My Theory On Why Bush wants to Ruin Social Security
POSTED BY: piratejenny
UPDATED: Wednesday, February 8, 2006 17:07
VIEWED: 13307
PAGE 10 of 11
Hi SoupCatcher
I make time for more information. BTW I apologize for not providing a link to that bit about the actuarials re: life-span. It wasn't from a site addressing SS at all, it was from either a scientific or medical website. Unfortunately I just breezed through it several weeks back, and now I can't remember where I saw the darn thing.
This is not in response to your post, and I was wondering where to put it as several threads get into the SS topic, but:
Quote:I think this makes it plain where the parties stand overall.
Senate Splits in Test Vote on Social Security
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
The Senate voted 50 to 50 on a nonbinding measure declaring that Congress should reject any plan that would require "deep benefit cuts or a massive increase in debt." Five Republicans joined the Senate's 44 Democrats and one independent in voting for the resolution.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/16/politics/16budget.html?th
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
First off, I'm responding without reading the full thread because there're a lot of responses and I'm sure many will just annoy me. The idea that allowing people to invest a portion of their social security taxes (4% to 50% depending on who you listen to) will save the government money while earning tons of cash for everyone is silly. Yes, stocks or mutal funds have a better AVERAGE return over time, there's also fees to brokers that have to be paid. Social security doesn't have these fees. And the key word in the higher returns is average. Some stocks and mutual funds do really well. Some crash and burn and take people's money. Sometimes this is just normal business and other's it's corporate crime (i.e., Enron). Now, many people will invest money and do well. Many will lose all their money. Our government is not going to allow these people to starve so they'll pay them anyway. Also, I believe people are going to be able to invest a portion IF THEY CHOOSE, which implies they don't have to. I suspect many to most people will take the simplest route and not choose to try to manage their own market portfolios between work and taking care of families. I believe the majority of people will continue the same method of social security paying in and paying out as now, thus saving the government very little. Of those that do invest, a fair portion will lose everything but the government will still pay them anyway, thus INCREASING the cost to the government. I believe this is a flawed plan which will really only benefit people who make money off the stock market. People paying in extra money will artifically inflate the stock market and some few people will earn millions while the average pensioner will receive a few extra dollars. The best solution is to raise the retirement age since people live longer, increase the tax a little because we really pay a very low tax percent when compared to the rest of the world, and possibly to place a net worth limit on people who receive benefits because if you already have a few million dollars you don't need any money from the governmnent. I know these are crazy, liberal ideas, but frankly I'm basically a Socialist, so I like crazy, liberal ideas.
People that whine about the educated elite need to remember that Bush is a rich boy who went to Yale. He's one of them.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
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.
but one thing we do know is that privatization of ss isn't the cure or the fix, there are other fixes that would work and privatization isn't one of them
so why is Bush so hot to privatize??????
could it possibly be that he wants to funnel money into the stock market to stablize it or cushion it from the coming economic downfall that this country is heading in
There has to be a reason why he wants to privatize social security..when its obvious that privatization isn't the answer to the problem and this is the only answer that makes sense to me!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I heard something today that made a lot of sense. This year is a political freebie since it's an off-election year. That makes this year an opportune time.
Bush & Co (being the corporatocracy's blue hands) were given a busy agenda last year for passing business friendly laws this year. They jumped on four items within days. Today, the first two are already in the bag, which were class-action lawsuits and bankruptcy. They're still working on SS, and making strides on oil-drilling in national preserves. When you think about how briskly this was proposed and done, it's clear it was already planned.
It's not about SS. It's an entire business-compliant package that has to be completed this year. The earlier, and thus the furthest from next year's elections, the better.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hi SoupCatcher,
I don't know if you'll cruise by and see this, but not being able to get the link to the reduced lifespan info was just bugging me.
Anyway, it was from the New England Journal of Medicine (requires paid subscription). I did find this from ScienceDaily:
Quote:Anyway, there is a bit more at the link if you want to read up on it.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050325144425.htm Explosion Of Child Obesity Predicted To Shorten U.S. Life Expectancy
It's been assumed that U.S. life expectancy would rise indefinitely, but a new data analysis, published as a special report in the March 17 New England Journal of Medicine, suggests that this trend is about to reverse itself -- due to the rapid rise in obesity, especially among children.
