I'm ashamed to be a Republican tonight.

[swede316]

War is not a nice thing.......Every means available should be brought to render the enemy dead......We are in a bad war....but need to win now that we've attracted outside terrorists....Iraq is like a bug lite.........they are attracted to the light ...now we need to zap them.

[Losman-McGahee-Evans]

In case anybody forgot in the last five minutes, LME is a Republican. 

202493[/snapback]

Indeed I am. I am what is called a real Republican as well as a real Christian. In other words I pursue smaller government, less debt accumulation and honesty with the American people.

 

None of those exist with the Bush-led Republican Party and that why people like yourself thrive in it. There is no need for you to think on your own since you can just talking points given to you. There is no need for you to demand honesty from your leaders since the only thing important to you is supporting the agenda since they tell you its honest. You have no reason to question it because you don't have the ability to.

[Losman-McGahee-Evans]

Yes, blame the plan for bad investment decisions.  How very Republican of you.

Not at all, I'm just pointing out that SS is not investment its insurance.

 

Frankly, I have no idea what you just wrote, which should be a sign to me that I'm debating someone who has little understanding of how finance works. 

 

Actually that is a sign that you are not the genius put yourself forth as. I'm understanding everytihng you are saying and dismantling while you just skip over the questions that I pose to you once your points are shown as either incorrect or flawed. You just move on to a different long-winded point.

 

The SS obligations are going to go away when the government doesn't have to pay the benefits.  This can happen by transferring obligations to the individuals from the government, or the individuals dying.  Notice you're not defending the current SS standard of totally losing your SS benefits at death, no matter how much you paid into the system and no matter how much you received.  This was a nice boon to the SSA actuaries in computing benefits, when you had a healthy ratio of working people paying into the system vs retirees who didn't have long to live in retirement.  The equation isn't as neat for the bean counters these days.

 

Buying into social security isn't something we do in order to accumulate wealth. As with the purchase of an annuity, it is a system for assuring ourselves a minimum standard of living in our old age. Having that minimum standard of living protected is what in turn enables us to take the entreprenurial risk which creates wealth. When the consequences of failure are starvation, risk is not affordable, but when the consequences of failure are living modestly, we can afford to pour our savings into starting a new enterprise.

 

The second thing to note here is that while we have fewer workers per retiree, we also have fewer children per worker. As a result, the number of dependants that each worker supports hasn't changed nearly so much as the worker to retiree ratio.

 

In addition, we will have these retirees, and need to support them, irrespective of whether we have social security. Are we really willing to force our parents to live on cat food?

 

Let me type slower.

 

That's okay. Wrong is still "W r o n g" no matter how slow you type it.

 

 

2 .The system is in crisis because of a little thing called demographics and productivity.  We simply will not have enough working people to support the retirement payments of a retirement population that will live for a long long time, unless you are willing to raise the poayroll tax to equal the income tax.

Actually, if you look at the Trustees' Report, we'll be able to pay 80% or more of the promised benefits without raising taxes. This suggests that a tax increase equal to about 1.2% of GDP would be sufficient to solve the problem forever.

 

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR04/IV_LRest.html#wp220056

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR04/IV_LRest.html#wp267528

 

3. Care to provide the examples of those disasters?

You have to pay for a subscriptin to access the aritcle I reference on the disaster that is England but it is from the WSJ dated August 10, 1998 and the title is "Britain's Social Security Debacle". It's a pretty detailed analysis.

 

It begins by saying --

 

"LONDON -- Anyone suggesting Americans should get a say in how their Social Security contributions are invested might look at the British system. A little scrutiny might help avert a big disaster.

