PeterDavid.net

But Peter, it's not the "Privitization" of social security, it's setting up "Personal Accounts". Maybe you didn't get the memo from the White House. We can't use "Privitization" in reference to Social Security. Personal Accounts, ok? Great. I'm glad we're on the same page.

Doesn't matter what they call it - it's just another Bush scheme to make sure the Haves have more.

Mark

Agree 100%. I considered it, but figured that it would simply end with me mumbling at the television and wondering why I didn't simply watch the Dead Like Me Season 1 set on DVD that I'm digging.

Turns out I did myself a favor as I'm loving DLM more with every episode and between the morning paper and NPR does in the am and pm to and from work, I was able to hear sound bites and commentary enough to tell me it was more of the same. A statement that includes both "America is better off with..." and his proposed Social Security changes left me shaking my head wondering how anyone can say for certain that a country is better off when initiating a program that has not yet begun and has no comparable predecessor. More magical thinking from the leader of the free world.

Fred

And I think that the business of privatizing Social Security is antithetical to the very concept.

The Democrats seem to forget that they gave Bill Clinton a standing ovation when he suggested setting up personal accounts. As Bush mentioned in his speech, the very members of congress and other federal workers have this very benefit. You may have personally been consistently opposed to this idea, but the Democratic Party are hypocrites in their opposition to it.

To say there is no need for change is the real lie. If Bush's idea is a bad one, then the Democrats need to come with a real one (other than just raising the payroll tax itself).

Iowa Jim

Cling to the clock and pray the country survives him.

Trust me, it will. We survived the damage of Bill Clinton for 8 years, and we will survive the damage of George Bush. We will also benefitted under both presidents. That is the strength of our system. It is built to survive most things. (Obviously, there if Bush or Clinton decided to launch a nuclear war on China, all bets are off. But neither of them was/is that stupid.)

Iowa Jim

Instead of watching Shrub give his speech, I went to FLIP SIDE, my favorite comic store. Instead of Bush, we talked about new comics, how good was the latest episode of "24" and the Lakers.

Why bother listening to the lies of Shrub? I can read about it the next day. Seeing Shrub for more than a minute is only going to make me sick.

>To say there is no need for change is the real lie. If Bush's idea is a bad one, then the Democrats need to come with a real one (other than just raising the payroll tax itself).

>Iowa Jim

... or perhaps Bush should put together a Brain Trust to come up with several ideas before he gets the U.S. into another mess by going with his first instincts.

Again, I make no claim to being a genious in the field of economics (... or a genious in any other area actually), but a program set up under the assumption that people have the knowledge needed to make intelligent choices, muchless the monies to lose, while costing 2 trillion to implement as a way to help a system that is, according to him and only him, in immediate "crisis" makes no sense to me.

Fred

Off topic, but....
Fred Chamberlain: "Turns out I did myself a favor as I'm loving DLM more with every episode..."

Well, fred, I gots some bad news for you. The douche bag that runs Showtime cancelled the Show. The reason: he thought it somehow was a rip-off of Six Feet Under (don't ask me how), which is a show he produces for HBO.

Kinda funny this guy is allowed by Showtime to cancel one of their shows to "protect" an HBO series...

So no more DLM, which is that much less escapism I'll have to get away from Dubya (hey, got it back margainally on topic).

Why I don't like Private Accounts? Because I see it as a way of people with large salaries getting larger ones because of inside knowledge, special buying deals such as with the various mutual funds and etc...

Those who don't have the money or connections, will not get as big as a return and loose money when the scandels hit.

Now i'm not the most educated man, but with china and the foreign investors taking money out of s bonds, it seems to me like bush is trying to keep some money backing our own currency.

I really do not believe that there is an urgent Social Security problem. Nevertheless, if you do believe one exists, why not raise the cap on taxing for social security from $90,000.00 to $150,000.00 a year.

Funny - I just read a filler in the Library Journal about a library somewhere (Bad memory) that sold 2 Norman Rockwell paintings to raise money for the library - because they lost a lot of money in the stock market... It struck me that more people might have to be selling old valuables to keep it going themselves if Social Security isn't secure anymore....

Transcript of SOTU here :)
http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2005/020205.asp

Frankly, and I'm serious here, Bush should just declare victory on social security and take credit for (somehow) lifting it out of crisis. All I've heard most of my life is that SS is on death's door and doomed to fail. Now I'm hearing from Paul Krugman and co that SS is healthy as a freaking horse. Bush should just come on TV, say "Hey, we looked at the numbers and the Democrats are right--we already saved social security! You folks who thought it would never be there when you retired--it will be now! It must have been those tax cuts!"

And then he never has to hear anyone talk about how every dime he proposes for Atomic Death Gel or whatever the military is working on is "taking money that could be used to save social security".

...grrrr, certainly not showing genius in my spelling of it above. ;p

Clinton talked about Social Security when the economy was bad. At the time, there was concrn. When the economy picked up, SS was doing better. Clinton and Bush have different reasons for suggesting fixes. Bush and Co. are trying to get rid of all the social services provided by the government. When he talks about cutting the deficit, be very afraid. He won't touch Rummy's military budget, so all that's left are the services to those in this country that can least afford to be without them. But, that's OK. At least the Wall Street brokers will get a few extra bucks off of selling bad stocks to people with no clue for their "personal" accounts.

By the way, I took a pass on the speech, too. Every time he comes on TV I have an irrational urge to kick the set in.

Karen says:
"Clinton talked about Social Security when the economy was bad. At the time, there was concrn. When the economy picked up, SS was doing better."

So the fact that Democrats say that there is now no Social Security crisis means that the economy under Bush is doing better than the economy under Clinton? Interesting take.