A review by obesity researcher David Ludwig of Children's Hospital Boston, epidemiologist S. Jay Olshansky of the University of Illinois at Chicago, and colleagues concludes that obesity now reduces average life expectancy by about 4 to 9 months, a conservative estimate. More ominously, the researchers further conclude that if the current epidemic of child and adolescent obesity continues unabated, life expectancy could be shortened by two to five years in the coming decades.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hi Rue!
Thanks for the link. It was a sobering article. I have friends who buy their children fast food every day of the week and I can physically see the difference so the following paragraph hit pretty close to home:
Quote:
excerpted from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050325144425.htm
n the past 40 years, fast food, junk food, and soft drinks have become a prominent part of the landscape. Food advertising directed at children has exploded, and portion sizes have ballooned (see attached fact sheet). Schools have become purveyors of fast food and soft drinks through contracts with the food and beverage industry that help fund school programs -- even as they cut physical education classes from their curricula to save money. At the same time, children are becoming more sedentary, spending more time watching TV and using computers.
On a related note, my sister-in-law and I were just talking recently that it seems like girls are going through body changes usually associated with puberty at a younger age than they did when we were growing up. We were just speculating but one of the things we talked about was the use of bovine growth hormone and potential affects on children who consume a lot of dairy and beef (specifically from fast food providers who do not label if their beef contains rbST or rBGH). I have no idea if that's even possible (and I'm sure Monsanto would say it isn't) but we were just brainstorming.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
HI SoupCatcher,
I'm glad you found it interesting.
To further go down this path, here is an article about earlier menarche (from 2000): http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/children/03/31/early.puberty.wmd/
In the past I had passed it off to better nutrition, higher weight, and less activity.
Recently, though, I found this (excerpted):
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050328182123.htm
Quote:It's not menarche, but it's the first study I've come across that links agrochemicals, preservatives, dyes etc to reduced mammalian health.
Organic Diet Makes Rats Healthier
A team of European scientists has found in an experiment that rats that ate organic food were much healthier than those that ate conventional diets.
The scientists found that the organically-fed rats enjoyed several health benefits, in that they slept better, had stronger immune systems and were slimmer than rats fed conventional diets.
... speaking to The Journal newspaper, Dr Brandt said: “What this research shows is that clearly there are links between food and health which is more to do than with just nutrients."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello, I'm a newbie. I must admit as a conservative libertarian, i too, once was intice by some socialistic policies. Although, I support tarriffs and controled trade and labor unions vs. corporations, I believe social secruity like all pyramid schemes is doomed. In the beginning the small amount of retirees were generiously rewarded by dozens of workers, however because the baby-boomeer population increased a generation, the retirees now randically flip the pyramid to minority of workers working social security to pay dozens more ratio of retirees. I like, the elderly, because of their kindness, respect,and wisdom, like my grandparents, however, social security should be kept for them and gradually phased out for the younger generation, of whom would be encouraged in invest in bonds, banks, secure market investment,Iras,4o1ks and other private retirement plans. Besides if I get social security, which i pay now, I'm getting robbed, because when I retire there will be none left. I'd much rather get a larger return by invest my ex-social security funds, into the market, rather than our corrupt and inefficent bureacratic government. Less government, MORE PEOPLE POWER!!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hi Rue,
Thanks for the article on early menarche. It's always nice when scientific research validates personal observation. Although there was nothing nice about the conclusions from the research, definitely sobering. I'll make sure to pass it along to my sister-in-law as well.
The second article was also interesting. My girlfriend and I have been enjoying organic produce for a while now (so it's nice to see some research backing that up). About four years ago we decided to try this organic produce service that makes weekly deliveries - they leave a box on the back porch. Even though the fruit and vegetables are more expensive than non-organic we found that our food expenses actually went down (due to not going to the store as much - basically it helped us cut down on impulse buying). And we have definitely noticed a difference in quality. The size of organic fruits and vegetables is smaller but the taste is much richer (and since I have a less developed palate that's definitely saying something).
I've also been following with disgust the efforts of the large agribusinesses to redefine what it means to be organic. If you don't want to compete by changing your practices I guess you just lobby to modify the rules. It's the Tom DeLay way of doing business.
---------------------
Next up: Early "Nutcrusher" Jubal and the Firebuggers
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
If you don't want to compete by changing your practices I guess you just lobby to modify the rules. It's the Tom DeLay way of doing business.
---------------------
Next up: Early "Nutcrusher" Jubal and the Firebuggers
LOL. You left out Bill Frisch (pardon any misspelling), no more fillibusters.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME