My Theory On Why Bush wants to Ruin Social Security

POSTED BY: piratejenny
UPDATED: Wednesday, February 8, 2006 17:07
VIEWED: 13307
PAGE 6 of 11

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

MACBAKER

Friday, March 11, 2005 7:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by InevitableBetrayal:
Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
I guess its a hard concept for some of you to grasp that people can think for themselves, that based on whats happening that people can draw their own conclusions, its seems to be a foreign concept to some of you..you guys might want to try it sometime who knows you might can come up with a few theorys of your own based on whats happening if you actually gave it some thought !!

Ah, Jenny, still fiddling as the ship goes down...

Yet again, you've proved my point. I asked you to show me facts; I asked you to give me data; I asked you to make a cogent argument. And once again, you accused me of 1) not thinking for myself, and 2) not having my own theories about what's going on.

What doesn't seem to be be registering to that brain of yours is that it is entirely possible for someone to examine the same facts, to be fully aware of a situation to apply a good amount of thought to an issue--and then come up with something different than you. What you seem to be doing is saying that everyone who disagrees with you is just stupid or uniformed. Every single time you've responded to me, to Byte, to Hero, you've accused us of not thinking, not coming up with our own ideas, and not being aware of current events.

I think you're just plain wrong. We're not insulting you--we're disagreeing with you. Why can't you seem to wrap your head around that concept?

Honestly, your angry rants and smug assurance that you--and you alone--know the reality of Social Security and the Bush administration are seriously hurting your credibility. At this point, it's hard to take anything you say seriously because you just seem to want to throw a fit if we don't fall right in line with your beliefs. What is this, third grade? Grow up, Jenny.

_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

I have to agree with Bytethebullet. Couldn't have said it better! Well done! I also am going to avoid this thread form here on. Jenny keeps saying the same things, never offers facts to back up her claims, and gets annoyed when she can't convert anyone to her narrow view. She'll be responding with more of the same, and who needs more of that?

I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.

RUE

Friday, March 11, 2005 9:15 PM

Inevitable, Byte and McBaker ...

Quote:
McBaker: Jenny keeps saying the same things, never offers facts to back up her claims.

... a criticism that was offered by others such as Inevitable and Byte. Strangely, I could not find ONE SINGLE fact or link about SS from Inevitable and Byte. Not one. And McBaker, who did post articles, only supported that there is no CRISIS is SS.

SS is not strictly a 'pay as you go' system. What I have learned (over too many scattered links to post) is that actuaries foresaw the baby boom demographic, and created a surplus to carry the cost. (Amazing - PLANNING for the distant future!) It is THAT fund which will be drawn down when baby boomers enter retirement, as planned. When that fund is gone (which may happen around 2040 according managers), SS will revert to a pay as you go system.

What I don't get is why Bush is so fixated on a potential problem so far into the future, and not completely twisted over the economic ruin the government is in today.

At best, isn't that rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic?

PIRATEJENNY

Saturday, March 12, 2005 2:01 AM

Quote:
Ah, Jenny, still fiddling as the ship goes down...

Yet again, you've proved my point. I asked you to show me facts; I asked you to give me data; I asked you to make a cogent argument. And once again, you accused me of 1) not thinking for myself, and 2) not having my own theories about what's going on.

This will probably be my last post in this thread!!

I know what you want..you want me to do a cut and paste!!! and I'm not going to it, really I've repeated myself at least 3 times in this thread already , the fact that I came up with this threory on my own based on whats happening isn't good enough for you, my own ideas aren't good enough for you and if its not ..then its not, I'll repeat myself again I was never trying to argue a point

you want facts I'll give you facts..

fact #1 our Econmy is failing our dollar is loosing its value in the world and with the Euro soon to become the dominate Currency

fact#2 Bush's foreign Policy is having a negative impact on our country and our economy

fact #3 Bush Admistration is trying to privitize social security

fact#4 Bush admistration catering to speacial intrest and Corporations are passing laws that benifit them while hurting the average person

fact# Since the terror threat and homeland security the arm of the federal government has reached even farther into our freedoms and rights

Fact#6 we are in serious Debt and its getting larger everyday due to Bush admistrations War Mongering

and the list goes on and on and on

these are not facts because I say they are..this is whats happening and NO I will not do a cut and paste of each of these issues, I'm sure a cut an paste of these issue has been presented on this board at one time or another and I'm not going to do it...there is no need for it because this is whats actually happening

when you add all of this stuff up and more a picture starts to form

I asked myself a question based on all I know about the Bush Admistration, I asked why would he want to privatize social security ...and the theory that I presented and repeated 3 times or more is the one I came up with

I think the problem is you guys never gave my theory any real consideration, you didn't even entertain the possiblity. instead some of you just came out on the attack with insults, thats why I must be on crack right gawd forbid a person has their own ideas about something..it was my theory and because it was such and it didn't come from a cut and paste or some talking head then it couldn't have any validty right!!!