Doesn't anyone find the irony in the fact that the Shrub is trying to "fix" something that "may" develop problems 40 to 50 years from now? A time when he'll be biologically degrading into the next generation of fossil fuel. All the while our trade deficite spins out of control, personal bankruptcies are at an all time high and most likely long before we see SS turn belly up we will have survived another event similar to what created it. Of course all you have to do is follow the money and see exactly why the Shrub wants this program, just like he wanted the oil. 2 trillion dollars for his cronies. social Security doesn't need fixing, washington overspenders need fixed!

there already ARE private social security accounts -- they are called 401k accounts (and the similar account for non-profits and schools). And as the chief negotiator for our teachers, I know for a fact that we have around a dozen teachers who were planning on retiring who are still working 3 years later (with no specific retirement date yet), because their private accounts tanked when the stock market corrected itself. If you are going to have people invest in stocks and bonds to "guarantee" their retirement, you might as well let them buy lottery tickets or go to a casino too.

The damages of Bill Clinton? Oh, yeah, that's right, all those pesky JOBS his White House helped create...

I'd cling to the clock PAD but I think it's causing problems when i try to load your page I just tried to open it in three windows and two of them froze.

And I think that the business of privatizing Social Security is antithetical to the very concept. Social Security stems from a time when the country endeavored to pull together generationally, with the young paying in to support the elderly.

Those brave souls among us who actually listened to the speech heard Bush's response to that one: statistics. When the Roosevelt administration created Social Security, they picked 65 as the retirement age for a very simple reason: it was the life expectancy for an American male (which, at the time, was the definition of the work force). US life expectancies have increased by more than 10% since then but people are still retiring at close to the same age (there has been some trivial fiddling with Social Security retirement ages lately; q.v. http://www.ssa.gov/retirechartred.htm ). The young could pay in to support the elderly when the young outnumbered the elderly. Even if you don't agree with Bush's solution, the existence of the problem is incontrovertible. Seriously, let me know if there is an actual response to these statements from Dubya:

Social Security was created decades ago, for a very different era. In those days people did not live as long, benefits were much lower than they are today, and a half century ago, about 16 workers paid into the system for each person drawing benefits. Our society has changed in ways the founders of Social Security could not have foreseen. In today's world, people are living longer and therefore drawing benefits longer -- and those benefits are scheduled to rise dramatically over the next few decades. And instead of 16 workers paying in for every beneficiary, right now it's only about three workers -- and over the next few decades, that number will fall to just two workers per beneficiary. With each passing year, fewer workers are paying ever-higher benefits to an ever-larger number of retirees.

If Bush's numbers are right the system will have collapsed three years after I retire at age 67. The cross-generational support idea sounds warm and cuddly, but it only works as a pyramid scheme-- if there is a large number of the younger generation contributing a small amount of their personal incomes to produce significant amounts of money for the older generation. Unless the US birthrate changes in a surprising fashion over the next two decades, that's not going to work. And the birthrate is not going to change to benefit Social Security; birthrates have been declining steadily since the Industrial Revolution. So even if PAD's right and it's Every Man for Himself, Every Man for Himself is better than Everyone is Screwed, which is the system FDR left us.

And then he never has to hear anyone talk about how every dime he proposes for Atomic Death Gel or whatever the military is working on is "taking money that could be used to save social security".

Well...

A) Rumsfeld has asked for money to be put back into a research project for nuclear bunker busters.

Yes, that's right: NUCLEAR.

B) Bush wants to put a near-freeze on all increases in government spending... except national defense.
Maybe I mentioned this here already, but I don't think "national defense" includes invading other countries... actually, it likely doesn't - Bush just wants another $80 billion to blow on Iraq put into yet another wasteful military account.

So the fact that Democrats say that there is now no Social Security crisis means that the economy under Bush is doing better than the economy under Clinton? Interesting take.

Perhaps not the best way to get from A to B, but the economy was far better under Clinton.

Not to mention, scandals like Enron came along, which also robbed thousands of people of their 401k's.
Halliburton did some robbing of their own recently as well, in a way.

because their private accounts tanked when the stock market corrected itself

Yes, I've wondered about this myself - this is why I like the idea of a private account that does not rely on stocks and such, but on (hopefully) more secure interest-gathering methods.

There is really nothing that Mr. Bush would say
that I really need to hear right now.
Let's all look forward to hearing the 2009 State of The Union address given by Vice-President Obama, (President Edwards will be traveling through the Wastelands speaking to survivors)...

Too bad the Freedom Clock doesn't come with a Snooze Alarm. Let Freedom Ring!

Ok, so I watched the State of the Union adress. More out of a sense of morbid curiosity than anything else.

To my suprise President Bush's execution of his speach was well executed, if not well received. What I mean by that is that he didn't butcher the language enough to provide fodder for late night T.V. Jay Leno took a shot anyway. It was a pretty good shot, too. I think Leno credited Bush with use of the word "strongthusiastic", but don't hold me to that.

Also to my suprise it took longer than I anticipated for the President overuse the word "freedom." Once he got rolling I stopped counting at 11, while the word "justice" was bandied about only 4 times, according to my count (which is probably wrong anyway). I believe that justice is a cornerstone on which freedom stands and it's interesting to me to see how much President Bush touts freedom over justice. I equate "Freedom" to "The Big Picture" and "Justice" to the details that can be missed when one looks only at the big picture, which is something I think our President does.

At one point in the speech President Bush said that "marriage is the foundation of our society" while speaking in regard to amending the Constitution to defend marriage.

Marriage is the foundation of our society? Says who? The last line of the Pledge comes to mind: "With liberty and justice for all." For ALL, it says. THAT is a far more apropriate ideal to use as a foundation of society than an often nebulous contract between two people, ratified before a group of spectators, sometimes performed with heavy emphasis on the agrandizement of a non-corporeal entity, sometimes performed in a more secular setting, that has a roughly fifty-fifty shot at the controct being fulfilled ("Till death do you part").

