Like his entire presidency...

[Live&DieBillsFootball]

You continually try to use Bush's plan. What part of "I do not support Bush's plan" did you not grasp? Since Bush did not actually provide a detailed plan, it is impossible to attribute costs to it. This seems like such a basic concept, but yet (as evidence in this thread) it is such a difficult concept for some.

 

Cut wasteful spending and you would be suprised at how much money you will have. As you cut spending, you will increase government revenue (due to the taxes remaining constant). The combination of the two will pay for the plan. Then you can start rudicing the tax burden on the citizens, giving them even more to save for retirement.

 

Pay a lot now, or pay a HELL of a lot more in the future. The choice is obvious.

478977[/snapback]

 

Well if Bush's plan has a conversion cost of over a TRILLION dollars, and your plan is calling for a plan that is 7-14 times larger, then YOUR PLAN'S CONVERSION COSTS WOULD BE ABOUT $30 TRILLION DOLLARS. THAT IS A LOT OF WASTEFUL SPENDING TO REIGN IN.

 

SORRY ABOUT THE CAPS, BUT YOU SEEM TO BE HAVING A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING ME, SO I THOUGHT THAT I WOULD TALK LOUDER.

 

AND FURTHERMORE, YOU FAIL TO EVEN INCLUDE ANY SOLUTION TO THE OTHER PARTS OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY PROGRAM, DISABILITY AND DEPENDENT CHILDREN.

[IowaBill]

The Bush proposal converts just 1-2% of SS taxes to private accounts and will costs more than a TRILLION dollars.  You advocate the whole 14% or so going to private accounts.  How long will it take to gradually find the 25-30 TRILLION dollars needed to convert everyone? 

 

Of course, your proposal doesn't account for SSDI or dependent children either.  Let's say, another 5 TRILLION dollars.

 

So, we just have to gradually come up with about 35 TRILLION dollars in government savings.  That's a lot of $1000 toilet seats. 

478968[/snapback]

 

I don't nessecarily disagree with your opinion regarding GWB's approach to "fixing" social security. Your takeon SSDI is incorrect, I believe. SSDI and SSI have long been administered by the Social Security administration, however the funds for those programs have always come from general funds, not from SS taxes collected. Few people realize that. I have often heard people complain about disabled getting "my Social Security" dollars, when those recipients are not, they are getting SSI or SSDI.

[KRC]

Well if Bush's plan has a conversion cost of over a TRILLION dollars, and your plan is calling for a plan that is 7-14 times larger, then YOUR PLAN'S CONVERSION COSTS WOULD BE ABOUT $30 TRILLION DOLLARS.  THAT IS A LOT OF WASTEFUL SPENDING TO REIGN IN.

 

SORRY ABOUT THE CAPS, BUT YOU SEEM TO BE HAVING A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING ME, SO I THOUGHT THAT I WOULD TALK LOUDER. 

 

AND FURTHERMORE, YOU FAIL TO EVEN INCLUDE ANY SOLUTION TO THE OTHER PARTS OF THE  SOCIAL SECURITY PROGRAM, DISABILITY AND DEPENDENT CHILDREN.

478988[/snapback]

WHAT PART OF "BUSH DID NOT PROVIDE A SPECIFIC PLAN, SO THERE IS NOT WAY TO CALCULATE THE COSTS OF AN IMAGINARY PLAN" DID YOU NOT UNDERSTAND? SORRY FOR SHOUTING, BUT YOU SEEM TO BE HAVING A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING ME, SO I THOUGHT I WOULD TALK LOUDER.

[Live&DieBillsFootball]

I don't nessecarily disagree with your opinion regarding GWB's approach to "fixing" social security.  Your takeon SSDI is incorrect, I believe.  SSDI and SSI have long been administered by the Social Security administration, however the funds for those programs have always come from general funds, not from SS taxes collected.  Few people realize that.  I have often heard people complain about disabled getting "my Social Security" dollars, when those recipients are not, they are getting SSI or SSDI.

478994[/snapback]

 

SSDI payments are based on earnings records just like social security payments. I assumed that they came out of SS taxes. Are you sure?

[Live&DieBillsFootball]

WHAT PART OF "BUSH DID NOT PROVIDE A SPECIFIC PLAN, SO THERE IS NOT WAY TO CALCULATE THE COSTS OF AN IMAGINARY PLAN" DID YOU NOT UNDERSTAND? SORRY FOR SHOUTING, BUT YOU SEEM TO BE HAVING A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING ME, SO I THOUGHT I WOULD TALK LOUDER.

 

478999[/snapback]

 

Now that we're both awake...

 

What do you anticipate the costs to be for converting to a full private "keep your whole 14-15%" plan would be?

 

I just think the thinking that you can pay for it fully by cutting government waste is extremely naive. Especially when Tom Delay says that there is no fat in the budget.

[KRC]

Now that we're both awake...

 

What do you anticipate the costs to be for converting to a full private "keep your whole 14-15%" plan would be?

 

I just think the thinking that you can pay for it fully by cutting government waste is extremely naive.  Especially when Tom Delay says that there is no fat in the budget. 

479011[/snapback]

 

As far as the total cost of the plan, I do not know. Keep in mind that it is not a fully private system. It is only private for the people who want to control their money. There is still the option for the government plan for the people who feel that the government can control their money better than they can. It will also be a gradual conversion, starting with the youngest workers. This will spread out the costs.

 

BTW, Tom DeLay is an idiot for saying that. Anyone with half a brain knows that his statement was ridiculous.

[GG]

Well if Bush's plan has a conversion cost of over a TRILLION dollars, and your plan is calling for a plan that is 7-14 times larger, then YOUR PLAN'S CONVERSION COSTS WOULD BE ABOUT $30 TRILLION DOLLARS.  THAT IS A LOT OF WASTEFUL SPENDING TO REIGN IN.

 

SORRY ABOUT THE CAPS, BUT YOU SEEM TO BE HAVING A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING ME, SO I THOUGHT THAT I WOULD TALK LOUDER. 

 

AND FURTHERMORE, YOU FAIL TO EVEN INCLUDE ANY SOLUTION TO THE OTHER PARTS OF THE  SOCIAL SECURITY PROGRAM, DISABILITY AND DEPENDENT CHILDREN.

478988[/snapback]

Why don't you increase the font and then type in red, so that it may even be louder for the dense?

 

I should know better than to try to argue finance with someone who obviously learns his fiscal theories from reading Paul Krugman's editorials.

 

Do you even know the difference between on-budget and off-budget items? Do you care to explain why the proposed Bush plan would increase the deficit in the short term?

 

I'll save you the trouble of looking it up.

 

Welcome to Federal Government Accounting Gimmics 101. The future staggering SS payments are off-budget items that are not reflected in your trite $30 trillion example. By privatizing a portion of SSI, the Bush plan would borrow real money to pay for the transition costs, where anyone 50 yrs + would not loose a dime of their promised SSI entitlements. What the plan will do, is lower the future expected payouts out of the system - which are really a transfer tax from the current workers to the retirees. The future SSI obligations are very real, and they number much higher than $2-$3 trillion, but they are not counted in the budget calculations. If corporations used that type of accounting, jail cells would be lined with a lot of Brooks Brothers suits. (Still with me?)

 

If you do a present value analysis of pre-funding the payments now, at an estimated present cost of $2-$3 trillion, you would still be ahead of the unfunded, but very much contracted obligations in the future.

 

To put it simply, the demographics of this country cannot support the SSI system which was designed when the ratio of workers to retirees was very high. If you implement a solution where you simply raise the tax on the current workers, you guarantee contnuing economic malaise where all your marginal earnings go to pay off the retiree obligations. You're basically stuck in neutral, and nobody wins.

 

As to the ridiculous point of covering dependents, please tell me how a plan that takes benefits away when you die is better than a plan that still leaves assets to the beneficiaries after you die.

 

To resort to the misquoted parable of "What's best for GM is best for USA," look no further than the reality UAW just faced by dropping retiree health benefits by 25%. You cannot sustain a plan that was designed for a different era, and expect to sweep the problem under the rug for 50 years because it won't be your problem at that time.

[Live&DieBillsFootball]

If you do a present value analysis of pre-funding the payments now, at an estimated present cost of $2-$3 trillion, you would still be ahead of the unfunded, but very much contracted obligations in the future.

479064[/snapback]

 

And that present value of $2-$3 trillion only covers a small switch to private accounts along the lines of 1-2% of a workers SS taxes. KRC plan allows workers to checkoff their entire SS tax of 14% or so, which will cost infinitely more in present value conversion costs.

 

As to the ridiculous point of covering dependents, please tell me how a plan that takes benefits away when you die is better than a plan that still leaves assets to the beneficiaries after you die.

 

They don't take away your benefits when you die. Your dependents can receive benefits until they are 18 yrs old. Also, your spouse can claim the retirement benefits when he or she turns 62. If an income provider dies young with children, the children and the surviving spouse will probably receive much more than the worker ever put into the system.

 

 

To resort to the misquoted parable of "What's best for GM is best for USA," look no further than the reality UAW just faced by dropping retiree health benefits by 25%.  You cannot sustain a plan that was designed for a different era, and expect to sweep the problem under the rug for 50 years because it won't be your problem at that time.

479064[/snapback]

 

I agree with you that pension plans and SS are unsustainable programs. Unfortunately, any proposal that I have seen for private accounts fails to adequately address conversion costs without skyrocketing debt.

 

Possibly a better approach to private accounts is to let workers withhold amounts above the current SS tax rate to go towards private accounts. Let the accounts grow tax-free but reduce SS benefits as a trade-off. Start with the top earners who can grow private accounts faster and can live easier with a lower SS benefit and gradually move the program to lower paid workers. In this manner, you cut SS benefit growth but provide a means of converting to private accounts without the huge transition costs.

 

BTW, I don't know who Paul Krugman even is.

[GG]

And that present value of $2-$3 trillion only covers a small switch to private accounts along the lines of 1-2% of a workers SS taxes.  KRC plan allows workers to checkoff their entire SS tax of 14% or so, which will cost infinitely more in present value conversion costs.

 

First of all, KRC never threw out the 14% figure you did. I presume that you get that number by taking the total SS tax into the mix.

 

However, no matter how many times KRC and others say that the privitization would be phased in, and people will still have the option of being full participants in the government's plan, which will dramatically lower the transition costs, that point is obviously lost on you. Maybe it needs to be reinforced in bold red, again.

 

Throwing big numbers in bold lettering isn't going to work with me, because you cannot argue that incurring a "real" debt obligation now is worse than saving us from a larger "not real" debt obligation in the future. I suggest picking up a few accounting books to study.

 

They don't take away your benefits when you die.  Your dependents can receive benefits until they are 18 yrs old.  Also, your spouse can claim the retirement benefits when he or she turns 62.  If an income provider dies young with children, the children and the surviving spouse will probably receive much more than the worker ever put into the system.

 

And what is the actuarial number of people who qualify for SS benefits and die with young children in the household? The provision for the spouse to continue receiving benefits is for the survivor not to remarry. Otherwise, the benefits stop. Benefits also stop upon the surviving spouse's death. Nice.

 

 

I agree with you that pension plans and SS are unsustainable programs.  Unfortunately, any proposal that I have seen for private accounts fails to adequately address conversion costs without skyrocketing debt.

 

Those big words again. If you claim that the transition costs are "skyrocketing" what word would you use to describe the actual accrued but unpaid benefits?

 

Possibly a better approach to private accounts is to let workers withhold amounts above the current SS tax rate to go towards private accounts.  Let the accounts grow tax-free but reduce SS benefits as a trade-off.  Start with the top earners who can grow private accounts faster and can live easier with a lower SS benefit and gradually move the program to lower paid workers.  In this manner, you cut SS benefit growth but provide a means of converting to private accounts without the huge transition costs.

 

That's a great idea. We should also see if private employers can help out with the implementation of these plans. Maybe we can give them catchy names that people can remember, like IRA or 401k.

[Live&DieBillsFootball]

First of all, KRC never threw out the 14% figure you did.  I presume that you get that number by taking the total SS tax into the mix. 

 

However, no matter how many times KRC and others say that the privitization would be phased in, and people will still have the option of being full participants in the government's plan, which will dramatically lower the transition costs, that point is obviously lost on you.  Maybe it needs to be reinforced in bold red, again.

 

Bush's plan calls for 1-2% of SS tax for private accounts, and estimates the costs at $2-3 Trillion. 1-2% isn't going to amount to much for most people and the cost is astronomical. How slow will KRC's phase-in be if it only costs us a few billion that can be paid with government waste? If his plan is optional and it is so good, wouldn't you think that more people would opt in which would drive the transition costs up. What percentage is he talking about, and what will the transition costs be for it? I guess the laws of mathematics are quite different in your part of the world.

 

Throwing big numbers in bold lettering isn't going to work with me, because you cannot argue that incurring a "real" debt obligation now is worse than saving us from a larger "not real" debt obligation in the future.  I suggest picking up a few accounting books to study.

 

I'm not the one proposing borrowing trillions of dollars. I proposed raising the ceiling on the SS tax which will lower future obligations. Maybe before you open an Accounting book, you might want to try Hooked on Phonics to work on your reading comprehension.

 

And what is the actuarial number of people who qualify for SS benefits and die with young children in the household?

 

I have no idea.  But it is a part of the Social Security system in addition to SSDI that no one who talks up private accounts wants to address.

 

Those big words again.  If you claim that the transition costs are "skyrocketing" what word would you use to describe the actual accrued but unpaid benefits?

I would use the same word to describe the accrued but unpaid benefits.  That's why I advocate doing something about it by raising the ceiling on SS tax.  Bush's plan as proposed is DOA because it is like putting a bandaid on a hole in the dike and still runs up Trillions in new debt.

 

That's a great idea.  We should also see if private employers can help out with the implementation of these plans.  Maybe we can give them catchy names that people can remember, like IRA or 401k.

479249[/snapback]

 

That's exactly my point. People are currently putting a lot more money into 401k's and 403b's,etc than the measly 1-2% that Bush proposes that people can put in private accounts. For most workers, 1-2% will end up as a pretty small nest egg especially since he wants to cut their SS benefits at the same time. Not to mention the $2-3 Trillion in new debt.

 

Sorry, but I would rather eliminate the SS tax ceiling to raise more funds and/or institute means-testing as a way to drastically cut benefits.

[Mickey]

As far as the total cost of the plan, I do not know. Keep in mind that it is not a fully private system. It is only private for the people who want to control their money. There is still the option for the government plan for the people who feel that the government can control their money better than they can. It will also be a gradual conversion, starting with the youngest workers. This will spread out the costs.

 

BTW, Tom DeLay is an idiot for saying that. Anyone with half a brain knows that his statement was ridiculous.

479020[/snapback]

Is that a hidden slam at the grant I received for my research on multiple orgasms? I don't mind trimming the fat but that would be cutting the bone, marrow and all.

[KRC]

Is that a hidden slam at the grant I received for my research on multiple orgasms?  I don't mind trimming the fat but that would be cutting the bone, marrow and all.

479443[/snapback]

 

Hey...play with your bone on someone else's dollar, not mine.

[Alaska Darin]

I'm n ot against private accounts, but wouldn't it be easier to just push social security back, so you get it at a much later age- like about 15 more years? I think when it started, it began about 3-4 years before someone's life expectency was up. This could be used to transition us into privatized accounts if that even happens

478967[/snapback]

There aren't enough "welcome to Walmart" jobs available to folks in that age bracket, brother.

[GG]

Bush's plan calls for 1-2% of SS tax for private accounts, and estimates the costs at $2-3 Trillion.  1-2% isn't going to amount to much for most people and the cost is astronomical.  How slow will KRC's phase-in be if it only costs us a few billion that can be paid with government waste?  If his plan is optional and it is so good, wouldn't you think that more people would opt in which would drive the transition costs up.  What percentage is he talking about, and what will the transition costs be for it?  I guess the laws of mathematics are quite different in your part of the world.

 

Since you're chiding me on my math skills, I would appreciate it if you stopped using a hypothetical present value calculation that is a net long term benefit, as a cost.

 

Since I know that KRC is an ****, his transition plan would be 30 days, and everyone would lose their benefits, thus negating even your high cost assumptions. But since he hasn't provided the details on his plans, it's unwise to assume that his plan would be more or less expensive than the hypothetical Bush non-plan.

 

But in any event, if you make the prudent assumption that future benefits are real costs (which you still fail to acknowledge), then any program that will reduce future obligations where the present value of the current cost is less than the present value of the future payouts makes a hell of a lot of sense (at least to people who understand division and multiplication).

 

I'm not the one proposing borrowing trillions of dollars.  I proposed raising the ceiling on the SS tax which will lower future obligations.  Maybe before you open an Accounting book, you might want to try Hooked on Phonics to work on your reading comprehension.

 

Good thing that people who do this for a living recognize that taxing the rich is not sound fiscal policy, but makes for great political strategy.

 

Have you considered the impact on GDP when you raise the marginal tax rate on the top 25% earners by 50%?

 

Put it simply, your plan will slow down the economy, which will lead to higher unemployment, which will slow down income generation, meaning that your great tax policy will ensure that the benefits will be underfunded since your tax base is further eroded. Meanwhile older people live longer and you tax the crap out of the lucky souls who still have a job.

 

Since you refuse to open up an accounting book, I'll ask this question. If you are so worried about billions of dollars of debt, which is a safer investment - buying bonds of a company that has $1bn in debt and $500 million in earnings, or a company that has $500MM in debt and $50 million in earnings? From your logic, the guy with $1 Bn in debt is much worse than the guy will less debt.

 

Debt in itself isn't evil. You always have to look at it relative to GDP. Right now, the deficit relative to GDP is not bad, and adding the transition costs will improve the Fed, because people who actually set the market interest rates understand that prefunding future retirement benefits is a good thing.

 

I have no idea.  But it is a part of the Social Security system in addition to SSDI that no one who talks up private accounts wants to address.

 

You've already been corrected in this thread not to mix Social Security with SSDI, yet you persist.

 

My point is that it is an actuarial non-entity, since a very low percentage of people who qualify for Social Security have kids under 18.

 

I would use the same word to describe the accrued but unpaid benefits.  That's why I advocate doing something about it by raising the ceiling on SS tax.  Bush's plan as proposed is DOA because it is like putting a bandaid on a hole in the dike and still runs up Trillions in new debt.

That's exactly my point.  People are currently putting a lot more money into 401k's and 403b's,etc than the measly 1-2% that Bush proposes that people can put in private accounts.  For most workers, 1-2% will end up as a pretty small nest egg especially since he wants to cut their SS benefits at the same time.  Not to mention the $2-3 Trillion in new debt.

 

Sorry, but I would rather eliminate the SS tax ceiling to raise more funds and/or institute means-testing as a way to drastically cut benefits.

479407[/snapback]

 

The whole reason to phase in private accounts is to get the government out of the business of providing defined benefit pensions, since the demographics are going the other way. People are putting money into 401k because they get full control of their contributions, and if invested wisely, don't need to worry about their company being around when they retire.

 

No one is talking about doing away with SS. The moves are sensible to avert bankrupting the future generations. Too bad the ignorant populace falls prey to the Bush - Bad, More Debt - Bad idiocy.

[Campy]

But in any event, if you make the prudent assumption that future benefits are real costs (which you still fail to acknowledge), then any program that will reduce future obligations where the present value of the current cost is less than the present value of the future payouts makes a hell of a lot of sense

479834[/snapback]

Damn, I was just about to say that!

[gmac17]

Damn, I was just about to say that!

 

Campy, I thought you were about to retract your statement that they soldiers were told how to answer....please post up some links to where they were given the answers...we're still waiting...

[Adam]

That is an option, but not an option that will fly with the public. You need a solution that does not increase taxes and does not cut benefits.

478982[/snapback]

I know this statement won't be popular, but why should popularity with the public matter- isn't the role of Government to do whats best long term, and not give into what the public sees as the flavor of the week?

[Live&DieBillsFootball]

Have you considered the impact on GDP when you raise the marginal tax rate on the top 25% earners by 50%?   

 

479834[/snapback]

 

Have you considered that the current marginal tax rate on these top 25% of earners is zero? Lifting the ceiling only makes their marginal tax rate the same as the marginal tax rate for the bottom 25% of earners.

 

Did raising the ceiling on Medicare tax lead to the same dire consequences and the end of civilization as we know it? So, the rich have to pay the same rate as low income people on every dollar of earnings. Sounds fair to me.

[Live&DieBillsFootball]

I know this statement won't be popular, but why should popularity with the public matter- isn't the role of Government to do whats best long term, and not give into what the public sees as the flavor of the week?

479953[/snapback]

 

No, the role of government is to do what's best for the lobbyist who pays for Tom Delay's golf trip, or for Ted Kennedy's bar tab, or Nancy Pelosi's face lift.

[Adam]

No, the role of government is to do what's best for the lobbyist who pays for Tom Delay's golf trip, or for Ted Kennedy's bar tab, or Nancy Pelosi's face lift. 

479993[/snapback]

I know you're kidding, but you make a very valid point- Government has become too political- and I mean both sides