Quote:
What I don't get is why Bush is so fixated on a potential problem so far into the future, and not completely twisted over the economic ruin the government is in today.

I asked myself that question too, which is how I came to my theory..Social security isn't in any real or immediate danger it does need some fine tuning so to speak

so one has to ask why is Bush so hot to privatize SS

I'm sure as we all are the Bush Administration is well aware of the state of the economy and how with his policys its only going to get worst, and I'll have to look into this but I heard today that if Privatization is a go for Bush that people won't really have a choice of what they can invest in they'll only be allowed to invest in certain stocks and bonds..I thought with the blow thats coming to our economy that Bush might be trying to soften that blow to certain companies and Corporations

VETERAN

Sunday, March 13, 2005 3:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
First of all, Social Security isin't all that great. It's nothing more than a Gov't mandated, over glorified ponzi scheme. ...

I don't grok this statement. A Ponzi Scheme is a scam that promises to give you a great return on your money? Social Security never promised a great return, it's not even an investment, it's insurance. The hype I've heard reagrding "personal accounts" seems more like a Ponzi scheme.

Besides personal accounts are already availabe they're called 401Ks and IRAs.

Worst part about the whole Social Security debate is that the biggest detractors don't even have a real plan. At least that's what the speaker of the house said when he critized the AARP for it's stand agains Social Security reform, "... the AARP...is "against a solution that hasn't been written yet."

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Sunday, March 13, 2005 5:56 PM

Carlos Ponzi took money from investors who actually did get returns on their money, even though the money itself wasn’t increasing. The way he was able to do this was that he paid earlier investors with the funds from later investors. But this only works if the number of investors is always increasing. If the number of investors is not increasing, then the later investors get screwed, because eventually the pot runs dry. One can draw a corollary to social security. It seems to work in a similar way, with the same problems.

Social security will never be solvent the way it exists. It will always be in a state of running out eventually. I don’t know for sure what the solution ultimately is. Private accounts would seem to help solve the long term problem, but offer short term problems of their own. On the other hand, we are going to have to come up with over a trillion dollars from taxes or borrowing, and at best that may be just a short term solution. It just pushes the problem further down the road.

The irony of social security is that it may offer no security whatsoever. All my life, I’ve been told that Social Security was going down the tubes. And whatever anyone’s particularly spin is, it is a real possibility that it won’t be there when I’m 65-70 years old. Yet, I’m forking out 6.2% of my income to pay for other people’s income on the premise that when I’m old Social Security will be there for me, but in the current system there is no reason to believe that that is true. Furthermore, if we just raise taxes then all we are doing is promising future generations that they will have to deal with the same problems, only at a higher tax rate. The only thing ultimately secure about that course of action is that we guarantee that the government will always have a nice little stash to pay for their pork. Someone please tell me how this is not a scam.

I have a 401K and an IRA, and hopefully I’ll have a mortgage paid off by then. That is what I’m counting on. Yeah, there’s risk, if we have another Great Depression. But the risk of counting on Social security would seem at least as great.

VETERAN

Sunday, March 13, 2005 7:50 PM

Finn,

Thanks for your response. It's nice to debate all civilized like.

You are correct about how a Ponzi scheme actually pays off investors. I was referring to the aspect of Ponzi that attracts investors, which is the offer of an extremely high rate of returns. (What was Ponzi's original promise, something like 50% return in 45 days?). While Social Security uses contributions from current contributors to pay beneficiaries, there is no promise of a high rate of return. Beneficiaries (retirees, children who have lost a parent, and some of the disabled) only receive a stipend based on contributions with a small amount of interest.

I think a big part of the current problem with the Social Security system is that the fund money was used to cover short falls in the general fund (all though technically the Social Security Administration is loaning the Government money by purchasing T-Bills). If the government can't raise enough revenue and pay back Social Security the whole discussion about fixing Social Security will be moot.

Personally the National Debate regarding Social Security has opened my eyes. I've got a lot of work to do revamping my 401K and learning how to invest so I won't need help from a fund that might not be there for me.

(edited for spelling)

RUE

Monday, March 14, 2005 12:24 AM

Quote:
Social security will never be solvent the way it exists. It will always be in a state of running out eventually.

There is an alternative, and more realistic, analysis that economists make. It goes: it's not the ratio of elderly to working that determines if the society can afford its elderly, it's the ratio of ALL non-productive to working. In the past, there were fewer elderly, but there were many more children to support. Children were accommodated socially by putting resources into schools, infrastructure, the medical care system etc, as well as, of course, the family cost at home.
Now there are more elderly to support, but fewer children 'draining' society.
'Society' is able to afford Social Security for the 'elderly', IF it elects to.

ZEEK

Monday, March 14, 2005 7:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
Quote:
What I don't get is why Bush is so fixated on a potential problem so far into the future, and not completely twisted over the economic ruin the government is in today.

I asked myself that question too, which is how I came to my theory..Social security isn't in any real or immediate danger it does need some fine tuning so to speak

so one has to ask why is Bush so hot to privatize SS

One could just as easily say that your theory of Bush turning the USA into a facist state is not an immediate threat. That's years down the road. Why bother with it now? Of course the same logic for you wanting to stop things before they become a major problem applies to SS as well.

So the problem I've always heard about SS was that there was a surplus when the baby boomers were paying into SS. The people in power at the time decided to spend that money on the elderly giving them all sorts of extra benefits to win their vote. So now the surplus has been spent frivolously and SS is in a terrible spot. They need much more money to support the baby boomers as they retire and will either go bankrupt or there needs to be major changes now. That's where Bush is stepping in. I don't know the solution but I'm awake enough to see the problem.

SIGNYM

Monday, March 14, 2005 8:34 PM

"So now the surplus has been spent frivolously and SS is in a terrible spot. They need much more money to support the baby boomers as they retire and will either go bankrupt or there needs to be major changes now."

Your characterization of the problem, while plausible, is inaccurate. The money has NOT been spent... or have you not read the previous posts of the Social Security web page? They DON'T need "much more" money and they DON'T need "major changes".

Social Security, like all responsible retirement systems, makes three projections: High income, low income, and one in the middle. Only the LOWEST INCOME projection shows there is a problem, and it only requires modest adjustments to fix. It's not a "left-wing" take on the situation- even outside annuity companies like TIAA say the same thing. Just to show how biased the Administration is being, this is the ONLY case in which they use the most conservative projection. When it comes to the budget deficit, for example, they use the rosiest scenarios.

The information coming out of the WHite House is clearly biased by all reasonable and responsible accounts. By all responsible calculations, the WHite House "fix" will make the Social Security problems worse, not better- even the White House admits that. So why do we keep hacking around with what Bush says? The guy's a liar, plain and simple. This is another WMD- style phony crisis.

GET OUT YOUR UMBRELLAS- IT'S RAINING BULLSHIT FROM THE WHITE HOUSE.

AURAPTOR

Monday, March 14, 2005 9:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Veteran:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
First of all, Social Security isin't all that great. It's nothing more than a Gov't mandated, over glorified ponzi scheme. ...

I don't grok this statement. A Ponzi Scheme is a scam that promises to give you a great return on your money? Social Security never promised a great return, it's not even an investment, it's insurance. The hype I've heard reagrding "personal accounts" seems more like a Ponzi scheme.

Besides personal accounts are already availabe they're called 401Ks and IRAs.

Worst part about the whole Social Security debate is that the biggest detractors don't even have a real plan. At least that's what the speaker of the house said when he critized the AARP for it's stand agains Social Security reform, "... the AARP...is "against a solution that hasn't been written yet."

By ponzi scheme, I'm talking about SS from its inception. Those who first drew checks were the lucky ones. Basically getting free $ despite not having put into the system it for decades. Today the SS 'insurance' is a scam. Where as in the past, many employees would 'contribute' for each retiree. As the years pass, the number of those who contribute has steadily declined. There is no 'trust fund'.

As for personal accounts, how about letting us opt out of SS,if we are so inclined ? That was done in Galvison, Texas. The city employees who opted out of SS draw much more for their retirement than SS doles out. SS was never meant to be a nest egg for retirement, but only as a safety net.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE