for those that aren't aware), the "county" employees were able to "opt" out several years ago due to a loop hole, the county has taken their "matched amount" and contributed it to their private fund as well. Last time I googled the subject, I came across a few articles in which they stated, "those retiring this year, are receiving benefits which exceed what their paycheck was".

The debate will go on, however, if it's been tried, and works, why debate it?

Sure it would work. How many federal employees are covered under SS?
The problem is no one now has any funds in SS. Remember they took all the money back in the 70’s and only promise to pay you from the taxes collected. If you have paid for 30 years your account balance is $0

My father and many others paid in from the day SS was born. He had a SS account that is what his number referenced . When it was changed to a pay as you go he nor anyone else got a refund. All that beautiful money from all the people that had paid in. Where did it go? Remember my benefits will be paid by you children.

[Larry Williams]

Originally posted by OvertheRiver:
Gee, Social Security has been in crisis my entire adult life. To that end, I have never counted on receiving any and have saved accordingly. I'll be 50 this year; and I've known about this crisis for 30 years. What cave have you been living in? http://www.geekfest.com/ubb/wink.gif


Did you forget that Greenspan fixed this. Maybe you remember when Social Security taxes more than doubled under Reagan? Well, actually, that was to fix Social Security after Reagan and his pals looted the Treasury. That money was just too ripe a plum for Bush and his accomplices so they raided the Treasury again. This time they just handed the money to the wealthy in tax cuts. At least Reagan only gave them part of the money and made them steal the rest from the Savings and Loans and Pension Plans.

One thing I liked about Clinton is that he recognized the only thing that could save the Pension Plans was to have an economic policy that favored Wall Street. He gave Wall Street too much but had the pension plans solvent. They remained solvent because corporations made a lot of money--another ripe plum. Then came the "Contract on America" and Gingrich's "Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995." Clinton vetoed the act but it Gingrich's majority overrode the veto.

Go read Clinton's veto message to Congress (http://www.lectlaw.com/files/leg22.htm) and see if it doesn't foretell the corporate corruption that caused most of the collapse of the stock market.

It's indicative of the problem we have. Any fix of Social Security that works will create another ripe plum. The corrupt element of the rich and powerful in this Country can't leave a ripe plum alone, they have to pluck it. I'm sure that Bush's fix will create a ripe plum even though it'll be smaller than it should be because it will eliminate the employers' match of that money. Long before the system can support anyone it'll be plump and juicy enough for plucking.

The bottom line is Bush's fix is just a cheaper band-aid. It won't fix the problem, it'll just cost the wealthy less. Fixing the problem requires fixing the legal system. Make it as serious to steal millions as it is to steal shoe laces. I'm sure we could find room in our prisons for the big-time thieves, even if we had to let some petty thieves go early.

I forgot to mention. The Federal Pension Benefit Trust is in big trouble again. The taxpayer is going to have to bail it out, just like we did the Savings and Loans. It's pretty hard to make up stolen money and the Trust now has $60 billion in liabilities but only $40 billion in assets.

[This message has been edited by Larry Williams (edited 01-31-2005).]

[gman]

Larry,
What is your opinion of the programs now being used in Chile, and Galveston? They are both claiming "overwhelming success".

As for the problem "now being drummed up"...I recall one candidate running on the platform that he's "secure SS in a lock box" to keep it from going broke, which is what both sides of the isle were claiming then.

R Phelps,
The Chile example is one that would be more of what we'd have to do here. They actually had the same SS program that we have, and made the switch. Their retirement program is now in great shape, the participation is required (like SS was), and isn't optional at all. I won't bore anyone with the details but the reading is worth while.

[outsider2002]

Originally posted by Larry Williams:
The rest of the article is at http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&e=18&u=/latimes ts/healthcareoverhaulisquietlyunderway (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&e=18&u=/latimests/healthcareoverhaulisquietlyunderway)

HOLY SH*T, Larry!
I sure hope they will not succeed! This is diametrically oposed to what Kerry proposed! Who can we write to to make sure this does not go through????

[Ronald Phelps]

Our SS system would have the best payback in the world if the money paid in was used.. No system will work if everytime it gets well funded the government raids it. If the SS had not been raided it would be self supporting by now. Years ago it was taking in 100's of million more that it was paying out. It still is. The projections are for 30 years from now. They missed this one year by 100 billion. They are not projecting anything.

[Hermit of Hogscald]

I think it's a great idea! If you truly want nationalized healthcare like the rest of the civilized world, nothing will shake the masses out of their malaise like bumping everyone off health insurance for a while. It is easy to ignore the problem when it is the other guy getting hurt.

Want to bet that Congress makes an exception in their own case?

[Larry Williams]

Originally posted by gman:
What is your opinion of the programs now being used in Chile, and Galveston? They are both claiming "overwhelming success"....



You might look a little closer into the situation in Chile. It's not what's claimed. Here's a quote from a Paul Krugman, economist and NYT Economics Editor:

Privatizers who laud the Chilean system never mention that it has yet to deliver on its promise to reduce government spending. More than 20 years after the system was created, the government is still pouring in money. Why? Because, as a Federal Reserve study puts it, the Chilean government must "provide subsidies for workers failing to accumulate enough capital to provide a minimum pension." In other words, privatization would have condemned many retirees to dire poverty, and the government stepped back in to save them.

You can read the whole article at:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/121804D.shtml

I've heard about the Galveston plan but it's been a while. I don't remember much about it. What are the survivor's benefits? I know two women, widowed at a young age, that were able to raise families on Social Security survivor's benefits. It wasn't easy and they both had to work part-time but they made it. How about if you become disabled? Remember that Social Security is also an insurance program. In fact, regular disability insurance would be much more expensive without Social Security because disability insurance will deduct any Social Security you receive from your settlement payments.

I know one thing. Most of the information floating around out there comes from the CATO Institute. It's not exactly an unbiased source.

[OvertheRiver]

Originally posted by Larry Williams:

Did you forget that Greenspan fixed this.

That's the point....if social security had been fixed EVER, it wouldn't need to be "re-fixed" every few years. The only fix that would actually work is to keep congress from raiding it for money, and the fund reimbursed to "pre-raid" levels.

It ain't fixed til it's fixed, and I don't think I'll see that in my lifetime.



[This message has been edited by OvertheRiver (edited 02-01-2005).]

[Larry Williams]

Originally posted by OvertheRiver:
That's the point....It ain't fixed til it's fixed, and I don't think I'll see that in my lifetime.

You're the lawyer. It's pretty hard to fix the legal system from the outside. The legal profession is a closed society, you know. The old 60's cliché applies, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."

[Becky Davis]

Congress should start with this program themselves. Why should the taxpayers have to pay for their great insurance? Let them pay for it themselves.

[xman]

It seems like I'm like a lot of you who depend on SSI for day to day living expenses. The paltry raise we got in SSI recently does not even cover the governmental cost of living increase. I was a person who worked for companies that offered no retirement plans, and while raising children, I was not able to save for my retirement. I need this monthly check and where the government invests SSI money is not as important as continuity. Prescription drug prices is one of the major things that is 'killing' seniors....that's why so many went to Canada for their drugs, and now the government wants to block that avenue. The program that Bush is talking about will be very expensive to implement and will further limit SSI. We need to hear something positive for the seniors out of the government! WRITE YOUR SENATORS AND REPS. ABOUT THIS!

[OvertheRiver]

Originally posted by Larry Williams:
You're the lawyer. It's pretty hard to fix the legal system from the outside. The legal profession is a closed society, you know. The old 60's cliché applies, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."

Thanks for reminding me! I looked in my in-box and, darn it, there was the whole social security file, just waiting for me to fix it! http://www.geekfest.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif

I don't know about any "closed society"; a great many of my friends aren't lawyers....