GG Posted January 20, 2005 Author Posted January 20, 2005 Utterly predictable. For the last time, please find one, single, unique (am I being redundant enough?) source that unequivecobaly says that the Social Security system is fine, if left alone. Please show data that Wall Street thinks that the proposed private accounts will be a fiscal disaster, which will lead to higher interest rates. You'd be surprised to know the answer if you actually spoke with real bond traders, not the ones that play them on TV. If you are going to label people liars about not leveling with people, back up your alegations. Bush has the balls to deal with the problem now, and Congress doesn't like it because of fear mongerers like you will vote them out of office in 2006, because it's easier to sweep the problem under the rug until 2042.
Losman-McGahee-Evans Posted January 20, 2005 Posted January 20, 2005 Utterly predictable. For the last time, please find one, single, unique (am I being redundant enough?) source that unequivecobaly says that the Social Security system is fine, if left alone. Please show data that Wall Street thinks that the proposed private accounts will be a fiscal disaster, which will lead to higher interest rates. You'd be surprised to know the answer if you actually spoke with real bond traders, not the ones that play them on TV. If you are going to label people liars about not leveling with people, back up your alegations. Bush has the balls to deal with the problem now, and Congress doesn't like it because of fear mongerers like you will vote them out of office in 2006, because it's easier to sweep the problem under the rug until 2042. 212509[/snapback] Add staunch Republican George Will to your list of "fear mongerers" : The president says Social Security should be reformed because it is in "crisis." That is an exaggeration.(...) What constitutes a crisis is a matter of opinion, and everyone is entitled to his or her own. But not to his or her own facts. Here are some: Social Security outlays may exceed revenues by 2018 -- that date almost certainly will recede further into the future, as it has before, as the economy outperforms expectations. After that, the government bonds that Social Security surpluses have bought (funds used to fund the government) will be entirely redeemed, as the Social Security Administration calculates, by 2042. Or 2052, according to the Congressional Budget Office, using different assumptions about the rate of economic growth. That depends partly on the rate of productivity growth: Might a growth rate unusually high by historic standards become normal? Immigration rates will affect the ratio of workers to retirees. Some persons warning of a distant Social Security crisis postulate 75 years of 1.8 percent annual growth. But if America has 75 such sluggish years, Social Security's insolvency will hardly be the nation's largest problem -- and personal retirement accounts will reflect, not compensate for, the stagnation. === Don't take this the wrong way but you are either a liar, a moron, to stubborn or stupid to understand or all all three combined.
blzrul Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 Bush's buddies in the financial world are just ITCHING to get their hands on "retirement" funds. Stands to reason since many corporations are phasing out standard pensions and these companies now have to deal with the individual consumers instead, something they're not used to. It's not that simple of course. As usual the truth lies somewhere in between. The system needs to be fixed, but it's not on the verge of collapse. But hey, Bushistas have learned that modern Americans, apparently, are chickenshit cowards who cave in the minute a crisis appears on the horizon. So who can blame them for creating a convenient crisis?
erynthered Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 Bush's buddies in the financial world are just ITCHING to get their hands on "retirement" funds. Stands to reason since many corporations are phasing out standard pensions and these companies now have to deal with the individual consumers instead, something they're not used to. It's not that simple of course. As usual the truth lies somewhere in between. The system needs to be fixed, but it's not on the verge of collapse. But hey, Bushistas have learned that modern Americans, apparently, are chickenshit cowards who cave in the minute a crisis appears on the horizon. So who can blame them for creating a convenient crisis? 213061[/snapback] I watched Richard Jeni the other night on HBO, laughed my azz off. But I've found reading your posts to be just as funny as live stand up. Try Vegas!
GG Posted January 21, 2005 Author Posted January 21, 2005 Add staunch Republican George Will to your list of "fear mongerers" : This George Will, or George Will your neighbor who throws cats into oncoming cars? Don't take this the wrong way but you are either a liar, a moron, to stubborn or stupid to understand or all all three combined. 212939[/snapback] I would take it as an insult if I knew I wasn't debating someone with zero reading comprehension. Good to see Debbie getting your back.
