Great article on social Security

[BengalsCat]

Democrats Can't Just Criticize On Social Security
By Mort Kondracke

It's time for Democrats to declare what kind of Social Security reform they favor. Even former President Bill Clinton thinks so. Yet the Democrats persist in attacking President Bush's ideas - often misleadingly.

Clinton told ABC's "Good Morning America" - in an exchange curiously not broadcast - "I think Democrats should say what they are for on Social Security in the next couple weeks. ... Democrats should have a plan and they should talk to the president and Congressional Republicans about it."

According to ABC's political blog, The Note, Clinton said he didn't think Democrats deserved criticism for not producing a plan yet and that they still had time to produce one. But he added, "I think they need to come up with a plan of their own."

Democrats had a good opportunity when the Ways and Means Committee launched Social Security hearings. But they blew it.

As in the past, all Democrats did was attack Bush's plan, demand that he take it "off the table" before any bargaining begins and question the bona fides of a Democratic expert, Robert Pozen, whose "progressive indexing" proposal the White House has endorsed.

Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.), the ranking member on Ways and Means, actually said he didn't care what the substance of Pozen's plan was. It was sufficient to disqualify Pozen that he's an investment banker.

One Democrat after another adopted the line that Bush plans "deep cuts" in Social Security benefits "to pay for private accounts" and that practically every retiree will suffer losses through the combination.

But the "deep cuts" notion ignores that fact that, under current law, benefits will automatically be slashed by at least 27 percent for everyone in [b]2041, when the Social Security system is expected to go bankrupt[/b] ([i]But no the democrats say there is nothing wrong with social securtiy fucking right fucking dumbasses) [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/30.gif[/img] They know its going to go broke but they still say nothing is wrong... [/i]Bush's plan will slow the rate of increases in benefits for many retirees to keep the system solvent, and will allow younger workers the chance to invest part of their Social Security taxes in private markets to lessen the losses.

Democrats say, consistently, that Bush wants to "privatize" Social Security, as though all 12.6 percent of an individual's payroll taxes would be invested in the stock market. In fact, he's creating an opportunity for 4 percent of it to be invested. At worst, that's "partial privatization." And, it's voluntary. No one would be required to take part.

Moreover, the Social Security system's actuaries, whom everyone relies on for accurate analyses of various plans, confirm that under the Bush-Pozen plan no one would ever receive a smaller benefit than current retirees do. Democratic charges of "cuts" refer to reductions below promised benefits which are unsustainable without significant tax increases and which are scheduled to be reduced under current law.

Pozen's "progressive indexing" plan is designed to ensure that lower-income workers are fully protected against any "cut" in benefits.

According to the actuaries, in 2050, a low-income retiree (whose average earnings were in the lowest 20 percent) would be entitled to $866 per month if currently promised (but unsustainable) benefits are paid.

If no reforms are undertaken and automatic cuts go into effect, the benefit would be slashed to $653 per month. Under the Pozen plan, which indexes benefits for lower-income persons to average wages, recipients would get 100 percent of the promised benefit, $866.

People in the middle 20 percent of wage-earners are being promised $1,670 a month, but will get only $1,208 if automatic cuts go into effect.

Under Pozen's plan, this group's benefits would be indexed half to prices (which rise more slowly than wages) and half to wages, with the benefit worth $1,380 a month in 2050.

Those in the highest 20 percent of wages are being promised $2,127 a month in 2050, but would get $1,527 if automatic cuts go into effect. With their benefits pegged to prices, they'd get $1,626 under the Pozen plan.

The people who eventually would get less than the benefits available after automatic cuts are that same cohort of high-earners - the highest 20 percent, but their cut only kicks in starting in 2075. They would get 10 percent less.

[b]Even though Democrats portray themselves as protectors of the poor and middle class, they've started attacking Pozen and Bush for "means testing" Social Security and thereby threatening to turn it into a "welfare" program, undermining its "universal support."[/b]

[b]But as the numbers above indicate, Social Security benefits already are tied to average incomes. Moreover, even though higher-income earners get more benefits than lower-income workers, current law (and the Pozen plan) gives the poor a higher percentage of their average pay. [/b]

Also, Social Security benefits are taxed at progressive rates. So "means testing" already exists. [b]Private accounts would give lower-income workers, if they choose, an opportunity to own a piece of the economy, as middle- and higher-income people do through 401(k) accounts and IRAs. [/b]

By opposing both private accounts and benefit reductions, Democrats have left as the only logical alternatives a tax increase and/or the extension of the retirement age. Both of those deserve to be considered - and so does the proposal by Rep. Nancy Johnson (R-Conn.) that homemakers be credited with earnings for benefit purposes.

There is certainly room for improving on Bush's proposals. But for that to happen, Democrats have to put forward some ideas.

[Guest bengalrick]

god do we need to get this done... what is the arguement against private accounts again? the deficit? so lets screw me and my children (retirement wise) b/c of mistakes that have been made for 60+ years...

let us take the burden of a deficit ( the same type of burden every other generation has) and fix the program... i could list 20 or so reasons to do this programs, i'd like to hear 20 reasons why not? anyone?

i also read somewhere (if i find the article, i'll post it) that there are like 140 economists that suppport partial private accounts... think about if we had 140 economists that opposed private accounts... i don't have to be scared about saying that, b/c there isn't that many professionals against it...

[Ben]

I like the ideas of private accounts, SS started out in the hole and has never caught up. I have been setting up my retirment w/ the assumption SS will not be there.

I would just like some more details before i give it the Ben Seal of Approval.

[Guest bengalrick]

lol... i totally agree... i am not blind to the fact that a program can sound great on the outside, but not be what we need...

i have also set up my retirement w/ the assumption that i'm on my own... maybe its better that way.... i just wish i could have the 6% i pay every check and the 6% my employer pays b/c of my employment... i could use that 12% every check...

[Guest bengaljet]

SS,that's a good one. Let's go on W's effectiveness when dealing with money issues.
1. National debt has increased more under W in the last 4 yrs. that at any time---$3.5+ trillion. Good conservative approach with a Repub. House + Senate

2. RECORD trade deficits.

3. Loss of good paying jobs

4. An economy in Ohio that Republican Sen G Voinovich called "abysmal" on the Senater floor

5. Gas prices $2.00+/ gal

There are many more,but just look at his handling of these.

Yeh,he's done so well on money matters-Yes W please tell me how to spend SS.
Another case of the blind leading the blind.

Privatize says W(I got a good plan and you say oh-he's got a good plan)-now explain it-Mr. Ideas need to be explained in "YOUR OWN WORDS" W,in your own words.

I think Dems are letting him hang himself cause he really can not say more than-Privatize.

Where's his success in dealing with any money matters- OIL ?

[Ben]

[quote name='bengaljet' date='May 17 2005, 02:52 PM']SS,that's a good one. Let's go on W's effectiveness when dealing with money issues.
1. National debt has increased more under W in the last 4 yrs. that at any time---$3.5+ trillion. Good conservative approach with a Repub. House + Senate

2. RECORD trade deficits.

3. Loss of good paying jobs

4. An economy in Ohio that Republican Sen G Voinovich called "abysmal" on the Senater floor

5. Gas prices $2.00+/ gal

There are many more,but just look at his handling of these.

Yeh,he's done so well on money matters-Yes W please tell me how to spend SS.
Another case of the blind leading the blind.

Privatize says W(I got a good plan and you say oh-he's got a good plan)-now explain it-Mr. Ideas need to be explained in "YOUR OWN WORDS" W,in your own words.

I think Dems are letting him hang himself cause he really can not say more than-Privatize.

Where's his success in dealing with any money matters-  OIL ?
[right][post="93306"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


As most know around here... I am far from a GWB suppoter, but give the man credit where credit is due. This sounds like a good idea on the surface. Just the fact that the 12% Bengalrick is talkign about above goes back into the economy instead of the SS cesspool has to help.

[BengalsCat]

[quote name='bengaljet' date='May 17 2005, 03:52 PM']SS,that's a good one. Let's go on W's effectiveness when dealing with money issues.
1. National debt has increased more under W in the last 4 yrs. that at any time---$3.5+ trillion. Good conservative approach with a Repub. House + Senate

2. RECORD trade deficits.

3. Loss of good paying jobs

4. An economy in Ohio that Republican Sen G Voinovich called "abysmal" on the Senater floor

5. Gas prices $2.00+/ gal

There are many more,but just look at his handling of these.

Yeh,he's done so well on money matters-Yes W please tell me how to spend SS.
Another case of the blind leading the blind.

Privatize says W(I got a good plan and you say oh-he's got a good plan)-now explain it-Mr. Ideas need to be explained in "YOUR OWN WORDS" W,in your own words.

I think Dems are letting him hang himself cause he really can not say more than-Privatize.

Where's his success in dealing with any money matters-  OIL ?
[right][post="93306"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

I dont think you have a brain in your head???????? r u seriouse he is giving us plenty of reason why we should privitise account u dumbass the dems are refusing to even listen to overture to reform ss... But i am sure u have the perfect way dont u. God Damn please learn to think before u go shouting all that fucking babble u said all of one thing that had to do with the point at hand... jesus crist Do i need to hold ur hand and try to explain we are talking about social security not gas price << which bush has nothing to do with this is a private industry dumbass.
Next << Nation debt is going up do To war.. War cost money. More money then we were spending then we were in peace time. But aparently that doesnt make sense to you???

Why shouldnt we try at least to do something with social security it is going to die in about 30 years when i want mine. So why not try to revamp it now instead of paying into something that doest work?????

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Ben' date='May 17 2005, 03:06 PM']As most know around here... I am far from a GWB suppoter, but give the man credit where credit is due.  This sounds like a good idea on the surface.  Just the fact that the 12% Bengalrick is talkign about above goes back into the economy instead of the  SS cesspool has to help.
[right][post="93315"][/post][/right][/quote]

you always say you lean left... but this is about as smart of a conservative thought, that i've heard... are u sure your more liberal, ben?

[Guest bengaljet]

[quote name='BengalsCat' date='May 17 2005, 03:08 PM']I dont think you have a brain in your head???????? r u seriouse he is giving us plenty of reason why we should privitise account u dumbass the dems are refusing to even listen to overture to reform ss... But i am sure u have the perfect way dont u. God Damn please learn to think before u go shouting all that fucking babble u said all of one thing that had to do with the point at hand... jesus crist Do i need to hold ur hand and try to explain we are talking about social security not gas price << which bush has nothing to do with this is a private industry dumbass.
Next << Nation debt is going up do To war.. War cost money. More money then we were spending then we were in peace time. But aparently that doesnt make sense to you???

Why shouldnt we try at least to do something with social security it is going to die in about 30 years when i want mine. So why not try to revamp it now instead of paying into something that doest work?????
[right][post="93317"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

u stupid dumbass,hilljack-Here's my point you clueless a$$wipe tickturd lamebrain piece of used toilet paper for a brain. Name me one thing this guy has done to show you that "he knows anything about spending money wisely"? SS $$ needs to be spent wisely.

You really are a clueless turd-put your hands back in your pants and play with your friend. Everything W has touched ends up for the worse.

War costs money huh-no chit sherlock. Iraq War was supposed to be $2 billion and is now over $300 Billion-Get the picture Frog eyes? Let me give you a little history lesson pee brain. What do you think the National Deficit was for this country in the first 204 yrs of this country(1776-1980)? Name all the wars from 1776-1980(hell as smart as you are-no problem,I don't trust you so start with the debt from Revolutionary War,Indian Wars,War of 1812,Spainish-American,Mexican,WWI,WWII,Korea,Vietnam--blows the hell out of your debt going up during war at least at w's pace),and built this country from the backwoods to landing on the moon and the National Deficit was almost $1 trillion dollars over that time period.

Your stupidity is only overshadowed by your absolute ignorance.

So here it is again bruno-What has your man ever done to show that he has any clue on how to invest this money-where's the success?

Yes u r right W can't be responsible for gas prices cause you have to be able to spell it before you can be responsible for it , G-A-S. But Clinton and Carter were responsible -oh yes we had a different form of gov't back then.

Take the blinders off and pull your head out of your a$$.

[Jamie_B]

Are jet and cat having a contest that the rest of us are unaware of, of who can cuss more in their post?

[BengalsCat]

[quote name='bengaljet' date='May 17 2005, 04:45 PM']u stupid dumbass,hilljack-Here's my point you clueless a$$wipe tickturd lamebrain piece of used toilet paper for a brain. Name me one thing this guy has done to show you that "he knows anything about spending money wisely"? SS $$ needs to be spent wisely.

You really are a clueless turd-put your hands back in your pants and play with your friend. Everything W has touched ends up for the worse.

War costs money huh-no chit sherlock. Iraq War was supposed to be $2 billion and is now over $300 Billion-Get the picture Frog eyes? Let me give you a little history lesson pee brain. What do you think the National Deficit was for this country in the first 204 yrs of this country(1776-1980)? Name all the wars from 1776-1980(hell as smart as you are-no problem,I don't trust you so start with the debt from Revolutionary War,Indian Wars,War of 1812,Spainish-American,Mexican,WWI,WWII,Korea,Vietnam--blows the hell out of your debt going up during war at least at w's pace),and built this country from the backwoods to landing on the moon and the National Deficit was almost $1 trillion dollars over that time period.

Your stupidity is only overshadowed by your absolute ignorance.

So here it is again bruno-What has your man ever done to show that he has any clue on how to invest this money-where's the success?

Yes u r right W can't be responsible for gas prices cause you have to be able to spell it before you can be responsible for it , G-A-S. But Clinton and Carter were responsible -oh yes we had a different form of gov't back then.
[b]
Take the blinders off and pull your head out of your a$$.[/b]
[right][post="93338"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

Think you need to follow ur own advice. U still dont get it though man ur not saying a thing. Ur saying bush is stupid.. OK u notice his name isnt the only one on the social security plan. A man who is investment banker. Who does this shit for a living. It is considered bushes intiative because he is pushing it but is it all his plan hell no. And as ur comments about war have u ever heard about inflatinon maybe?? or the increased cost of technology. In ww2 we were building rifles and builts for a fraction of the prices that shit cost today so should the national debt go up fast now then it did in the past yes it should. but thats common econmoics which aparently u have no grasp at ohh shit............. go figure. U still havent said on how the democrats even expect to put in a dent in the problem. So go ahead please enlighten me... all i got out of ur post was ass and gas... thats it. u

[Guest bengalrick]

jet,i asked for reasons why this program wouldn't work, not why you don't like bush... there are plenty of threads for that...

advantages:
1. its our money
2. the SS program would still be there, for disability and those that want to continue that program
3. it gives wealth to everyone, instead of promises
4. if the market goes down, its our money to lose, not the gov't's
5. i would rather have my money to spend, then let the gov't hand it back out and use the surpluss to fund other programs...
6. every senator has a thrift savings plan (which is similar to what we'd have)... if its good enough for them, why not me?
7. there are "450 economists, including 5 Nobel laureates, from across the country who have publicly endorsed personal accounts for Social Security."[url="http://www.socialsecuritychoice.org/archives/2005/05/450_reminders_t.php"]click here[/url]
8. if we do nothing, we will have to raise taxes.. that 12% would need to be around 14%... raising taxes = very bad
9. we are going to have a huge hit in benefits when the program is offically bankrupt... status quo won't work
10. the average gain is 6%+ in the market... the current system is 0% b/c we don't invest any of it.

there are 10 reason to support my ideas... these are just the beginning... can anyone come up w/ even 10 reasons why private accounts are not the way to go?

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='bengalrick' date='May 17 2005, 04:57 PM']jet,i asked for reasons why this program wouldn't work, not why you don't like bush... there are plenty of threads for that...

advantages:
1. its our money
2. the SS program would still be there, for disability and those that want to continue that program
3. it gives wealth to everyone, instead of promises
4. if the market goes down, its our money to lose, not the gov't's
5. i would rather have my money to spend, then let the gov't hand it back out and use the surpluss to fund other programs...
6. every senator has a thrift savings plan (which is similar to what we'd have)... if its good enough for them, why not me?
7. there are "450 economists, including 5 Nobel laureates, from across the country who have publicly endorsed personal accounts for Social Security."[url="http://www.socialsecuritychoice.org/archives/2005/05/450_reminders_t.php"]click here[/url]
8. if we do nothing, we will have to raise taxes.. that 12% would need to be around 14%... raising taxes = very bad
9. we are going to have a huge hit in benefits when the program is offically bankrupt... status quo won't work
10. the average gain is 6%+ in the market... the current system is 0% b/c we don't invest any of it.

there are 10 reason to support my ideas... these are just the beginning... can anyone come up w/ even 10 reasons why private accounts are not the way to go?
[right][post="93345"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


11. You have a [b]choice[/b] wether you particapate or not, its not forced on you.

[BengalsCat]

[quote name='bengalrick' date='May 17 2005, 04:57 PM']jet,i asked for reasons why this program wouldn't work, not why you don't like bush... there are plenty of threads for that...

advantages:
1. its our money
2. the SS program would still be there, for disability and those that want to continue that program
3. it gives wealth to everyone, instead of promises
4. if the market goes down, its our money to lose, not the gov't's
5. i would rather have my money to spend, then let the gov't hand it back out and use the surpluss to fund other programs...
6. every senator has a thrift savings plan (which is similar to what we'd have)... if its good enough for them, why not me?
7. there are "450 economists, including 5 Nobel laureates, from across the country who have publicly endorsed personal accounts for Social Security."[url="http://www.socialsecuritychoice.org/archives/2005/05/450_reminders_t.php"]click here[/url]
8. if we do nothing, we will have to raise taxes.. that 12% would need to be around 14%... raising taxes = very bad
9. we are going to have a huge hit in benefits when the program is offically bankrupt... status quo won't work
10. the average gain is 6%+ in the market... the current system is 0% b/c we don't invest any of it.

there are 10 reason to support my ideas... these are just the beginning... can anyone come up w/ even 10 reasons why private accounts are not the way to go?
[right][post="93345"][/post][/right][/quote]


Ohh i know i know... cause its bushes idea.. thats why...... [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//32.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//32.gif[/img]

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='May 17 2005, 04:03 PM']11. You have a [b]choice[/b] wether you particapate or not, its not forced on you.
[right][post="93348"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

duh on me... the most important reason...

[Guest bengaljet]

let's go at it a different way. I'm saying everything tha t W has been involved with concerning $$ has went wrong. SHOW me 1 little success. If a guy builds airplanes and the 1st 5 crash are you going to buy the 6th ?

On the cost of bullets ,guns ,etc. W has grown the debt $3.5 +trillion.The War on Terrorism cost $300 billion.

$3.500+ trillion
- $ 300 billion
_____________

$3.2 trillion

So where did W invest the $3.2 trillion +?
What hidden success story do we have with this borrowed money?What'd we get with it? Where's it at? Oh it's just gone-kinda like the $9 billion lost in Iraq---War is hard.

I've shown examples why I ? anything that w wants to do with money is a red flag for me. Now you tell me all the successes and how these successes can relate to SS.

I'm talking about past failures with $ and why I don't trust w on SS $$. Give me the successes....from his past to present. You want to add another $2 trillion to debt to get this plan going-another loss?

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='bengaljet' date='May 17 2005, 05:34 PM']let's go at it a different way. I'm saying everything tha t W has been involved with concerning $$ has went wrong. SHOW me 1 little success. If a guy builds airplanes and the 1st 5 crash are you going to buy the 6th ?

On the cost of bullets ,guns ,etc. W has grown the debt $3.5 +trillion.The War on Terrorism cost $300 billion.

  $3.500+ trillion
-  $  300 billion
_____________

$3.2 trillion

So where did W invest the $3.2 trillion +?
What hidden success story do we have with this borrowed money?What'd we get with it? Where's it at? Oh it's just gone-kinda like the $9 billion lost in Iraq---War is hard. 

I've shown examples why I ? anything that w wants to do with money is a red flag for me. Now you tell me all the successes and how these successes can relate to SS.

I'm talking about past failures with $ and why I don't trust w on SS $$. Give me the successes....from his past to present. You want to add another $2 trillion to debt to get this plan going-another loss?
[right][post="93374"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


You are aware that some of the money is going towards the rebuilding of Iraq effort and not just the war on terrorism? They are going to have things that didnt have pre-war effort.

[BengalsCat]

[quote name='bengaljet' date='May 17 2005, 05:34 PM']let's go at it a different way. I'm saying everything tha t W has been involved with concerning $$ has went wrong. SHOW me 1 little success. If a guy builds airplanes and the 1st 5 crash are you going to buy the 6th ?

On the cost of bullets ,guns ,etc. W has grown the debt $3.5 +trillion.The War on Terrorism cost $300 billion.

  $3.500+ trillion
-  $  300 billion
_____________

$3.2 trillion

So where did W invest the $3.2 trillion +?
What hidden success story do we have with this borrowed money?What'd we get with it? Where's it at? Oh it's just gone-kinda like the $9 billion lost in Iraq---War is hard. 

I've shown examples why I ? anything that w wants to do with money is a red flag for me. Now you tell me all the successes and how these successes can relate to SS.

I'm talking about past failures with $ and why I don't trust w on SS $$. Give me the successes....from his past to present. You want to add another $2 trillion to debt to get this plan going-another loss?
[right][post="93374"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


So what do you do with your money??? can i ask you that? do you invest it in the stock market?? if so who do u use do u do it yourself????? Well i know i go to a stock broker. Bush got the idea from a Investment Banker is the one handling the plan. Tell me you dont give ur money to a fince guy to invest for you fine. Keep the shit ur self dont invest in the plan. But personaly i am sick of paying taxes into something that is not going to be there when i need it.

[Guest bengalrick]

this is truely sad... i will say it again... give me reasons... if you can't think of reasons why the system wouldn't work, give me solutions... lets debate...

i'm tired of reading why bush is so bad... i realize you and others hate them... this isn't about politics jet.. this is about my (and assuming your around my age) your future retirement...

i want real reasons... not why bush isn't to be trusted w/ money...

and to answer your question about success's, when he and greenspan (sure bush has nothing to do w/ interest rates, but you like to lump bush into everything so i will to) lowered rates at the beginning of 2001, that was because we were in a RECESSION... the economy has been better ever since... unless bush did all this trouble in a year, it wasn't his recession... but reguardless, we pulled out of it in record time...

[img]http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Interactives/Business/Economy/Federal_rate_121404.gif[/img]

this huge rate drop might have raised our inflation a little, but it also stimulated our economy to where it is today... and that is strong... hense the rates have only gone up since that point... that means that the economy is getting stronger, b/c it can afford to take more taxes from me and you... that is one way, but i'm sure you will say "but what about inflation"... my answer to that is if it wasn't for the interest rate cuts, we would have gotten out of the recession about 6 months ago...

<edit> notice the extreme rate hikes '94 on... we can't see further back than that, but don't you find it interesting that our gov't was doing "so good" with clinton, that as soon as he left, we had a recession... that is b/c the economy reacts somewhat slow, and after all these years of high rates, it came down hard... this graph is a great example of the difference between republican and democratic presidecies... rep.'s are for lower taxes (interest rates are the same thing really) and democrats want our money to use for their programs... fuck that... i want it!!

also notice that after the rate lowering in 2000, it was quickly raised again... you want to know why? to fuck bush










j/k, its b/c he wanted his "balanced budget" we always hear about... thanks clinton...

[Guest bengalrick]

[url="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0505190156may19,0,2233758.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed"]click here[/url]
[quote][b]A real opportunity to fix Social Security[/b]

By Richard Parsons
chairman and CEO of Time Warner Inc
Published May 19, 2005


When my father retired, after years as an electronics technician, he was looking forward to reaping the rewards of a lifetime of hard work, financed by at least two monthly checks: one from his company pension and the other from Social Security.

There was only one problem. Due to the unforeseen misfortunes of his company, that pension check stopped coming. Thank God for Social Security.

Without it, I shudder to think what life would have been like for my father and millions of others who have seen their promised pensions vanish like desert mirages in recent years. The irony today is that the same funding mechanism that brought down many private-sector pension systems now threatens Social Security. As President Bush put it during his recent news conference, "There's a hole in the safety net." And that hole looks suspiciously like the one my father almost fell through.

The truth is, as I learned during the time I spent co-chairing President Bush's Commission to Strengthen Social Security in 2001, a pay-as-you-go option for funding pension plans--now denied by law to corporations, but still the Model-T engine driving Social Security--becomes unsustainable as the number of retirees grows and their life span lengthens. It is a question of changing demographics. Either Social Security changes with them or it becomes a broken promise that will have devastating consequences, especially for middle- and low-income Americans.

If you look at any major newspaper today, you're likely to read conflicting views on what the future holds for Social Security. As my commission co-chair, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, put it, "You're entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own set of facts."

So let's look at the facts. In 1950, there were 16 workers supporting every retiree in Social Security's pay-as-you-go financing system. That meant taxes were relatively low.

Today, there are roughly three workers supporting each retiree, thus a higher tax burden per worker. By 2030, there will be only two workers for each retiree. This downward trend in the ratio of workers to retirees will inexorably require painful tax increases or significant benefit cuts or astronomical levels of borrowing. In a worst-case scenario, it might require all three.

Looking this problem squarely in the eye--something politicians have been reluctant to do for decades--Bush has put a bold plan on the table.

His reform proposal would ensure that benefits for low-income workers, those who depend on Social Security the most, would grow faster than benefits for people who are better off. By most accounts, this reform would solve 70 percent of the funding deficit facing Social Security.

At the same time, the president believes, and I agree, that giving workers the voluntary choice of investing in a personal retirement account--in addition to patching that hole in the Social Security safety net--will provide millions of current and future workers with the nest eggs they'll need to live in comfort once they retire.

Pat Moynihan and I agreed that this is not a debate about the success of the current Social Security system. Few would disagree that it has been a reliable source of income for 70 years that has virtually eliminated poverty among the elderly. Rather, this is a debate about how to structure a system that is fair and makes sense to today's young people.

If you asked Americans under 40 today what kind of public pension system they would create if we were starting from scratch, an overwhelming majority of them would tell you that a personal retirement account should figure prominently in the new system. Sadly, the voices of these younger Americans are not well represented in the debate today because there is no well-heeled interest group speaking for them.

Bush understands that personal retirement accounts are not a magical solution to all the fiscal woes facing Social Security. But by coupling that choice with a real plan to put the system's solvency on solid footing, I believe he has given us the first real chance in decades to say to current and future retirees, "The benefits you have been promised will be there when you need them."

The late Sen. Moynihan was both a loyal Democrat and a tried-and-true realist who recognized that there were problems that no one party could solve. He believed that by acting together and by favoring facts over theories, we could fix Social Security before it was beset by crisis. We need that same faith today.

----------

Richard Parsons, chairman and CEO of Time Warner Inc., co-chaired President Bush's Commission to Strengthen Social Security in 2001[/quote]

jet, still waiting for reasons or solutions, which ever one you'd like to tackle...

[BengalsCat]

[quote name='bengalrick' date='May 19 2005, 01:11 PM'][url="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0505190156may19,0,2233758.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed"]click here[/url]
jet, still waiting for reasons or solutions, which ever one you'd like to tackle...
[right][post="94146"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

he never gives reasoning for anything man just bitches about bush

[Ben]

[quote name='bengalrick' date='May 17 2005, 03:25 PM']you always say you lean left... but this is about as smart of a conservative thought, that i've heard... are u sure your more liberal, ben? 
[right][post="93329"][/post][/right][/quote]

Well... more libertarian I want the gov't to stay out of my business and away from my money

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='BengalsCat' date='May 19 2005, 12:12 PM']he never gives reasoning for anything man just bitches about bush
[right][post="94147"][/post][/right][/quote]

i know... just calling them out

the democrats' dirty secret is starting to come out: [url="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-5_19_05_RK.html"]click here[/url]
[quote]May 19, 2005
[b]The Lessons of Wexler's Plan For Social Security[/b]
By Ross Kaminsky

Despite the constant reminders that President Bush’s Social Security reform plans are not polling well, the Democrats realize that their do-nothing position is untenable in the long run. Americans know there is a problem with the system. Tom Daschle can attest to how poorly obstructionism works as a political strategy.

It is in that context that Florida Democrat Robert Wexler has introduced the first Democratic proposal for Social Security reform in many months, despite being urged by Nancy Pelosi to toe the line and keep quiet.

It may be a winning political move for Wexler in his home district – until his constituents learn the full ramifications of the plan. For the Democrats overall, Wexler’s plan is an important first crack in their wall of silence and puts them in a no-win situation.

The Democrats have pursued “the silent treatment” vainly hoping to force President Bush to give up on personal accounts in the interest of “getting something done.” Bush won’t play that game, and he deserves credit for sticking with his “ownership society” principles, (particularly given his tendency to abandon them on other issues such as free trade.)

[b]The major problem for Democrats now is that Wexler has demonstrated why the Party has had no choice but to keep quiet: their only proposal to fix Social Security is to raise taxes and they know that outside Manhattan, San Francisco, and other bastions of liberal strength, tax hikes are not politically popular.[/b]

[b]The Wexler tax increase would be the largest in American history, taking an estimated $731 billion from almost 10 million workers in the first ten years. It also disproportionately penalizes older workers, raising taxes on about 3.5 million workers who are within 10 years of retirement and likely at their earnings peak – in other words when their retirement savings potential is near its greatest if the government keeps its hands off their wages.[/b]

[b]Wexler thus wants to increase taxes on older workers and hand the money back as a Social Security benefit a few years later, providing an effective return to workers much worse than they would receive in conservatively invested personal accounts or even in bank CDs. In fact, one study notes that in Wexler’s congressional district the average return on Social Security payroll taxes is 0.75% for a married Caucasian man and -1.13% (yes, that’s a negative number) for a single African-American man.[/b]

Once Americans understand this dynamic, it can only increase the popularity of President Bush’s plan by comparison. Given the relatively older demographic in Florida it is an especially bad idea for Wexler’s own state. The AARP should be concerned about the damage Wexler’s plan does to those closest to joining its membership.

[b]Macroeconomically, the Center for Data Analysis at the Heritage Foundation estimates that this tax hike will cost the economy an average of 340,000 jobs and $33 billion of GDP annually for at least ten years.[/b]

[b]Yet even a tax increase this large delays the onset of Social Security deficits by just a few years[/b]; it does not come close to fixing the solvency problem. [b]The only honest way to avoid Social Security bankruptcy without hamstringing the economy is through a combination of benefit cuts and personal accounts. But politically the Democrats can not acknowledge that fact.[/b]

They are forced into their position opposing personal accounts at all costs because of their extreme (and rational) fear of such accounts moving traditional Democrats such as low income workers and union members into the ranks of the “investor class”. Republicans and Democrats alike are keenly aware that investors vote for Republicans over Democrats by a 15 percent margin.

As a general matter, Democrats have a great deal of political power to lose by allowing large numbers of people to reduce their dependence on government. Personal accounts in Social Security are the largest potential change in that direction since the introduction of the income tax began our redistributive economic policies. Since benefit cuts are almost as abhorrent to Democrats as personal accounts (for the same basic reason) they are left with no possible suggestions beyond massive tax hikes.

Representative Wexler has demonstrated this with great clarity, for which pro-reform citizens should be thankful but not surprised. Personal accounts only poll badly because the Democrats have not, until now, given a counter-proposal. Although unsustainable, “the silent treatment” had been working. No wonder Nancy Pelosi wanted Wexler to keep quiet.[/quote]

we all know that the democrats weren't stupid when they weren't coming up w/ their own ideas... they were scared, b/c their plan involves "fixing" the old dinosaur program, and either raising taxes, cutting benefits, or both... as soon as these facts start filtering through, the SS battle will really take off... this was only the first step, and polosi is pissed it happened this early, to blow her and her parties cover...

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Ben' date='May 19 2005, 12:18 PM']Well... more libertarian   I want the gov't to stay out of my business and away from my money
[right][post="94152"][/post][/right][/quote]

smart man, right here

i'll have to check into the libertarian views... i honestly don't know much about them...

[Ben]

[url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60179-2004Dec12.html"]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Dec12.html[/url]

Interesesting article i just found:

[quote]Flaws of Private Accounts

By Sebastian Mallaby
Monday, December 13, 2004; Page A21

The debate about Social Security has started off on the wrong foot. To privatize or not to privatize should not be the main question. The problem with this administration is not that it wants private accounts, which have pluses as well as minuses. The problem is that it wants private accounts as an end in themselves, and so may lose sight of the Social Security issues that actually matter.

Why shouldn't private accounts be the central issue? Because none of their advantages is big enough to be decisive.

Consider the philosophical attraction of individual ownership. Owning your own retirement plan, like owning your own house, bolsters virtues such as responsibility and values such as freedom. But it's a mistake to weight this advantage too much, because private accounts will be intensely regulated. The contributions will be mandatory; the investment options will be restricted; and retiring account holders may be required to spend their savings on annuities. Individuals will "own" their accounts, but they won't exactly control them.

A second advantage in privatization is that it converts part of the current payroll tax into personal savings. Although the savings will be compulsory, many workers will feel as though they've had their taxes cut; work incentives will strengthen and the economy will grow. But this advantage should not be overemphasized either. The "tax cut" would be small, and would not affect the marginal rates of people earning more than the payroll tax cutoff of $87,900 a year, so the economic boost would be limited.

A third advantage is the possibility of higher national savings. Workers who get private retirement accounts may acquire a taste for thrift, and they may start putting aside more than they are forced to by the government. A higher savings rate means more capital, lower interest rates and so more investment and growth -- which in turn generates extra tax revenue to pay for the baby boomers' retirement. But this advantage isn't decisive either, because nobody knows whether a new savings culture would really take hold. Conceivably, some who currently save might stop if they acquired their own Social Security accounts. So savings might even diminish.

Finally, private accounts offer a way for the Social Security system to capture the returns from equities. Contrary to much anti-Bush chatter, holding equities is sensible for retirement plans -- that's why nearly all private ones invest in them. The long-term nature of retirement saving mitigates equities' risk, and the danger that stocks may crash the day before you retire can be managed by shifting gradually out of the market in the years before you quit working. But this risk management will happen consistently only if regulators control investment decisions. In other words, this fourth advantage can be realized only by giving up the philosophical satisfaction in permitting real "ownership."

Taken together, the four arguments for privatization amount to a weak case. There are some benefits to be gained, but there's also a risk that, if you blow up the current system, Congress will replace it with something irresponsible. What might "irresponsible" entail? Here's where Bush should listen to Democrats such as Gene Sperling, who set out sensible tests for any fix to Social Security.

The first test is that the funding gap in the current system should be plugged. This may sound obvious, but the leading proposal put forward by the president's Social Security commission used over $1 trillion in general tax revenue to pay for the nation's retirement (not counting the so-called "transition costs"). This sort of "solution" is a fraud. The premise of Social Security reform is that we need to avoid plundering the rest of the budget to pay for the boomers' retirement.

Second, the funding gap should be fixed equitably. It shouldn't be plugged entirely by cuts in benefits that hit the less well-off, especially since President Bush's first-term policies have been skewed in favor of the wealthy. So there needs to be some increase in revenue to balance the inevitable cuts in benefits. The payroll tax should be reformed so that income over $87,900 is not completely exempt.

Third, the opportunity to boost national savings should be seized aggressively. The United States is running a huge current account deficit and courting the possibility of a dollar crash because of its chronic lack of savings. One way to boost saving is to raise the cap on payroll taxes. But it can also be done by creating private Social Security accounts that are funded at least partly by mandating saving on top of payroll tax diversions.

There's nothing to stop Bush from endorsing these objectives: a real fix to the funding problem that isn't socially unfair and a serious effort to boost savings. Both objectives are consistent with Bush's policy of privatization; indeed, private accounts could help achieve them. But the signs so far are discouraging. Bush has said he rules out payroll tax hikes, and he's been silent on the savings question. He seems to want privatization as an end in itself -- which means he's likely to endorse a privatization that's not worth having.[/quote]