tell me if you paid insurance premium for 50 years and you die you don't expect your family to benefit.

You just proved that Bush's plan is the right one. Thanks.

How? you may ask. (I assume you'll ask, because you aren't smart enough to see the obvious answer in front of your face).

Because I CAN PAY INTO SOCIAL SECURITY ALL MY LIFE -- IT IS INSURANCE AFTER ALL -- AND MY FAMILY DOESN'T GET SQUAT FOR IT WHEN I PASS ON. Or, at least they don't get anything close to the benefits that were promised to me.

I die, my benefits die. Too bad for me.

Try this article to educate yourself on that point.

The current system is racist, and based upon the idea that most will not live long enough to collect what they paid in. God knows, there are probably plenty that wish you fell into that category, but lets not go there.

I want very much to live to retire at a reasonable age, be able to enjoy my retirement, and be happy knowing my children, and their children will be financially comfortable because of the ability to pass along my retirement funds to them.

Thanks for the help on this one guys. Having a battle of wits with COL is like fighting an unarmed person.

Draginol

Well after we have cut expendatures, stimulated GDP growth, closed the loop holes and returned the tax rates on the top 5% to pre 2001 rates and we are still not balanced, we would need to increase taxes as a last resort until the deficit ends and we have payed down the $7.6 Trillion of the debt. If your family spends more then they earn after cutting, you seek ways to increase your INCOME! The point, we can not continue going further and further into debt. Bush needs one of those companies that help people get out of debt!

Terpfan 1980


Social Security is like a long term health policy except it is for retirement. You pay the premium and when you need care it PAYS. The payment of the benefits are not dependent on the stock market that goes up and down. The Bush individual accounts do not solve the funding problem for Social Security. His own advisors have told him that. In addition, without replacing the trillions that the individual accounts remove from the Social Security Taxes, the fund will begin using the Trust Fund long before the 2018 estimated under the existing system.
By the way dmiler- What business education or experience did you say you bring to these issues?

Remenber, the issue is the funding need of Social Security. Even Bush has told us that. Then, do not embrace a change that does not solve the problem you acknowledge exists. That is either dumb or you have a motive other then solving the Social Security Funding Problem as the reason for creating these accounts- like the fat cats who will get Billions in fee's from the little guy!

Well after we have cut expendatures, stimulated GDP growth, closed the loop holes and returned the tax rates on the top 5% to pre 2001 rates and we are still not balanced, we would need to increase taxes

What part of NONSENSE is still unclear? Below are the actual numbers for '04 (columns are year, GDP, receipts, outlays, deficit/surplus). The following years the GDP grows as the current rate (6.6%), the receipts are actual estimates from a spreadsheet progressive provided on another post, the outlays GROW at 3% (approximated inflation). The deficit goes away, the budget is balanced by '08.

2004	11,552.8	1,883.1	2,287.5	-404.3
2005	12,303.7	2,067.0	2,356.1	-289.1
2006	13,103.5	2,214.5	2,426.8	-212.3
2007	13,955.2	2,400.3	2,499.6	-99.3
2008	14,862.3	2,600.9	2,574.6	26.4

These are for the TOTAL budget (the commonly reported number). For the ON budget, using the same criteria, it takes another 2 or 3 years to get to a surplus. No tax hikes, no cutting expenditures, just capping increases for estimated inflation and maintaining GDP growth (which tax hikes will send plummeting)

The Bush individual accounts do not solve the funding problem for Social Security

No, but it solves some others. One of which you (Col) were bitching about on another post. The way the surplus/deficit is stated, by including the SS funds (or off budget items) in the total budget numbers (which has been happening since '33, except I don't imagine you bitched when it was Clinton reporting it).

It also solves the problem of Congress controlling and getting their hands on the funds (at least part of it). IT also solves the pathetic return of 1.5% (generous estimate) we get on our contributions. It also helps solve the tax rape that self employed individuals get by paying self employment tax.

TB

the deficit is not an end by 2008 and a and if you don't believe it just the Office of Management and Budget and web site which clearly shows will be a continuing deficit is for out as the eye can see. In addition, the cumulative deficit as of 2008 per President Bush is just short of $10 trillion upon which we must pay interest each and every year.

Creating individual accounts has nothing to do what Congress is spending. If the Social Security trust fund was not lending money to the government would need to sell more bonds to people like the Chinese the Russians the French or for that matter Americans to fund the continuing deficit.

To propose a solution of private accounts when that solution does not address the problem is either stupid or there is an alternate reason why is Bush wants to privatize Social Security - so the Wall Street tycoons can make billions in fees. I have yet to see one word from President Bush as to how we pay for the transition other than borrowing more money. Who will pay the annual fees to maintain these millions of accounts and how much will be charged investors. For a worker investing a $1000 per year at 8% has $80 per year in investment income from which the account maintenance fee will be deducted. If the investment firm charges 35 or $40 as a fee to maintain that account as a truly big deal for that average investor.

Social Security needs to be looked at as a floor that is guaranteed. we need to encourage each and every person to build on top of Social Security with IRA's or 401(k). Too many people will not put aside the money needed nor are they capable of making investment decisions. That is why maintaining the assurance of Social Security not subject to market fluctuations is the best thing for the majority of Americans.

The entire way in which this administration has addressed the fiscal affairs is a joke. For 21 of the last 24 years we have spent considerably more than we were willing to tax. The Republican party that I believes in balanced budgets and yes if we cannot balance the budget with spending cuts or increasing GDP growth that means increased taxes. What we cannot continue to make believe someone else is going to pay for what were spending. The Brutal truth is that someone else is going to be our children and our grandchildren under the policy of George W. Bush and conservative Republicans controlling the government of the United States of America.

the deficit is not an end by 2008 and a and if you don't believe it just the Office of Management and Budget and web site which clearly shows will be a continuing deficit is for out as the eye can see

Whoosh. That's the sound of the posts going right over your head apparently. Your response is barely intelligible. You have asserted crisis, I have demonstrated with actual numbers and a possible scenario, you're full of BS.

CBO numbers have the estimated deficit in '08 down to 1.7% of GDP, or about $244 B. Where is your $10 T number from?

Who will pay the annual fees to maintain these millions of accounts

There doesn't have to be ANY FEES. I regularly put people in financial products that charge NOTHING, produce double digit returns, provide that the account balances can NEVER go down, and for which their is no real "investment decision" to make (unless, of course, you can't decide between A, B or C).

An individual that put $20/week away at the SS return number (approx. 1.5%) would have an account balance of approx. $39,000 in 30 years. Contrast that with the same individual at the same savings rate getting 7.5% (not particularly great, but fair), their account balance at the end of 30 years is approx. $111,000. Which is a greater benefit? Even you ought ot be able to get this one right.

The $7.6 Trillion debt is fact. The $330 Billion in interest is fact. The $600 Billion last year is Fact. It is you that is full of BS. You and all the other Bush supporters. Hope you have fun paying for all the tax cuts and sepnding increase that Bush has given you!

The $7.6 Trillion debt is fact. The $330 Billion in interest is fact. The $600 Billion last year is Fact. It is you that is full of BS. You and all the other Bush supporters. Hope you have fun paying for all the tax cuts and sepnding increase that Bush has given you!

Here COL whine about this one. You'll be paying right along with the rest of us.

drmiler

At least I will know why and who was responsible. You will still be following the white rabbit with a pocket watch down a little hole.

At least I will know why and who was responsible. You will still be following the white rabbit with a pocket watch down a little hole.

Not unless you make sure I get my LSD I won't!

The $7.6 Trillion debt is fact. The $330 Billion in interest is fact. The $600 Billion last year is Fact. It is you that is full of BS. You and all the other Bush supporters. Hope you have fun paying for all the tax cuts and sepnding increase that Bush has given you!

Hmm are you talking out of your ass? Sources?

XX

For$7.6 Trillion and $330 Billion in interest go to www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdint.htm. If you have a problem just use google and look for Federal debt and you will locate the Treas dept.

Actual interest in 2004 per the Treasury $321,566,323,971.29

Actual National Debt as of 12/31/2004 per the Treasury $7,596,165,867,424.14

As for the $600 billion last year you go to OMB Table S-10 Budget Summary

Start with the reported deficit which per the President was $412 Billion
Remove the surplus in Soc Sec and Medicare to reduce the debt 200 Billion

$612 Billion

The impact of adding the Surplus in Social Secxurity and Medicare to reduce the annual budget deficit is explained at the following site;

www.cepr.net/real_budget.htm
This is Center For Economic And Policy Research site if you have a problem.

You are the one passing gas.

XX For$7.6 Trillion and $330 Billion in interest go to www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdint.htm. If you have a problem just use google and look for Federal debt and you will locate the Treas dept. Actual interest in 2004 per the Treasury $321,566,323,971.29 Actual National Debt as of 12/31/2004 per the Treasury $7,596,165,867,424.14 As for the $600 billion last year you go to OMB Table S-10 Budget Summary Start with the reported deficit which per the President was $412 Billion Remove the surplus in Soc Sec and Medicare to reduce the debt 200 Billion $612 Billion The impact of adding the Surplus in Social Secxurity and Medicare to reduce the annual budget deficit is explained at the following site; www.cepr.net/real_budget.htm This is Center For Economic And Policy Research site if you have a problem. You are the one passing gas.

Hey COL have you noticed that your the only one that keeps going on and on about this subject?

drmiler

First I was answering the question of XX. Second, that is because you and the other Bushies never answer the questions or propose solutions to the issues at hand. Today the AP reported the fiscal problem of Medicare is four times larger then Social Security and needs to begin using the Medicare Trust fund much sooner then Social Security. I have asked why Bush is telling the American People about the BIG SOCIAL SECURITY PROBLEM while he does nothing about the much larger and more immediate issue of Medicare. He has a similar problem with Medicade and his soultion for that is to transfer the problem to the states. Why do I keep on these matters? Because Bush is doing nothing to solve them!

$330 Billion in interest go to www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdint.htm

Your bias really detracts from any credibility. Per this site, the interest on the debt was over $360 B in '98 and '00 (Clinton budgets), and over $350 B in '99 and '97. The interest has gone DOWN over 10% (not including the time value of money, which would make the % greater) under Bush.

The impact of adding the Surplus in Social Secxurity and Medicare to reduce the annual budget deficit is explained

Once again, it's been reported this way for Decades. Not unique to GW.

because you and the other Bushies never answer the questions or propose solutions

I've already shown you a solution, you ignored it.

Why do I keep on these matters? Because Bush is doing nothing to solve them!

BS again. Privatizing SS will help solve Medicaid problems (though I'm sure with your anti-Bush bias you'll ignore this too). When retirees have significantly LARGER liquid assets due to getting 4 or 5 times the returns on what SS would give them and owning it, they won't need Medicaid to to take care of them (or for that matter, even qualify).

All you have demonstrated is a hatred for Bush, not truth nor objectiveness. None of the numbers you cite are earth shattering, or new, or even out of line with recent administrations (in many instances they are better). One thing is certain, we could solve some energy problems with all the hot air you continue to blow.

TB

Annual interest in the past has been higher than the 321 billion for 2004. It was higher from 1995 through 2002. There is a very basic - the 46 year low interest rates not because the total debt was lower. In 2001 the debt was $5.7 Trillion and today it is $7.6 Trillion. This is one of my points, when interest rates return to their historic norm and are applied to the total deficit which has skyrocketed under Bush, we're going to be looking toward $500 billion per year in interest. The historic blended interest rate according to the treasury on US debt is 5.1%. If you apply 5.1% to $10 trillion which is what George W. Bush projects it will be by the time he leaves office, you have interest per year of over $500 billion dollars.

The Unified Budget which combines the surpluses in Social Security and Medicare with the federal budget is not new under George W. Bush. However we were not running the huge deficits prior to George W. Bush. By combining the surplus in Social Security which is a standalone system and Medicare which is again a standalone system with the federal budget the size of the federal deficit is distorted by making it look far less than it truly is.

The principal adviser to President Bush on Social Security has acknowledged that creating private accounts not solve the funding problem with Social Security. The issue is insure the solvency of Social Security. To propose a solution that does not solve that problem is ridiculous and from every poll that I read the vast majority of Americans do not agree with George W. Bush on the conversion to private accounts for Social Security. We need to educate every worker to save money in addition to what they pay into Social Security as an equity investment. The way to solve the Social Security shortfall for the baby boomers is to lift the cap on Social Security earnings the same as the Medicare tax and that $100 plus billion dollars per year should be invested in a broad based equities and bonds within the Social Security Trust Fund. That will give you the higher yield from equity investments on that additional hundred billion dollars each year. The $100 billion each year will delay the date in which the out flow will exceed the tax revenue ( estimated at 2018 under the current system) and add even more to the trust fund. The impact of a hundred billion dollars compounded at even 7% within the Trust Fund will solve the funding issue of Social Security without changing the basic guarantees that protect the vast majority of Americans. There is no doubt that some people would benefit from individual accounts but the reality is the vast majority would be better off retaining the current guarantees. In any event, neither George W. Bush nor the Congress should make any radical change in Social Security unless the vast majority of Americans are in agreement.

The Unified Budget which combines the surpluses in Social Security and Medicare with the federal budget is not new under George W. Bush. However we were not running the huge deficits prior to George W. Bush. By combining the surplus in Social Security which is a standalone system and Medicare which is again a standalone system with the federal budget the size of the federal deficit is distorted by making it look far less than it truly is.

Sorry but this won't wash! If the Unified Budget is NOT new under Bush. Then he hasn't been lying about the budget any more than ANY other president. You CAN NOT call him on something the rest have done too.

The principal adviser to President Bush on Social Security has acknowledged that creating private accounts not solve the funding problem with Social Security. The issue is insure the solvency of Social Security. To propose a solution that does not solve that problem is ridiculous and from every poll that I read the vast majority of Americans do not agree with George W. Bush on the conversion to private accounts for Social Security.

And every poll I've read says the opposite. So now who do we believe?

drmiler

On CNN today they reported that even more Americans do not agree with the private accounts and the prospect of passing that change with the majority opposed to the private acccounts is not good. The only age group that support the private accounts is the under 35 group. The home town metings in Fl where I live are pro Bush but the paper reported today the vast majority in Florida do not suppotrt private accounts. The issue of the unified budget is that ANY Peresident, including Clinton was distorting the deficit using the accounting trick. My point, lets report the budget without the distortion. We should also show Americans the individual statements from Social Security amd Medicare so a true picture can be sceen.

drmiler On CNN today they reported that even more Americans do not agree with the private accounts and the prospect of passing that change with the majority opposed to the private acccounts is not good. The only age group that support the private accounts is the under 35 group. The home town metings in Fl where I live are pro Bush but the paper reported today the vast majority in Florida do not suppotrt private accounts. The issue of the unified budget is that ANY Peresident, including Clinton was distorting the deficit using the accounting trick. My point, lets report the budget without the distortion. We should also show Americans the individual statements from Social Security amd Medicare so a true picture can be sceen.

Like I said other polls show different opinions. Here:

Majority Favors Private Accounts for Social Security, Cato/Zogby Poll Says Written By: Michael Tanner Published In: Budget & Tax News Publication Date: March 1, 2005 Publisher: The Heartland Institute -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A majority of Americans believe younger workers should be allowed to invest a portion of their Social Security taxes in individual accounts, according to a new poll conducted by Zogby International for the Cato Institute. Despite a drumbeat of criticism for weeks by congressional Democrats and a concerted public relations campaign by powerful interest groups such as the AARP against Social Security choice, 51 percent of those polled by Zogby supported the introduction of individual accounts. Only 39 percent opposed individual accounts being part of any Social Security reform. Age Groups Split Predictably Not surprisingly, the results showed a split along age lines. Younger voters were strongly in favor of individual accounts, which garnered the support of 61 percent of respondents under age 30 and 58 percent of those under 50. Most respondents over 65--55 percent--were opposed. However, opposition by seniors dropped to just 45 percent if they were assured their own benefits would not be affected. Reflecting the sharp partisan divide nationally, opinions about individual accounts also split along political lines. Republicans were overwhelmingly united behind the reform proposal, which is a priority of President George W. Bush's second-term agenda. Seventy-four percent of respondents identifying themselves as Republican said they support individual accounts, while only 14 percent opposed them. Most Democrats remain opposed, with 61 percent saying they are against individual accounts. However, a strong minority among Democrats (more than 30 percent) said they favor individual accounts. Independents polled leaned toward individual accounts, 45 percent to 40 percent, with a high proportion undecided. While few voters (14 percent) agreed with Bush that Social Security was in "crisis," an overwhelming majority (61 percent) said the New Deal-era system was facing "serious problems" that required "major changes." Few voters (5 percent) accepted the notion that Social Security is fine or could be fixed with only "minor, incremental changes" (19 percent). Current System Considered Risky When asked whether they believed private investing or the current Social Security system is riskier, voters split nearly evenly. Roughly 41 percent thought private investment is riskier because benefits could go down depending on how investments perform. But slightly more (44 percent) thought the current Social Security system was riskier "because it cannot pay all the benefits promised." Again, voters split by age, with young people believing Social Security is riskier (52 to 39 percent) and seniors believing private investment is riskier (46 to 31 percent). Voters were also supportive of another proposal rumored to be part of a Bush Social Security plan. By a 61 to 23 percent margin, voters backed a proposal to hold future benefit growth to the rate of inflation. The poll of 1,004 likely voters was conducted in mid-January and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2 percent. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Tanner ([email protected]) is director of the Project on Social Security Choice at the Cato Institute.

Link

You should know by now not to trust polls. They to easy to skew one way or another. Just to refresh your memory.....exit polls 2004 election. The reason if any that the older folk are not behind it is that the left is telling them taht GW is going to take away their SS.

Just watch. It will not pass the congress!

Just watch. It will not pass the congress!

Well we'll we see won't we? But of course do not be all that surprised if it does.