Losman-McGahee-Evans Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 This George Will, or George Will your neighbor who throws cats into oncoming cars? Actually no. I wasn't talking about an OLD column by George Will I was refering to a CURRENT column by the same George Will : http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/5195164.html I would take it as an insult if I knew I wasn't debating someone with zero reading comprehension. Good to see Debbie getting your back. 213079[/snapback] I'm surprised you even realized it was an insult actually so I have to tip my hat to you for at least realizing it. My point is consistent and is EXACTLY the same as George Will's. There is no need to lie about something in order to gain the support of the American people. Calling this a crisis is lying and is muddying the debate and mark my words, his plan to destroy SS is going to at best be to him what health care reform was to Clinton : It will grind his Presidency to a halt. At worst it will get passed and it will be the end of the Republican Party, the greatest political party there is and it will all be becuase of greed being pushed upon the American taxpayer by "genius" people like yourself that want tso much to believe you know what you're talking about but the only people that truly believe that are people that even have less understanding of this than you. Like I said, you are a liar or moron or both. Considering you're arguments I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just say you're an idiot who doesn't even get that you're lying and never will. I guess me and George Will "Republicans" will just have to realize that the hero of a sports message board knows better than we do!!
Losman-McGahee-Evans Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 I watched Richard Jeni the other night on HBO, laughed my azz off. But I've found reading your posts to be just as funny as live stand up. Try Vegas! 213066[/snapback] I think the funny part of your post is that you admitted you actually watched Richard Jeni.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 It's not that simple of course. As usual the truth lies somewhere in between. The system needs to be fixed, but it's not on the verge of collapse. But hey, Bushistas have learned that modern Americans, apparently, are chickenshit cowards who cave in the minute a crisis appears on the horizon. So who can blame them for creating a convenient crisis? 213061[/snapback] hey, Debbie...I'm a modern American and I'm no chickenshit coward. :I starred in Brokeback Mountain:
Gavin in Va Beach Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 Let's not forget people that Social Securty is a frickin' PONZI SCHEME!!!!!!!! If you, average Joe Citizen were to start a similar program to social security right now you'd be arrested and locked up. Beginning of social security- 32 workers for every retiree. Current state of social security- 3-2 workers for every retiree. Yeah L-M-E and debbie, there ain't no crisis here... WAKE UP AMERICA.
KRC Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 hey, Debbie...I'm a modern American and I'm no chickenshit coward. :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: 213303[/snapback] You have to remember, people like Debbie do not want Bush to fix the problems because her side cannot take credit for it. This issue will become a problem again in the 2008 election, while after stonewalling any attempt at fixing the issues, they will say "elect me because I want to fix the problem." Her side still believes that the American people are too stupid to realize that this is happening.
KRC Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 Let's not forget people that Social Securty is a frickin' PONZI SCHEME!!!!!!!! If you, average Joe Citizen were to start a similar program to social security right now you'd be arrested and locked up. Beginning of social security- 32 workers for every retiree. Current state of social security- 3-2 workers for every retiree. Yeah L-M-E and debbie, there ain't no crisis here... WAKE UP AMERICA. 213308[/snapback] It is not a crisis because it has not collapsed yet. Wait until it collapses, then start working on solutions.
Alaska Darin Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 It is not a crisis because it has not collapsed yet. Wait until it collapses, then start working on solutions. 213311[/snapback] It's not a crisis until it's a problem. Oh, and GG is an idiot because he posts on an internet message board but our resident Reagan "Republican" who doesn't like insults ISN'T.
KRC Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 It's not a crisis until it's a problem. Oh, and GG is an idiot because he posts on an internet message board but our resident Reagan "Republican" who doesn't like insults ISN'T. 213478[/snapback] No, he is an idiot, a liar, or both for not agreeing with the articles posted by LME. We should not address problems until they hit the "crisis" stage, as defined by commentators in the media.
Alaska Darin Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 We should not address problems until they hit the "crisis" stage, as defined by commentators in the media. 213488[/snapback] Let's not forget polls. Polls are VERY important.
GG Posted January 21, 2005 Author Posted January 21, 2005 Actually no. I wasn't talking about an OLD column by George Will I was refering to a CURRENT column by the same George Will : http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/5195164.html I didn't know that a column written two weeks ago is considered OLD. What kind of timeline does your alternate universe operate on? I'm surprised you even realized it was an insult actually so I have to tip my hat to you for at least realizing it. These things are easy for people who understand what they read. My point is consistent and is EXACTLY the same as George Will's. There is no need to lie about something in order to gain the support of the American people. Calling this a crisis is lying and is muddying the debate and mark my words, his plan to destroy SS is going to at best be to him what health care reform was to Clinton : It will grind his Presidency to a halt. So basically, George Will (the columnist, not the cat throwing neighbor) does not argue that the Social Security will not run out of money within the projected period, but he's arguing that there could be other pressing needs to restore fiscal sanity. Again, if you elect to post articles purporting to support your view, please post articles that do support your view. What do you take away from these closing thoughts from the CURRENT column by George Will (the columnist, not the cat throwing neighbor): George Will - "Voluntary personal accounts will allow competing fund managers, rather than a government monopoly on income transfers from workers to retirees, to allocate a large pool of money. This will enhance the economic dynamism conducive to an open society. Personal accounts will respect individuals' autonomy and competence, and will narrow the wealth gap by facilitating the accumulation of wealth -- bequeathable wealth -- by persons of modest incomes. ....... Today some conservatives, beginning their admirable project of Social Security reform, lack the conservative virtue of sobriety about the limits of prophecy. The sober truth is that the philosophic reasons for reforming Social Security are more compelling than the fiscal reasons." I dunno, doesn't quite sound that he favors keeping the system at status quo. Considering you're arguments I take vile exception in being called an arguments.
Wacka Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 You have to remember, people like Debbie do not want Bush to fix the problems because her side cannot take credit for it. This issue will become a problem again in the 2008 election, while after stonewalling any attempt at fixing the issues, they will say "elect me because I want to fix the problem." Her side still believes that the American people are too stupid to realize that this is happening. 213310[/snapback] Ding, ding, ding! You win! You hit it right on the head. It's exactly what Clinton tried to do with welfare reform.
Losman-McGahee-Evans Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 I didn't know that a column written two weeks ago is considered OLD. What kind of timeline does your alternate universe operate on?These things are easy for people who understand what they read. So basically, George Will (the columnist, not the cat throwing neighbor) does not argue that the Social Security will not run out of money within the projected period, but he's arguing that there could be other pressing needs to restore fiscal sanity. Again, if you elect to post articles purporting to support your view, please post articles that do support your view. What do you take away from these closing thoughts from the CURRENT column by George Will (the columnist, not the cat throwing neighbor): I dunno, doesn't quite sound that he favors keeping the system at status quo. I take vile exception in being called an arguments. 213556[/snapback] The argument has been consistent. There is no crisis and lying and saying there is one doesn't help my party. What he's saying and I'm saying is THERE IS NO CRISIS. How about fact.org (Run by a right-wing think tank so its not like there not biased toward the Republican party) : Does Social Security Really Face an $11 Trillion Deficit? Bush and Cheney say yes. But actuaries say the figure is "likely to mislead" the public on the system's true financial state. January 21, 2005 Modified: January 21, 2005 eMail to a friend Printer Friendly Version Summary President Bush and Vice President Cheney have told audiences that Social Security faces an $11 trillion shortfall if nothing is done to fix the current system. But they fail to mention that this is over the course of the “infinite future." Over the next 75 years -- still practically a lifetime -- the shortfall is projected to be $3.7 trillion. The "infinite" projection is one that the American Academy of Actuaries says is likely to mislead the public into thinking the system "is in far worse financial condition than is actually indicated," and therefore should not be used to explain the long-term outlook. Analysis In a roundtable conversation on January 11, the president said the Social Security system “is going to be short the difference between obligations and money coming in, by about $11 trillion, unless we act.” President Bush Remarks at Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium, January 11, 2005 Bush: Now, I readily concede some would say, well, it's not bankrupt yet; why don't we wait until it's bankrupt? The problem with that notion is that the longer you wait, the more difficult it is to fix. You realize that this system of ours is going to be short the difference between obligations and money coming in, by about $11 trillion, unless we act. And that's an issue. That's trillion with a "T." Vice President Cheney echoed this claim in a January 13 speech at Catholic University when he said, “Again, the projected shortfall in Social Security exceeds $10 trillion.” Both are correct -- but fail to mention that nearly two-thirds of that colossal bill doesn't come due until after the year 2078. The Trustees Report The projection comes from the 2004 Social Security Trustees report which estimates that the system’s unfunded obligations are $10.4 trillion over the course of what they call the "infinite horizon." Historically, the infinite-horizon projection has not been included in the annual report, and was only added in 2003. Previously the Trustees had used only a 75-year projection to estimate the system’s long-term deficits, roughly the length of a human lifetime. (Average life expectancy at birth has now increased to just over 77 years, up from just under 75 years as recently as the 1980's, according to the National Center for Health Statistics .) The Social Security Trustees' 2004 projection shows a $3.7 trillion shortfall over this 75-year period. The Trustees reasoned that the 75-year window should be extended to the infinite future to give policymakers a better idea of the changes necessary to keep the system sustainable indefinitely -- especially beyond 2078 when they said Social Security’s deficit will be increasing even faster than during the next 75 years. Vice President Cheney Remarks at Catholic University, January 13, 2005 Cheney: Another argument against Social Security reform with voluntary personal accounts is that the so-called transition costs would be too high. Yet focusing merely on transition costs is to overlook the greater cost of doing nothing. Again, the projected shortfall in Social Security exceeds $10 trillion; that figure is nearly twice the combined wages and salaries of every single working American last year. There will be no -- there will be costs no matter what we decide. A technical panel set up to advise the Social Security Administration later said that infinite-horizon model is useful but “it is difficult to understand." The panel recommended that the infinite-horizon calculations be expressed more prominently as a percentage of the taxable payroll rather than the actual dollar amount. Referring to the 2003 trustees report, the panel said: Technical Panel on Assumptions and Methods: The Report also briefly mentions the infinite horizon actuarial deficit of 3.8 percent. This figure is more informative that the dollar value of the infinite horizon unfunded obligations, and should be presented more prominently…. While the…information is useful, it is difficult to understand. The $10.5 trillion is a large figure, but it needs to be seen in the context of the present value of taxable payroll over the infinite horizon, which is on the order of $275 trillion. Later, in the 2004 report issued last March, the Trustees updated those figures to a $10.4 trillion deficit and a $295.5 trillion taxable payroll. Social Security Deficit and Payroll Taxes The percent of taxable payroll is the portion of an employee’s payroll tax that goes toward Social Security and is currently set at the rate of 12.4 percent, half of which is paid by the employer and the other half by employee. Over 75 years, the Trustees estimate the actuarial deficit is 1.8 percent of taxable payroll. This means that for the system to be completely solvent over the next 75 years, without adjusting benefits, payroll taxes would have to go up to 14.2 percent immediately. And to be solvent for the "infinite future," the $10.4 trillion shortfall equals 3.5 percent of taxable payroll, or a tax increase to15.9 percent of wages. The Infinite Horizon – Is it useful? Contrary to the technical panel’s endorsement, the American Academy of Actuaries, a nonpartisan organization that sets standards of practice for actuaries in the US , disputes the value of the infinite horizon projection. In fact, they said it probably would mislead anyone lacking technical expertise and that it provides “little if any useful information” about the system’s long-term finances. In a December 2003 letter to the Social Security Advisory Board, the Academy wrote: American Academy of Actuaries: …The new measures of the unfunded obligations included in the 2003 report provide little if any useful information about the program’s long-range finances and indeed are likely to mislead anyone lacking technical expertise in the demographic, economic, and actuarial aspects of the program’s finances into believing that the program is in far worse financial condition than is actually indicated. The Academy states that there is already much uncertainty using 75-year projections, and that extending estimates into the infinite future only increases that uncertainty, producing results that "are of limited value to policymakers.” They point out that changes which took place over the last 75 years were unforeseeable to actuaries in 1928, such as the Great Depression or the baby boom, and therefore have no reason to doubt that unforeseeable changes will not occur in the future. Demographic and economic assumptions have always been a controversial issue among demographers predicting the long-term sustainability of Social Security. Significant advances in life expectancy have taken place over the last century, which exert more pressure on the system's finances as people live longer lives. Whether future mortality rates will continue to slow or increase with medical technology, the Academy of Actuaries argues that the inconsistencies which arise from such long-range assumptions are "inevitable" when making projections over the course of infinity. For this reason, they conclude that the infinite-horizon measurement is a “detriment” to the Trustees Report. They write: American Academy of Actuaries: Thus, we believe that including these values in the Trustees Report is unnecessary and is, on balance, a detriment to the Trustees’ charge to provide a meaningful and balanced presentation of the financial status of the program. One final note: The Trustees and actuaries give the $10.4-trillion figure and others what is called "present value," a theoretical lump-sum figure that takes into account expected future inflation and interest rates. Otherwise, any continuing deficit projected into the infinite future would automatically become an infinitely large sum. Sources Table IV.B7.--Unfunded OASDI Obligations for 1935 (Program Inception) Through the Infinite Horizon, "THE 2004 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE FEDERAL OLD-AGE AND SURVIVORS INSURANCE AND DISABILITY INSURANCE TRUST FUNDS," 23 March 2004: 59. Technical Panel on Assumptions and Methods (2003), Report to the Social Security Advisory Board. Washington, D.C., October 2003. ==== Let's try to stay on point here. It's not in crisis.
GG Posted January 22, 2005 Author Posted January 22, 2005 The argument has been consistent. There is no crisis and lying and saying there is one doesn't help my party. What he's saying and I'm saying is THERE IS NO CRISIS. How about fact.org (Run by a right-wing think tank so its not like there not biased toward the Republican party) : Shoot, at least cheney was close when he referred to the site as factcheck.com It's factcheck.org, but we won't bring it up in a thread about liars. How about providing actual links to the articles. Well, I followed through, and looky what I found. A whole trove of SS issues as analyzed by American Academy of Actuaries, which is featured so prominently in your post. If you go through the trouble of reading the articles, you will also note that they do not disagree with the SS trustees that the "trust fund" will need to be reformed. They had an issue with the SS trustees using an infinite projection, rather than a 75 yer projection, but note that there is no dispute from them that there will still be a need of benefit cuts or tax hikes. The administration is not lying. They are using statistics which you don't agree with. But they are factual, as much as the assumptions used by the trustees allow. Am I still staying on topic? I'd also like to find out why you hold SS so sacrosanct, while throwing Medicare to the wolves? When the entitlement programs get funded out of the same tax pool, and only an accounting entry determines the allocation of the spending, what makes SS a more worthy end than Medicare? Thus, how can you proclaim from your mountain that SS is totally solvent, as long as we don't count Medicare? And I'm the liar. You seem to hold a high regard for the retirement protection, but don't give a hoot about Medicare, when if you analyze the situation from a social context, healthcare should be a higher priority to fund, because people generally don't have as much control of health issues as they do over planning for their retirement over 40 years of employment. If you want to talk about why politicians need to use extreme facts? You're the prime example. Most rational people understand that SS & Medicare are intertwined in future funding debates, and any potential solution will need to address both programs. But good thing for AARP & DEMs that there are people like you who think that only one is an issue and that bad old Bushies are out to steal away a cornerstone of America's benefits to enrich Wall Street.
KRC Posted January 22, 2005 Posted January 22, 2005 Shoot, at least cheney was close when he referred to the site as factcheck.com It's factcheck.org, but we won't bring it up in a thread about liars. How about providing actual links to the articles. Well, I followed through, and looky what I found. A whole trove of SS issues as analyzed by American Academy of Actuaries, which is featured so prominently in your post. If you go through the trouble of reading the articles, you will also note that they do not disagree with the SS trustees that the "trust fund" will need to be reformed. They had an issue with the SS trustees using an infinite projection, rather than a 75 yer projection, but note that there is no dispute from them that there will still be a need of benefit cuts or tax hikes. The administration is not lying. They are using statistics which you don't agree with. But they are factual, as much as the assumptions used by the trustees allow. Am I still staying on topic? I'd also like to find out why you hold SS so sacrosanct, while throwing Medicare to the wolves? When the entitlement programs get funded out of the same tax pool, and only an accounting entry determines the allocation of the spending, what makes SS a more worthy end than Medicare? Thus, how can you proclaim from your mountain that SS is totally solvent, as long as we don't count Medicare? And I'm the liar. You seem to hold a high regard for the retirement protection, but don't give a hoot about Medicare, when if you analyze the situation from a social context, healthcare should be a higher priority to fund, because people generally don't have as much control of health issues as they do over planning for their retirement over 40 years of employment. If you want to talk about why politicians need to use extreme facts? You're the prime example. Most rational people understand that SS & Medicare are intertwined in future funding debates, and any potential solution will need to address both programs. But good thing for AARP & DEMs that there are people like you who think that only one is an issue and that bad old Bushies are out to steal away a cornerstone of America's benefits to enrich Wall Street. 214434[/snapback] He is making it too easy for you, isn't he?
GG Posted January 22, 2005 Author Posted January 22, 2005 Fixing it is GOOD. PRIVATIZING it is BAD. Let me ask you this... Who should be entrusted with the money in the private sector? The CFO's and CEO's from ENRON? The Ken Lay's who gave us the Savings & Loan fiasco? And who in the federal government should be entrusted with oversight? The same ones who so dilligently enforced integrity on Wall Street? The same ones who were responsible for oversight in the S&L fiasco? I can't imagine that privatization would be anything more than another major money grab. As a working professional, I do take responsibility for my own retirement security... as do most of you. But that's easy for me to say ... I make 30 an hour, and have an education. Many do not. Before allowing this government to "privatize" Social Security, I think we need to look at the track record. 214612[/snapback] Good to see that the cats are finally locked up. I missed the news about Ken Lay causing the S&L fiasco, but let's not have facts get in the way of your good time. Let's also ignore that government intervention was a major reason for the S&L fiasco, because it wouldn't fit the "Wall Street - Bad" creed. Let's also ignore that none of the privatization proposals would allow people to invest in individual stocks, and that all investment vehicles will be highly scrutinized. Keep swinging, maybe one day you'll get a hit.
Recommended Posts