 

I'll give you some specifics on each systems failure -

 

BRITAIN :

For all the fanfare that surrounds the Bush administration’s efforts to present a bold new idea on pension reform, the truth is that it is not new at all. In fact, the proposal first term in 1979 and which has since led Britain to the brink of a crisis. Since then, the nation’s basic pension, which is paid for out of tax receipts, has shrunk dramatically. The United Kingdom has the stingiest state pension program of any G8 nation, and there is growing consensus -- even among British conservatives -- that reform is needed. And ironically enough, considering that America is on the verge of copying Britain’s mistake, most experts seek reform in the direction of a more generous, and simpler, basic state pension -- one similar in design, in other words, to America’s Social Security program. ...

 

Britain’s experiment with substituting private savings accounts for a portion of state beneits has been a failure. A shorthand explanation for what has gone wrong is that the costs and risks of running private investment accounts outweigh the value of the returns they are likely to earn. On average, fees and charges can reduce pension lump sums by up to 30 percent on retirement. The nation’s savings industry, which sells those private accounts, has already acknowledged this. Which brings us to irony No. 2: Just as the United States prepares to funnel untold billions to its private sector for the management of private accounts, back in 2002, many U.K. insurance companies, mindful of tough new rules against giving bad advice, began to write to their customers urging them to consider abandoning their private savings and returning to the state pension system -- something hundreds of thousands of Britons have done already."

 

Today, another financial scandal looms, and this one could be bigger. It involves the United Kingdom’s occupational schemes, long the backbone of retirement provision (they are the British equivalent of traditional U.S. pension plans).

 

The drop in real interest rates and the accompanying disappearance in high returns on equities have left most British occupational pension schemes in deficit. Employers sponsoring some 70 percent of all defined-benefit plans -- in which the retirement pay is a percentage of the final salary -- have shut their doors to new members. Instead, as with American 401(k) plans, employers are offering defined-contribution plans in which company contributions, per worker, are very much lower than those of the schemes they replace. They’re unlikely to ever deliver anything like the old-style retirement benefits. What has made this abandonment particularly acute is that the United Kingdom was so confident of the strength of its occupational plans that Tory and Labour governments alike insisted that no insurance scheme would be necessary.

 

But the crisis within the occupational pension system has laid bare just how inadequate Britain’s public pension schemes have been. Now, some 65,000 British workers have lost all or part of their pensions as a wave of insolvent employers are discovered to have left their pension schemes severely underfunded. Some do not even have the cash to pay the GMPs that were promised in exchange for tax rebates. A 1995 attempt at reform fizzled. Those who have lost out have discovered that they have nothing to fall back on except the basic state pension, which is now so miserly because of changes put in place during the first year of the Thatcher reign that those relying solely upon it for their retirement income are defined as destitute. And that GMP, which was meant to supplement the basic state pension? “The Guaranteed Minimum Pension turned out to be neither guaranteed nor a minimum,” says Ros Altmann of the London School of Economics. “These people would have been better off keeping their money under the mattress.”

 

This, then, is the situation in Britain today:

 

- According to the Department for Work and Pensions, in 2004 alone, 500,000 people abandoned private pensions and moved back into the state system. Government actuaries expect another 250,000 to contract back in this year.

 

- In 2004, the Association of British Insurers, the trade association representing the companies that sell the private accounts, made a collective decision not to risk any more allegations of mis-selling. It urged all of its member firms to warn those who had taken tax rebates to open private accounts that they might have made a bad choice. The advice was particularly aimed at older workers with fewer years until retirement.

 

- Many insurance companies -- the sellers of the private accounts -- have been writing their customers urging them to contract back in to the state system.

 

- And, of course, even the U.K. version of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has endorsed the idea of raising taxes to increase benefit levels.

 

This is why it is dishonest as Republicans to continue lying to the American people as you continue to do. A REAL Republican does not need to lie in order to accomplish our goals of reform. People like you do not point to Argentina's recent attempt, which probably was the two ton brick on the camel's back which destroyed their economy. You do tend to praise Chile for some reason, even though that was also a disaster financially, simply because it briefly appeared to be better than the state-run system which had been looted by a corrupt government. It is weird to me that people like you frequently praise Sweden's system, even though so far it too has not gone very well, though they usually fail to point out that the total payroll tax there is 18.5%, over 6 percentage points higher than the equivalent tax here.

 

Failure after failure after failure.

 

Or are you saying that ordinary people are too stupid to handle these issues on their own, and need the government to help out every step of the way?

Not at all. What Ii'm saying is that it's not broken so don't LIE in order to destroy it. Like I said before if this happens my party is in real trouble for a generation and we won't be able to blame it's failure on the Democrats because they are opposed to it.

Woo hoo.  Now we're down to 3 decades of insolvency.  A few more posts, and we're bankrupt next week.

Since you missed the differences in those models They use differnet levels of growth.

[RkFast]

None of those exist with the Bush-led Republican Party and that why people like yourself thrive in it.  There is no need for you to think on your own since you can just talking points given to you.  There is no need for you to demand honesty from your leaders since the only thing important to you is supporting the agenda since they tell you its honest.  You have no reason to question it because you don't have the ability to.

203381[/snapback]

 

Well, by judging from what youve put forth in this thread, it appears that youre a bitter old man who CANNOT thrive in this current environment, so you attempt to question and B word about everything with the LEFT'S talking points, for which you seem to have a very poor grasp of, given how people have blasted every point youve made to itty bitty bits. Your inability to do well at all and succeed economically or even socially even on the most basic of levels leaves you no choice but to turn to the likes of Air America to search for answers and a meaning to why youre in such a position. Kinda like a lost adolescent who joins a cult.

 

Oh yeah...Youre ugly, too.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Actually, if you look at the Trustees' Report, we'll be able to pay 80% or more of the promised benefits without raising taxes. This suggests that a tax increase equal to about 1.2% of GDP would be sufficient to solve the problem forever.

203491[/snapback]

 

 

What kind of Republican advocates raising taxes?

 

I smell a Democrat.

[Terry Tate]

What kind of Republican advocates raising taxes?

203760[/snapback]

Too many of the elected ones.

[Losman-McGahee-Evans]

What kind of Republican advocates raising taxes?

 

I smell a Democrat.

203760[/snapback]

If you knew anything at all (and I mean ANYTHING) about the Republican Party you would know that we aren't against raising taxes. Reagan was responsible for THE LARGEST TAX INCREASE IN US HISTORY. He raised taxes 5 different times between 80-88.

 

Like I said I'm a Reagan Republican not a Bush Republican.

[OGTEleven]

If you knew anything at all (and I mean ANYTHING) about the Republican Party you would know that we aren't against raising taxes.  Reagan was responsible for THE LARGEST TAX INCREASE IN US HISTORY.  He raised taxes 5 different times between 80-88.

 

Like I said I'm a Reagan Republican not a Bush Republican.

203905[/snapback]

Did Reagan drop taxes before he raised them? Did the net of his cuts and raises turn out to be lower or higher taxes? Do you think the Dem congress was involved in the raises at all?

 

On a pertinent side note:

 

For a year (1998) I decided to keep a record of every penny I spent using Quicken (great program that everyone should use). I did this in part to get a good grip on my finances and also to see how much I was spending on taxes. I kept track of everything I could. If I spent $108 on an item and $100 was for the item and $8 was sales tax, that is how it was entered. I took a similar approach for my phone bill, etc.

 

It turned out that of every dollar in expenses spent, 67 cents were taxes. I did manage to save some that year so as a percentage of income, taxes were 55%. (These numbers do not include the 50% of my payroll taxes that my employer paid although you could make an argument that I should have accounted for them. They also don't include taxes I paid at the gas pump because I could not find reliable figures.)

 

Although I still use Quicken extensively, I no longer detail it out so thouroughly. I honestly don't think my percentages have changed much (if I had to guess).

 

Do you think this is enough? 2 of every 3 dollar spent going to taxes? Is 4 out of 5 better? Why not just all of it? Is that what Reagan would have wanted?

[GG]

Reading comnprehension is a nuance that's lost on some people, I guess.

 

Here's hint, when you debate a topic, it's usually helpful to provide links that support your POV and not your opponent's.

 

Thank you very much for the SS trust data, as it is an eye opener. I'd would honestly like to hear an explanation of how you square your original point that the system is not in trouble with data that shows the actuarial balance goes negative within 40 years.

 

Perhaps it's not a concern to you, but I imagine a Lost-watching 24 year old would care. Or at least he'd expect the elected officials to care, with whom he entrusted the country's future.

 

I'd also like to thank you for highlighting that the SS system would be able to pay 80% of its obligations if left on its present course. Sucks to be the 20% though. Of course the fix is a mere 1.2% tax hike on GDP. A Ronnie Reagan acolyte, indeed.

 

Not at all, I'm just pointing out that SS is not investment its insurance.

 

Thanks for the continuing affirmation of your ignorance on the subject.

 

Finance 101 (con't) - Insurance is an investment. Social Security is a government mandated wealth distribution program. But, of course you know that.

 

Actually that is a sign that you are not the genius put yourself forth as.  I'm understanding everytihng you are saying and dismantling while you just skip over the questions that I pose to you once your points are shown as either incorrect or flawed.  You just move on to a different long-winded point.

 

That's funny. I thought that I went into deep detail in this mess to refute each of your points. Of course, as evidenced by your posting hitory when confronted with factual data, you just call me a liar and change the direction of the thread.

 

Buying into social security isn't something we do in order to accumulate wealth. As with the purchase of an annuity, it is a system for assuring ourselves a minimum standard of living in our old age. Having that minimum standard of living protected is what in turn enables us to take the entreprenurial risk which creates wealth. When the consequences of failure are starvation, risk is not affordable, but when the consequences of failure are living modestly, we can afford to pour our savings into starting a new enterprise.

 

Finance 101 (con't) - Annuity is an investment. Social Security is a government mandated wealth distribution program. The Bush plan aims to introduce wealth accumulation into the SS system, so that people actually have a true ownership of money they put into the system.

 

BTW, how many entrepreneurs have you spoken with to come to your ridiculous conclusion? The consequence of failure for an entrepreneur is loss of investment and time into the venture. A 30-yr old entrepreneur is not thinking about SS benefits at age 65 before embarking on a life changing ventrure.

 

You have to pay for a subscriptin to access the aritcle I reference on the disaster that is England but it is from the WSJ dated August 10, 1998 and the title is "Britain's Social Security Debacle".  It's a pretty detailed analysis. 

 

The trouble for you is that I am familiar with the article and the topic. I also suggest that you read it as well, although it's likely that you won't understand what it says anyway. Read up other stories bout the UK as well.

 

But here's a recap. The article criticized the administration of UK's privitization scheme, not the scheme itself. It offered a roadmap for the US to do a better job in designing its system. For starters, the UK private accounts were voluntary, while the US form will be a choice of private accounts or the traditional plan, but participation will be mandatory.

 

In addition, the UK's regulatory burden was so high that private insurers didn't want to deal with the mess and the potential fallout, hence the recommndation to stay with the govt plan.

 

But the bigger point of the article was that the old style defined benefit system was failing, because benefits were lost when companies went out of business. (Now where have we heard that before?) Defined benefit plans are going out the door, because of demographics, and the concept of "insurance" is tossed out when there's no company there to pay the benefits to retirees.

 

Of course this is a separate topic from SS solvency, but don't let me get in the way of your chest beating.

 

This is why it is dishonest as Republicans to continue lying to the American people as you continue to do.  A REAL Republican does not need to lie in order to accomplish our goals of reform.

 

I'm in the same group as Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard (Staunch Republican) as well as Newt Gingrich and ex-Gov. Christie Todd-Whitman.

 

You mean like this guy, who is one of your standard bearers?

 

"Designing a 21st Century Social Security System

 

Social Security today is mired in unsustainable long term financial deficits, with the benefits already inadequate and well below historic market returns. We must reform Social Security to give all workers the same options and opportunities that the investor class already has for a prosperous retirement, personal wealth accumulation, freedom of choice, an inheritance to pass on to loved ones, and personal control, while maintaining current benefits for all of today’s seniors.

 

The solution is in the power of the market. Markets create wealth. Giving workers the option of a personal Social Security account will allow every worker to retire with real wealth."

 

If you contribute $0.02 to my cause, you may find other articles by Bill Kristol & others questioning the reasoning for attacking SS now. Of course, you would need to have mastered reading comprehension to recognize that the criticism is not on the merits of whether SS is in trouble, but on the merits of losing political capital by tackling head-on a Democratic third rail.

 

But, of course, you know that as well.

 

You may have found a kindred spirit in this model of fiscal restraint.

 

" Democrats have responded that the system will remain in good financial health for decades, and that relatively modest changes now can forestall any shortfall. "

 

What the hell, they'll all be dead and buried in 30 years. It won't be their problem then.

 

 

You know, there are a lot of reasons for you to hate Bush. You don't need to invent new excuses. Just come out and say, I hate George Bush, and you'd be left alone.

[Losman-McGahee-Evans]

Reading comnprehension is a nuance that's lost on some people, I guess.

 

Here's hint, when you debate a topic, it's usually helpful to provide links that support your POV and not your opponent's.

 

Thank you very much for the SS trust data, as it is an eye opener.  I'd would honestly like to hear an explanation of how you square your original point that the system is not in trouble with data that shows the actuarial balance goes negative within 40 years.

 

Perhaps it's not a concern to you, but I imagine a Lost-watching 24 year old would care.  Or at least he'd expect the elected officials to care, with whom he entrusted the country's future.

 

I'd also like to thank you for highlighting that the SS system would be able to pay 80% of its obligations if left on its present course.  Sucks to be the 20% though.  Of course the fix is a mere 1.2% tax hike on GDP.  A Ronnie Reagan acolyte, indeed.

Thanks for the continuing affirmation of your ignorance on the subject. 

 

Finance 101 (con't) - Insurance is an investment.  Social Security is a government mandated wealth distribution program.  But, of course you know that.

That's funny.  I thought that I went into deep detail in this mess to refute each of your points.  Of course, as evidenced by your posting hitory when confronted with factual data, you just call me a liar and change the direction of the thread.

Finance 101 (con't) - Annuity is an investment.  Social Security is a government mandated wealth distribution program.  The Bush plan aims to introduce wealth accumulation into the SS system, so that people actually have a true ownership of money they put into the system.

 

BTW, how many entrepreneurs have you spoken with to come to your ridiculous conclusion?  The consequence of failure for an entrepreneur is loss of investment and time into the venture.  A 30-yr old entrepreneur is not thinking about SS benefits at age 65 before embarking on a life changing ventrure.

The trouble for you is that I am familiar with the article and the topic.  I also suggest that you read it as well, although it's likely that you won't understand what it says anyway.  Read up other stories bout the UK as well.

 

But here's a recap.  The article criticized the administration of UK's privitization scheme, not the scheme itself.  It offered a roadmap for the US to do a better job in designing its system.  For starters, the UK private accounts were voluntary, while the US form will be a choice of private accounts or the traditional plan, but participation will be mandatory. 

 

In addition, the UK's regulatory burden was so high that private insurers didn't want to deal with the mess and the potential fallout, hence the recommndation to stay with the govt plan. 

 

But the bigger point of the article was that the old style defined benefit system was failing, because benefits were lost when companies went out of business.  (Now where have we heard that before?)  Defined benefit plans are going out the door, because of demographics, and the concept of "insurance" is tossed out when there's no company there to pay the benefits to retirees.

 

Of course this is a separate topic from SS solvency, but don't let me get in the way of your chest beating.

 

You mean like this guy, who is one of your standard bearers?

 

"Designing a 21st Century Social Security System

 

Social Security today is mired in unsustainable long term financial deficits, with the benefits already inadequate and well below historic market returns. We must reform Social Security to give all workers the same options and opportunities that the investor class already has for a prosperous retirement, personal wealth accumulation, freedom of choice, an inheritance to pass on to loved ones, and personal control, while maintaining current benefits for all of today’s seniors.

 

The solution is in the power of the market.  Markets create wealth.  Giving workers the option of a personal Social Security account will allow every worker to retire with real wealth."

 

If you contribute $0.02 to my cause, you may find other articles by Bill Kristol & others questioning the reasoning for attacking SS now.  Of course, you would need to have mastered reading comprehension to recognize that the criticism is not on the merits of whether SS is in trouble, but on the merits of losing political capital by tackling head-on a Democratic third rail.

 

But, of course, you know that as well. 

 

You may have found a kindred spirit in this model of fiscal restraint.

 

" Democrats have responded that the system will remain in good financial health for decades, and that relatively modest changes now can forestall any shortfall. "

 

What the hell, they'll all be dead and buried in 30 years.  It won't be their problem then.

You know, there are a lot of reasons for you to hate Bush.  You don't need to invent new excuses.  Just come out and say, I hate George Bush, and you'd be left alone.

204062[/snapback]

It's not that I hate George Bush it's that I hate people like him and yourself that are dishonest and believe that blatantly lying to people is okay.

 

Example --

 

"In addition to making deceptive claims about the system going broke, Bush continued to perpetuate a myth about life expectancy so misleading that the Social Security Administration's own Web site goes to great pains to explain how wrong it is.

 

Said Bush: "The problem is, is that times have changed since 1935. Then most women did not work outside the house, and the average life expectancy was about 60 years old, which for a guy 58 years old must have been a little discouraging. (LAUGHTER)

 

"Today, Americans, fortunately, are living longer and longer. I mean, we're living way beyond 60 years old and most women are working outside the house."

 

In fact, as the Social Security Web site states: "If we look at life expectancy statistics from the 1930s we might naturally come to the conclusion that the Social Security program was designed in such a way that people would work for many years paying in taxes, but would not live long enough to collect benefits. Life expectancy at birth in 1930 was indeed only 58 for men and 62 for women. But life expectancy at birth in the early decades of the 20th century was low due to high infant mortality, and someone who died as a child would never have worked and paid into Social Security. A more appropriate measure is probably life expectancy after attainment of adulthood."

 

Its from today's Washington Post.

[Alaska Darin]

Did Reagan drop taxes before he raised them?  Did the net of his cuts and raises turn out to be lower or higher taxes?  Do you think the Dem congress was involved in the raises at all?

 

On a pertinent side note:

 

For a year (1998) I decided to keep a record of every penny I spent using Quicken (great program that everyone should use).  I did this in part to get a good grip on my finances and also to see how much I was spending on taxes.  I kept track of everything I could.  If I spent $108 on an item and $100 was for the item and $8 was sales tax, that is how it was entered.  I took a similar approach for my phone bill, etc.

 

It turned out that of every dollar in expenses spent, 67 cents were taxes.  I did manage to save some that year so as a percentage of income, taxes were 55%.  (These numbers do not include the 50% of my payroll taxes that my employer paid although you could make an argument that I should have accounted for them.  They also don't include taxes I paid at the gas pump because I could not find reliable figures.) 

 

Although I still use Quicken extensively, I no longer detail it out so thouroughly.  I honestly don't think my percentages have changed much (if I had to guess).

 

Do you think this is enough?  2 of every 3 dollar spent going to taxes?  Is 4 out of 5 better?  Why not just all of it?  Is that what Reagan would have wanted?

203944[/snapback]

Why do you think I rail the way I do. You're right, everyone should do that for a year. They'd be staggered at how much like Borg we actually are.

[Alaska Darin]

Reading comnprehension is a nuance that's lost on some people, I guess.

 

Here's hint, when you debate a topic, it's usually helpful to provide links that support your POV and not your opponent's.

 

Thank you very much for the SS trust data, as it is an eye opener.  I'd would honestly like to hear an explanation of how you square your original point that the system is not in trouble with data that shows the actuarial balance goes negative within 40 years.

 

Perhaps it's not a concern to you, but I imagine a Lost-watching 24 year old would care.  Or at least he'd expect the elected officials to care, with whom he entrusted the country's future.

 

I'd also like to thank you for highlighting that the SS system would be able to pay 80% of its obligations if left on its present course.  Sucks to be the 20% though.  Of course the fix is a mere 1.2% tax hike on GDP.  A Ronnie Reagan acolyte, indeed.

Thanks for the continuing affirmation of your ignorance on the subject. 

 

Finance 101 (con't) - Insurance is an investment.  Social Security is a government mandated wealth distribution program.  But, of course you know that.

That's funny.  I thought that I went into deep detail in this mess to refute each of your points.  Of course, as evidenced by your posting hitory when confronted with factual data, you just call me a liar and change the direction of the thread.

Finance 101 (con't) - Annuity is an investment.  Social Security is a government mandated wealth distribution program.  The Bush plan aims to introduce wealth accumulation into the SS system, so that people actually have a true ownership of money they put into the system.

 

BTW, how many entrepreneurs have you spoken with to come to your ridiculous conclusion?  The consequence of failure for an entrepreneur is loss of investment and time into the venture.  A 30-yr old entrepreneur is not thinking about SS benefits at age 65 before embarking on a life changing ventrure.

The trouble for you is that I am familiar with the article and the topic.  I also suggest that you read it as well, although it's likely that you won't understand what it says anyway.  Read up other stories bout the UK as well.

 

But here's a recap.  The article criticized the administration of UK's privitization scheme, not the scheme itself.  It offered a roadmap for the US to do a better job in designing its system.  For starters, the UK private accounts were voluntary, while the US form will be a choice of private accounts or the traditional plan, but participation will be mandatory. 

 

In addition, the UK's regulatory burden was so high that private insurers didn't want to deal with the mess and the potential fallout, hence the recommndation to stay with the govt plan. 

 

But the bigger point of the article was that the old style defined benefit system was failing, because benefits were lost when companies went out of business.  (Now where have we heard that before?)  Defined benefit plans are going out the door, because of demographics, and the concept of "insurance" is tossed out when there's no company there to pay the benefits to retirees.

 

Of course this is a separate topic from SS solvency, but don't let me get in the way of your chest beating.

 

You mean like this guy, who is one of your standard bearers?

 

"Designing a 21st Century Social Security System

 

Social Security today is mired in unsustainable long term financial deficits, with the benefits already inadequate and well below historic market returns. We must reform Social Security to give all workers the same options and opportunities that the investor class already has for a prosperous retirement, personal wealth accumulation, freedom of choice, an inheritance to pass on to loved ones, and personal control, while maintaining current benefits for all of today’s seniors.

 

The solution is in the power of the market.  Markets create wealth.  Giving workers the option of a personal Social Security account will allow every worker to retire with real wealth."

 

If you contribute $0.02 to my cause, you may find other articles by Bill Kristol & others questioning the reasoning for attacking SS now.  Of course, you would need to have mastered reading comprehension to recognize that the criticism is not on the merits of whether SS is in trouble, but on the merits of losing political capital by tackling head-on a Democratic third rail.

 

But, of course, you know that as well. 

 

You may have found a kindred spirit in this model of fiscal restraint.

 

" Democrats have responded that the system will remain in good financial health for decades, and that relatively modest changes now can forestall any shortfall. "

 

What the hell, they'll all be dead and buried in 30 years.  It won't be their problem then.

You know, there are a lot of reasons for you to hate Bush.  You don't need to invent new excuses.  Just come out and say, I hate George Bush, and you'd be left alone.

204062[/snapback]

Note to Self: Don't argue with a CFO about finance without doing ALOT more research.

[BillsNYC]

Dresden

200549[/snapback]

 

I just read Slaughterhouse 7 by Kurt Vonnegat (sp?)....never even heard of Dresden until then...

[DC Tom]

Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki.

 

What do they all have in common?

200549[/snapback]

 

Uhhh...they're all mass bombings targeted at the mass psychology of an opponent that ultimately did little to change the course of the war? Dresden, in particular...

[RkFast]

The bombings in Japan did little to change the course of the war?

 

I cant WAIT to hear the explanation on THIS one.

[GG]

It's not that I hate George Bush it's that I hate people like him and yourself that are dishonest and believe that blatantly lying to people is okay.

 

Example --

 

"In addition to making deceptive claims about the system going broke, Bush continued to perpetuate a myth about life expectancy so misleading that the Social Security Administration's own Web site goes to great pains to explain how wrong it is.

 

Said Bush: "The problem is, is that times have changed since 1935. Then most women did not work outside the house, and the average life expectancy was about 60 years old, which for a guy 58 years old must have been a little discouraging. (LAUGHTER)

 

"Today, Americans, fortunately, are living longer and longer. I mean, we're living way beyond 60 years old and most women are working outside the house."

 

In fact, as the Social Security Web site states: "If we look at life expectancy statistics from the 1930s we might naturally come to the conclusion that the Social Security program was designed in such a way that people would work for many years paying in taxes, but would not live long enough to collect benefits. Life expectancy at birth in 1930 was indeed only 58 for men and 62 for women. But life expectancy at birth in the early decades of the 20th century was low due to high infant mortality, and someone who died as a child would never have worked and paid into Social Security. A more appropriate measure is probably life expectancy after attainment of adulthood."

 

Its from today's Washington Post.

204088[/snapback]

 

Except for the fact that Bush didn't lie. Life expectancy in the 1930's was 60. SS admits that. You may not like the context in which he used the analogy, but it's not a lie.

 

But let's take the SSA's example of using mortaility rates of adults. In late 1930's if you were 60, your life expectancy was another 15-16 years. In 2002, the life expectancy was 22 years, a jump of 37%. Imagine what that figure would be in 30 years.

 

But hey, the system just needs a little fix until we're out of DC.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

If you knew anything at all (and I mean ANYTHING) about the Republican Party you would know that we aren't against raising taxes.  Reagan was responsible for THE LARGEST TAX INCREASE IN US HISTORY.  He raised taxes 5 different times between 80-88.

 

Like I said I'm a Reagan Republican not a Bush Republican.

203905[/snapback]

 

That's rich. Funny how Reagan authored the single largest TAX CUT in US history as well.

 

One of the CENTRAL platforms of the Republican party is cutting taxes and smaller government.

 

I'm beginning to think that you're a Reagan DEMOCRAT.

 

There is a big difference.

 

You actually advocated a tax of 1.8% some-odd percentof our GDP. Are you INSANE?!? Do you realize how HUGE a number that is and what a crippling effect it would have on our economy?

 

What is NOT needed is tax raises. What IS needed is a reduction in government programs (Dept of Ed, OSHA, EPA, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc... etc...)

[KD in CA]

I just read Slaughterhouse 7 by Kurt Vonnegat (sp?)....never even heard of Dresden until then...

204350[/snapback]

 

 

Was that the sequel to Slaughterhouse Five?

[Losman-McGahee-Evans]

The bombings in Japan did little to change the course of the war?

 

I cant WAIT to hear the explanation on THIS one.

204446[/snapback]

So you're comparing death squads to dropping two nuclear bombs on two cities? Brilliant.

[RkFast]

So you're comparing death squads to dropping two nuclear bombs on two cities?  Brilliant.

204571[/snapback]

 

No, dummy.

 

Jeez, I adressed this comparison in a post in this thread directed at YOU. Do us a favor, noob...if youre going to come here and write a rant, at least do us the favor of reading the responses to it.