I'm not saying that marriage is a bad thing. I'm saying that there are far less dubious foundations upon which a society should be built. In fact I'll go so far as to say that marriage shoud be defended from the people trying to defend it.

President Bush also made clear his intent to ask for more money to put towards a peace initiative for Palestine and Israel.

I'm all for peace in that region of the world. I would like nothing more that for the citizens there to get some rest from war and hate. My only concerns are that the money will be misspent (I.E. pocketed by officials), and that no amount of money can purge hate. I hope at the very least that this endeavor will be a step in the right direction.

Christopher Reeves widow was a guest of President Bush. It looked to me that she was invited as a figure head for the Presidents position stem-cell research. If that is the case then I am deeply disturbed that our state of political mind is so shallow that it would allow the memory of a man who is the very embodyment of the words courage and determination to be used in such a manner. I really hope I'm wrong about that.

Iraq was indeed glossed over with the exception of the 'Look What We Did For Them' routine. 'Nuff said.

Social Security. Well it seems like our elected officials have done nothing more than make it more difficult to see what the facts are on this matter. I'm not suprised. Alot of them have been doing this to us for years. I'm not even going to pretend to be suprised at this point.

Peter I think you were likely better off bowling.

Note to self: Spell check.

P.S.
I wish to offer my personal thanks to Mr. David and Mr. Hauman. You guys Rock. I love this blog and the two of you make it far better for the "User" than a certain site (which will remain unmentioned) where I was a paying member. When I'm filthy stinkin' rich (be prepared to wait) I'll be showing my gratitude with more than words.

Mitch Evans

Since it was for his fans why didn't he take a leaf out of Jackson's book and just stick it on the net?

At one point in the speech President Bush said that "marriage is the foundation of our society" while speaking in regard to amending the Constitution to defend marriage.

And last I checked, marrige isn't mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Pledge of Allegience, or the "Star Spangled Banner".

Man, I guess someobdy really blew that one to have missed such an important "foundation" of our society. Hot damn.

President Bush also made clear his intent to ask for more money to put towards a peace initiative for Palestine and Israel.

Hmm. This had me thinking: did Bush do ANYTHING in his first four years in office regarding the Palestine/Israel situation?

Bush loves to tout world peace, but he's invaded two countries in the name of "freedom", but hasn't done crap to actually promote peace itself.

Man, it seemed like every other month, Clinton was talking to somebody from Palestine or Israel and trying to get them to sit down and talk.

Bush has just ignored them.

So let's see...
PAD couldn't even be bothered to tape the State of the Union because he's not "overly interested in watching his royal smugness for any extended period of time". How open-minded!
Fred Chamberlain and J. Alexander would rather watch entertainment.
Karen took a pass because "every time he comes on TV I have an irrational urge to kick the set in."
How nice! Everyone from the Israelis and Palestinians to street gangs are beng urged to put aside differnces and just see people as people, and those who actually label themselves progressive can't be bothered to watch our President outline what he wants to do and why.
Of course,Karen,it is actually easier to spit out a slogan like "Bush is 'gutting' Social Security than to actually hear what the man has to say, right? I guess it's "never let the facts get in the way of a good story" (or talking point, slogan or soundbite).
Gene Hall,
"There is really nothing that Mr. Bush would say that I really need to hear right now."
Without even knowing what he was going to say! Wow! Let's hear it for the open-minded, critical-thinking members of this blog!

Craig J. Ries: "And last I checked, marrige isn't mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Pledge of Allegience, or the "Star Spangled Banner".

Man, I guess someobdy really blew that one to have missed such an important "foundation" of our society. Hot damn."

Hi Craig. I have to wonder why the people working on either side of this issue seem to miss such details. I often wonder if a group of no-names should beat these activists with a brain stick.

"Hmm. This had me thinking: did Bush do ANYTHING in his first four years in office regarding the Palestine/Israel situation?"

Not to my knowledge. But now the world has evidence that we'll invade if we don't get our way so President Bush may just be further proving that he is an opportunist now that fear is on our side. Although I have to consider, with our military being nearly over committed, the the President is writing check that the U.S. can't cash. Oh, wait... deficit. He'd just be staying within the projected probability curve.

"Man, it seemed like every other month, Clinton was talking to somebody from Palestine or Israel and trying to get them to sit down and talk."

I've said it before. I don't like Bill Clinton. At the same time I'm honest enough with myself to recognize and admit that he was a good president.
George Bush #2 on the other hand... well this juror won't make a final determination untill the Freedom Clock reads 00:00:00. For now I can only say that it's not looking too good.

Hi Jerome,

You make a valid, if sarcastic, point. Hell, I like sarcasm!

Forgive me, but I must ask if you have ever blown off a Clinton speech because you believed that you were just being lied to and you were just tired of it? I know I have. It's part of my genetic predisposition to distrust the body politic as a whole.

Genetics aside, if you answer "Yes" do you believe it's possible for another to have a similar feeling/reaction to President Bush?

Without even knowing what he was going to say! Wow! Let's hear it for the open-minded, critical-thinking members of this blog!

Out of curiosity, how long, in your view, is someone to be accorded benefit of the doubt before a (potential) listener can safely say, "This person will, at best, mostly likely say nothing of interest to me."?

Because, see, I gave "Dubya" the benefit of the doubt when, as a resident of Texas, he was Governor. During that period, and looking back at his track record, I saw nothing appealing.

Then, beginning during the 2000 presidential race, and the ensuing years, similar to Karen's reaction, I do seriously find myself getting angry every time I see "Dubya" on television and/or hear even a moment of his speeches. As a result, I, too, skipped the State of the Union. Unfortunately, our VCR recently died, and - thanks to "Dubya's" economy - we don't have the money to replace it, else we'd have tried catching up on the Stargate shows and Battlestar Galactica. As it was, we made do with some good music.

As I see it, choosing the option that didn't raise my blood pressure was the wisest course of action.

Or should I have still said, "Golly gee...for darn near a decade, he's never had anything to say that put me on 'his side.' But maybe tonight's the night!"?

1.) When President Clinton proposed private accounts for social security, he did so with risk parameters to prevent investments in potentially shaky situations. The preferred vehicle was government bonds. If you look at it from that standpoint, it was a win-win because the account holder would be guaranteed a return while the government would be guaranteed revenue to continue to fund operations and maintain the value of the US dollar.

2.) The controversy over whether SS will be bankrupt by 2042 is questionable. For one thing the assumption is that the workforce will not keep pace with the number of claimants. This would assume no economic growth of any consequence. It would also assume that all those currently drawing benefits would continue to do so while new beneficiaries would continue to come on line. That is, current beneficiaries would continue to live. That is patently impossible. Assuming a reasonable rate of population and economic growth, it would be unlikely that the number of beneficiaries would equal the number of workers paying into the system, as more workers would come on line during any given period than those who would retire.

A better solution to the problem would be to adjust the retirement age to say 67 or 68 to allow an adjustment to the gap between new hires entering the workforce and current workers starting to draw benefits.

I realize that this may be both abstract and oversimplified at the same time, but I'll bet money that some actuarials out there have actually done the modelling. It would be a much safer solution to the problem, as the idea of investing in markets over which individuals have little or no control is like playing Russian roulette.

3.) As much as I hate to agree with the conservative voices posted above, ignoring the speech on purpose blunts your ability to comment on the President's policies from a position of first hand knowledge. Because we vehemently oppose his positions, we should make all the more effort to be aware of every opportunity he gives us to make informed criticisms. Here's hoping that you review the transcripts or a recording.

And yet...many of these same people that skipped the SOTU because they hate Bush and everything he says or stands for are the same people that said that you HAD to see "Fahrenheit 9/11" because you weren't qualified to talk about it unless you saw it.

And yet many of those same people didn't comment on the speech... including Peter... instead they commented that they didn't watch it... Most of those who did comment on the speech DID watch it (many like myself in disgust) and hence could commnet on it. Those that commented instead on SS issues need not necessarily watch a speech to be aware of the situation, all that takes is a little reading and watching... (its been an issue for so long). So stop trying to twist the facts back and forth to fit one slight or another...

Joe K:

>3.) As much as I hate to agree with the conservative voices posted above, ignoring the speech on purpose blunts your ability to comment on the President's policies from a position of first hand knowledge.

I didn't ignore anything on purpose. I made a conscious choice to make better use of my time. Believe me, hearing the president say anything at this point shouldn't give you a sense that you are commenting on firest hand knowledge of his policy.

>Because we vehemently oppose his positions, we should make all the more effort to be aware of every opportunity he gives us to make informed criticisms.

I disagree. I'm a professional therapist. I study human behavior. I have repeatedly seen President Bush twist factual information in an attempt to manipulation his audience. Due to these innumerous observations, I have come to the conclusion that I it is a more beneficial and educational use of my time to read AP and International press news articles, watch a few television news shows weekly whether I agree with the commentators or not, and listen to NPR to get a more realistic sense of what Bush's policies are.

>Here's hoping that you review the transcripts or a recording.

Already done. Not only lacking much substance, but not even any big words to add to my vocabulary. ;)

Fred

Why don't we raise the retirement age? Why not set up some kind of formula that says "we need at least 10 workers per retiree" and set the retirement age for any given generation/year/decade/whatever based on that formula?

My ignorance of the complexities of this situation probably means there's something very wrong with that statement/idea, but I don't know what it is. Could someone tell me?

Eric

Everyone from the Israelis and Palestinians to street gangs are beng urged to put aside differnces and just see people as people, and those who actually label themselves progressive can't be bothered to watch our President outline what he wants to do and why.

See, the problem is is that every time Bush is on tv, I see that crooked smile on that crooked face, and I want to scream about how pathetic and stupid this country was to elect him.

I. Just. Can't. Stand. Him.

He embarrasses me as an American. Angers me. Makes me desire to live in another country.

And I can't watch him for more than a few seconds without being disgusted by his very nature.

Why don't we raise the retirement age?

At this point, why bother letting people retire at all? Why not make us all work till we drop dead?

Why stop at giving 45 years (or so) to The Man when you can work till they're putting you in your grave?

There is no fundamental right to retire. If you want to be able to retire, then you had best take on the responsibility of saving for your future.

SS was never setup and sold to the American people as welfare for old people. It was sold as a forced savings plan. If you want, as the Democrats do, to do thing such as raise the raise the income threshold at which SS taxes are applied, then you had best be forthright in declaring that SS is welfare. And then watch as public support for SS evaporates, as SS would lose significant luster when sold as a welfare program. However, if you can't be honest about what the program is, then what's the point?

And BTW, anyone who solely relies on Paul Krugman as their source for SS commentary had best start investigating other sources of information.

And furthermore, yesterday's article in the Washington Post (which Krugman used to bolster is commentary), and its subsequent retraction, is yet another disturbing example of poor fact checking by MSM.

I watched a porno. I figure if I'm going to see a bunch of boobs and people getting f@$*&d, there might as well be a funky 70s soundtrack to go along with it.

Bring on the wah-wah pedal!

Speaking as someone who lost his Social Security Disability money because I got married, (Yes you read correctly) I see SS and the entire USA in deep shit more and more under that right winged nutjob idiot George W. Bush.

Let me explain the loss of the SS Disability benefits. Apparently under certain SS laws, if I understand correctly, if a disabled person gets married or even has a relationship with someone he or she loves, their SS disability benefits are reduced or in some cases like mine taken completely away. At first, I thought it was because I was marrying a citizen from another country. I'm currently living in Italy with my beautiful Italian wife Laura. It turns out, other disabled people that were in love and married American citizens had the same thing happen to them. One couple, a man and a woman that are both disabled had their checks reduced to one check because they married. Now, they struggle to make ends meet. Many disabled people in America must go to extent of hiding their relationships with the person they love because they risk to lose some or all of their SS benefits.

Italy is not a perfect country. Silvio Berlusconi has made some of most idiotic decisions in the country's history, and continuously supports Bush like he Dubbya's boyfriend or something. However, Italy DOES have some things the USA does not.

1. Medical care and hospital stays in Italy for the most part is free. Money from the taxes here is used to help fund doctors and state of the art hospitals. In America, you're screwed if you need a doctor or hospital without insurance.

2. In order to get disability benefits in Italy, including a pension, It's sufficent to be declared 100% disabled by a group consisting of at least seven experts. In my case, it was sufficient for me to be unable to walk without ambulatory aids, and I'm not even an Italian citizen yet. It was enough for me to have a residency here. In order to get monetary benefits from Social Security, they told me VERY RUDELY that I must work ten years in order get another disability pension ALSO if I was born without the use of my legs.

There are many things I love about America, but there are also things I dislike about it. They call America THE LAND OF THE FREE. Sometimes, I have my doubts about that.

JHL

Hey, anyone else thought if this yet?

So, the essential problem with SS is that there aren't enough jobs to fund the program (at current levels) in the future. Waitaminute, does that mean that Bush is saying that all the work he's doing to create new jobs isn't enough? Maybe he'll think of that next time someone asks him about his failures.

All snarkiness aside, who doesn't think that SS is a welfare program? That's a new claim I've heard.

And if Bush's plan is to just allow people to invest the money somewhere else, why not give them REAL power and let them decide, totally free of restrictions, where to invest that money. It would save the goverment the trillions of adminstration dollars needed for this program. Just make it a tax cut.

So, let's see, that makes like 4 viable options I've come up with in the past few days on how to address SS. Yet there's no committee to study this, crunch the numbers, run some models. Just Bush's idea.

This issue is not about jobs. It is about demographics. There will simply not be enough young people to support the SS pyramid scheme. Believe it or not, this is why many people are pro-immigration, because immigration adds to the worker pool.

If you think that SS is welfare, you should read more about it here. Your SS benefits are a function of what you've paid into the system and your income stream. That cannot be considered to be welfare.

I would love it if SS was abandoned totally. However, a lot of people believe that Americans are too irresponsible to be trusted to save for their retirement, thus SS gets forced down all of our throats.

MP:

>I would love it if SS was abandoned totally. However, a lot of people believe that Americans are too irresponsible to be trusted to save for their retirement, thus SS gets forced down all of our throats.

... or it could be the fact that over 40% of all Americans are literally living from paycheck to paycheck and another 20% are just ahead of the game. Don't mistake economic hardship for irresponsibility.

Fred

J. Alexander, Eliminate the cap on SS period. Apply the SS taxes to the entirety of Hollywood actors, professional athletesd, and the boardroom scum that are killing this country with their greed.

And as for "Personal Investment Accounts", remember Enron?

Watch the stock market collapse as out of work Americans, downsized by scumbug corporations looking to maximize short term profits, can't afford houseing and food, much less any of the crap these compaines sell declare bankruptcy by the ton and retail sales drop through the floor...

All that invested money gone...

And to those who did waste their time watching SOTU, did Bush actually say/do ANYTHING new/different than he's been spewing?

All the SOTU was is a rerun of the past 4 years, and reruns need to be interesting if you want people to re-watch them...

I kinda felt like Bush mistook the SotU address for another campaign speech. Someone tell the poor guy he can stop telling us all that he's going to do, fer cryin out loud. He won. He's been sworn in. He can stop campaigning

Clinton's plan to privatize was based on an active practice of fiscal discipline. We dont have that anymore. Arguing party politics and historical reversals of support will get you nowhere. The GOP opposed HIS plan to privatize THEN.

Jan 20 1999 New York Daily News:
""Our fiscal discipline gives us an unsurpassed opportunity to address a remarkable new challenge: the aging of America," Clinton said.

After years filled with talk but hardly any action over Social Security's looming shortfalls, the plan was hailed for moving the debate forward. But it faces an uphill battle in the GOP-run Congress.

Many Republicans want to use more of the surplus for across-the-board tax cuts and favor a gradual phasing out of the Social Security system, to be replaced by individual private-sector retirement accounts.

Clinton said his plan would push the date the Social Security trust fund would run dry from 2032 to 2055. He called for Congress to work with him to find other ways to extend it until at least 2075.

Another $ 33 billion a year from the surplus would help create a new Universal Savings Account for all Americans, with government matching funds tailored to encourage lower-income people to save more for retirement. Clinton did not provide a specific formula, but economic adviser Gene Sperling explained it this way:

A family making $ 40,000 would get a flat annual amount, perhaps $ 100, into their account.

If they put in $ 600 of their own money, the government would kick in another $ 300.

Over a lifetime, that family would have $ 130,000 of additional savings.

The idea that government instead would invest in financial markets perhaps as much as $ 700 billion set off alarms from conservatives and some liberals wary of government becoming a stock market Bigfoot."

I feel some people are missing a simple point.

If Social Security were in glowing health Bush would still want to privatise it.

Mr. David,

You keep referring to something called "Bush's list." Can we infer from this that you place no moral responsibility whatsoever for the enemy soldiers and terrorists who are, in fact, the ones actually killing American soldiers in Iraq?

Maybe if the Federal government wasn't imposing a 15% SS tax on everyone you wouldn't have such an economic hardship issue.

If you want to eliminate the SS cap, then you'd better be prepared to fess up and start calling SS welfare, because then it would clearly a socialist wealth transfer scheme.

People who had their entire retirement savings in a single equity (Enron) were clearly not diversified enough to mitigate their risk. That is there own fault. No one forced them to save for retirement in that fashion.

Besides, holding up Enron as a representation of the entire corporate world in America is simply ludicrous.

And Clinton's plan, to my knowledge, did not involve the direct ownership of assets by the American citizens. Instead, the Government would own/manage the assets, which is a horrible idea.

Those terrorists killing soldiers in Iraq wouldn't be doing it if the soldiers weren't there in the first place. So what's your point?

"3.) As much as I hate to agree with the conservative voices posted above, ignoring the speech on purpose blunts your ability to comment on the President's policies from a position of first hand knowledge."

Speaking for myself, I didn't ignore the speech. I didn't watch Bush's delivery of it. I read extensive coverage of it the next day.

PAD

MP, those Enron employees? They were, in fact, forced by Enron to invest in the fashion that led to their loss of savings.

Interesting to note how, just 6 short years ago, "conservatives" were expressing concern that privatizing Social Security would be a bad thing.

SS tax is 6% of employee income. The rest is made up by employer matching. For the self-employed, they need to pay the full 15%. For the rest of us, it's taken out by our employer, so it doesn't count as gross income.

Think how much lower that % could be if it was spread out over more income, instead of just $90K.

No, you should infer that a President is responsible for putting them into harm's way in the first place. You should infer that going to war is an important decision that a President should not take capriciously, and that the deaths of his countrymen is the consequence, so he'd better make sure the war is justified. That enemy combatants/insurgents/terrorists are murderers/killers is a given.

Rich Drees: I watched a porno. I figure if I'm going to see a bunch of boobs and people getting f@$*&d, there might as well be a funky 70s soundtrack to go along with it.
Luigi Novi: LOL.

James Heath Lantz: Italy is not a perfect country. Silvio Berlusconi has made some of most idiotic decisions in the country's history, and continuously supports Bush like he Dubbya's boyfriend or something. However, Italy DOES have some things the USA does not… Medical care and hospital stays in Italy for the most part is free.
Luigi Novi: Ah, but what’s the quality of that stay? When I visited my uncle in the hospital last April during my trip to Italy, it didn’t look like much to crow about. The place actually looked run-down. I don’t know if this was the exception or the rule, but I’d like to know.

They most certainly were not forced to invest in that fashion. Enron employees held 60% of their assets in Enron stock, but they weren't forced to. And even if Enron company stock was the only available option in the 401K plan, no-one is forced to invest in a 401K plan.

And again, if it "was spread out over more income", it would be welfare.

"You keep referring to something called "Bush's list." Can we infer from this that you place no moral responsibility whatsoever for the enemy soldiers and terrorists who are, in fact, the ones actually killing American soldiers in Iraq?"

No, but I think we can infer from your posting that you've never heard of the phrase, "The buck stops here" in regards to the President. Then again, if you embrace Bush's belief that he's made no mistakes, and if you think that it's perfectly all right that no one in his administration has been held accountable for the flotilla of misjudgments and incompetence ranging from the invasion searching for WMDs to the prison torture to the ongoing insurgency they astoundingly never saw coming, then at least you're consistent.

Can I infer from your posting that you can watch earlier SOTUs where Bush stands there declaring that Saddam must disarm or we will act with a coalition of nations to do the job--knowing that it's all lies--and not get sick to your stomach?

I've never believed that 9/11 was Bush's fault, despite the indisputable proof that his people--including Rice--were asleep at the switch. But Iraq was all Bush. Yes, he was steered there by his Neocons, but the buck does stop with him and the names of 1400 dead GIs, not to mention the thousands upon thousands who are wounded, not to mention the thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children annihilated by our bombs...

They're all on Bush's list.

And everyone who voted for him proudly attached their names at the bottom of that list as signatories.

PAD

Ok, fine, no one forced them to. But someone certainly prevented them from acting to save those founds once things started coming to light about Enron's true status.

And while I agree with you that personal investment is a personal responsibility, I also think it's niave to place no blame on the corporations.

How is it no a welfare program now? Just because the middle class is bearing a greater percentage of the burden? Why should income over $90K be exempt from supporting social security?

Blame for what? I can place blame on Enron for screwing up with their administration of the 401k plan such that the employees weren't able to sell as the bottom was falling out, but I don't see anything that would lead me to extrapolate this to an indictment on American industry.

As to why SS is not welfare, refer to the government's SS web site and read up on how you qualify for benefits. It is a function of contributions to the system. It is not simply because you are an old fart.

... or it could be the fact that over 40% of all Americans are literally living from paycheck to paycheck and another 20% are just ahead of the game. Don't mistake economic hardship for irresponsibility.

It sounds, from this statement, that you have the two confused. Living from paycheck to paycheck almost always is a case of poor planning and irresponsibility. Most people can wheather the economic downtimes with proper financial planning.

Don't mistake economic hardship for irresponsibility.

Agreed.

Most people can wheather the economic downtimes with proper financial planning.

Proper financial planning doesn't do a damn thing when your paycheck doesn't cover the bills - unless you think it's acceptable in the year 2005 to go without heat or electric just to survive.

Wow, Ken, this statement "Living from paycheck to paycheck almost always is a case of poor planning and irresponsibility. Most people can wheather the economic downtimes with proper financial planning." describes almost no one I know.

The thing is, most people *feel* financially secure. And most don't realize just how close to losing all their security they are. having had to deal with bouts of unemployment over the past 5 years (thankfully going on 2+ full years working now) I can tell you just how close the average family is to bankruptcy. College education basically requires someone to take out a loan, buying a car, housing. These three things alone are almost necessities to have any chance to advance in today's society, and can easily set back the average family over $200,000. With that debt as a starting point, just about no one I know is in a position to financially survive a serious economic blow.

Ken:

>>... or it could be the fact that over 40% of all Americans are literally living from paycheck to paycheck and another 20% are just ahead of the game. Don't mistake economic hardship for irresponsibility.

>It sounds, from this statement, that you have the two confused. Living from paycheck to paycheck almost always is a case of poor planning and irresponsibility. Most people can wheather the economic downtimes with proper financial planning.

I'm guessing that you have a job that pays pretty well and allows you to live by this standard of thought. "Economic downtimes"? These individuals are not in situations to ever have an up time. Anyone making minimum wage has next to no opportunity or freedom to even consider the planning or irresponsibility that you present here.

If you can't pay off your college debt in 10 years, then clearly you spent too much on your college education. One needs to evaluate ROI when deciding where to go to school.

As for a car, I know plenty of people who lease or buy new. Both can be poor decisions, especially when you are just getting your footing.

As for a house, you have to buy what your means allows. If you are spending more than 40% of your montly income on housing costs, then you are living above your means. People complain that there is no low cost housing. That's not true. There's just limited low cost nice housing with a yard and lots of space. And that's simply a function of supply and demand.

But regardless of all this, anecdotes are useless when it comes to public policy discussions.

So now we're basing SS policy on .008% of the population (assuming a population of 260 million), half of which are under 25? Well that makes sense...not.

MP the problem with ROI (which I'm assuming to mean return on investment) is that there's a risk involved in that analysis, and that risk is that your ROI is based on a series of assumptions and averages. Using me as an example, I was lucky (or good, I suppose) in that I earned a 4 year scholarship for college, then decided to go on to law school. I was making plans to attent a local school when a national, top ten law school offered me a spot. It literally was an opportunity I could not turn down, even though I knew tuition would be far beyond my means.

6 years after earning my law degree, I'm now working a very satisfying, challenging, and rewarding job on the fringes of the legal profession. The high ROI I estimated I could get with a top ten law degree turned out to be filled by an overpopulation of other top-ten graduates, so the work I was able to attain was far, far below the 6 digit salaries that were dangled in front of our eyes.

I'm not hurting. I made it through a tough market and found a job I love, and pays well. But you and others make it seem like it's just a simple matter of determining what is "within your means."

And THAT assumes that you have a financial advisor with you from the time you get your first job, making sure you don't make mistakes like falling prey to credit card sharking. If our schools spent more time teaching fiscal responsibility rather than advanced math (I doubt I'll ever need to use calculus in my life, ever again) we'd probably all be better off. But I don't recall those classes being offered at any level.

It is not just a question of not trusting Shrub, it is the degree that I fear him and what harm he is doing to this country. Seeing him on TV just makes me sick, so I will try to avoid doing so. I can always read his lies in the paper the next day.

Hmm. It sounds like Howard Dean is on the verge of becoming head of the DNC.

And it sounds like other Democrats are afraid of this happening... why? Too liberal? Somebody outside the "mainstream" that produced candidates Gore and Kerry?

Looking back now, I wish Dean had got the nomination over Kerry.

MP:

>So now we're basing SS policy on .008% of the population (assuming a population of 260 million), half of which are under 25? Well that makes sense...not.

Ok, it took me a while to dig up the info, but the following is taken directly from the U.S. Census Bureau:

2001 (Real Family Income):

bottom 20%: $24,000
Second 20%: 24,000-41,127
Middle 20%: 41,127-62,500
Fourth 20%: 62,500-84,150
Top 20%: 94,150-Up
Top 5%: 164,104-Up

Remember that these are family household incomes, not individual incomes. Information from caensus taken over the years shows a drastic sepreration between the rich and poor with those in the middle getting smaller all of the the time. I find it hard to believe that the majority of the nation are in hard times due to irresponsibile spending habits. If anyone here can explain to me how a family of 4 people can save and prosper with the parents resting during retirement on $30,000 a year, I'll gladly listen and absorb the knowledge as I am making more than that alone, living within my means, not going out and gambling recklessly or living in excess and don't have a huge nest egg.

Fred

Oops, I have info on the average household incomes for the groups as well, same source of the U.S. Bureau of Census:

2001 (Real Family Income):

Lowest 20%: 10,136
2nd 20%: 25,468
3rd 20%: 42,629
4th 20%: 66,839
Top 20%: 145,970
top 5%: 260,464

These numbers were even more alarming to me when thinking about a future for the bottom 40%.

>

You can always tell the people whove never had to experience any hardship in their life by ignorant comments like the one above.

"It sounds, from this statement, that you have the two confused. Living from paycheck to paycheck almost always is a case of poor planning and irresponsibility. Most people can wheather the economic downtimes with proper financial planning."

Or the one below in this case.... (mumblemumblefriggintypekeycrap).

grrr.... I need to breathe and take more time here. The last post is NOT family income, but household income. It could be singles and/or roommates, etc.

The following is family income:

Lowest 20%: 14,021
2nd 20%: 32,466
3rd 20%: 51,538
4th 20%: 76,646
Top 20%: 159,644
top 5%: 280,312

Sorry for the misinformation before. This was quadruple-checked. :)

Fred

"Household" is not based on a family of four. Those numbers also do not account for the change in income over time. They are a point in time snapshot. Those numbers do not mean that a Household makes that income level through 40 years in the labor market. Those numbers correlate highly with age groups. Also, they do not take into account the wide variations in Cost of Living by region in this country.

Regardless, they could do it with the 15% a year is taken from them to pay into SS.

MP:

>"Household" is not based on a family of four.

You are correct. I was mistaken.

>Those numbers also do not account for the change in income over time. They are a point in time snapshot. Those numbers do not mean that a Household makes that income level through 40 years in the labor market. Those numbers correlate highly with age groups.

Ok, let's look at this information(What can I say, I have a file of the stuff).

1979 to 2001 - Real Family Income Growth by Quintile:

Lowest 20%: + 3%
2nd 20%: +11%
3rd 20%: +17%
4th 20%: +26%
Top 20%: +53%
top 5%: +81%

The gap is growing.

>Also, they do not take into account the wide variations in Cost of Living by region in this country.

I'm not sure that cost of living is a helpful argument in this case as $20,000 a year in an area where cost of living is dirt cheap makes it a struggle to survive and in an area where cost of living is high, it makes it near impossible.

>Regardless, they could do it with the 15% a year is taken from them to pay into SS.

Seriously?

"Real Family Income Growth by Quintile" does not track individual households. The households in the lowest quintile in 1979 are not the same households as the lowest quintile in 2001. Proper analysis has to take into account income mobility.

And yes, seriously...assuming income mobility.

The thing is, most people *feel* financially secure. And most don't realize just how close to losing all their security they are. having had to deal with bouts of unemployment over the past 5 years (thankfully going on 2+ full years working now) I can tell you just how close the average family is to bankruptcy. College education basically requires someone to take out a loan, buying a car, housing. These three things alone are almost necessities to have any chance to advance in today's society, and can easily set back the average family over $200,000. With that debt as a starting point, just about no one I know is in a position to financially survive a serious economic blow.

All of this boils down to poor planning. Live within your means and these worries won't exist.

Anyone making minimum wage has next to no opportunity or freedom to even consider the planning or irresponsibility that you present here.

Say it enough times and this might be true, but if someone is able to avoid debt (which is reasonable) than minimum wage does offer reasonable opportunity.

You can always tell the people whove never had to experience any hardship in their life by ignorant comments like the one above.

This is just not true, but no matter the hardship that I have experienced I have never been unemployed for over 24 hours at any time in the last 20 years and I am willing to take work that is below my educational level if it means providng for my family. When I look back almost all hardships that I experienced were due to my lack of planning and could have been avoided if I had made better decisions. But personal responsibility is lost on the liberal mind, I guess.

Live within your means and these worries won't exist.

Wow, you make it sound so easy.

Why aren't you out making millions with such sage advice?

Oh, I know: because it's not that easy.

How does living within your means equate to being able to make millions? In fact, it is just the opposite, it means realizing that you don't make millions.

What is hard about living within your means?

Oh, and according to the numbers posted, I am in the second 20% and able to live fine.

Wow, Ken, all I can say is can I borrow those rose colored glasses sometime? 'Cause you speak as if you live in a totally different world from the one I do.

I can tell you that no amount of better planning could have prepared me for extended periods of unemployment. And while I was certainly willing to take lower paying work during that time, doing so would have meant not only giving up my unemployment benefit, but actually making *less* than I did on unemployment. A benefit, by the way, which my previous employers had paid taxes on so that I could have the time to look for work that fit my cost of living requirements, rather than be forced to work 80+ hours in jobs "below my education level."

And I'm really glad that you've never had to experience unemployment. It stinks, really, to high heavan. Unfortunately, not all careers have so many positions open that you can lose one on Monday, and have another one lined up on Tuesday. Some of my time spent in what I call unemployed was spent in contract positions, one of which paid me well over the annual equivilent of $100K a year. That's an annual salary I'm not likely to see in my current job for at least another 10 years, but it came in a job that literally could have ended at any moment. When those are the conditions under which you're working, no amount of "good decisions" or "careful planning" can prepare you for when the rug not only gets pulled out from under you, but you discover there's a long, dark, drop hidden underneath it.

I'll have to somewhat agree with another post: those that have not come close to hitting rock bottom really have no concept of the term.

Ken:

>>Anyone making minimum wage has next to no opportunity or freedom to even consider the planning or irresponsibility that you present here.

>Say it enough times and this might be true, but if someone is able to avoid debt (which is reasonable) than minimum wage does offer reasonable opportunity.

Has nothing to do with repetition as that does not seem to do any good except with the administration. :p

Avoiding debt is easy enough to say, but unplanned, unavoidable events happen in life. Flood, sudden illness, death, etc. Any one of these situations could and have put families in poverty level situations from which they have little to no chance of recovery, certainly not at $6.00 an hour.

Ken, I don't know you, nor you me, but we all tend to speak from places of privelege, whether we are aware of it or not. Your educational opportunities alone have put you above the majority of your fellow Americans. If you are healthy both physically, mentally, and financially count your blessings, but don't believe that you are "the norm".

Like you, I have busted my ass (I have always taken any job necessary when needed, shake my head at family members who sit back and collect unemployment, and take full responsibility for where I am today.). I was fortunate enough to have a father who provided me with a solid work ethic. At the same time, I also know that if I don't see the Tsunami coming, there is no way to avoid it.

Some people are born into it, some have it drilled into their heads, and some have no feasable way out due to the fact their they fall below a financial line where they become unimportant and a Nuisance. If they one no capital, no education or insight, and no way of getting a reasonable loan, how do they join those of us who are "enlightened"?

Fred

Mostly curious, Ken, but does "living within your mean" apply to the government, too? 'Cause running a deficit when you already have outstanding debt sure doesn't sound like living within your means to me.

None of that is justification for a state run pension system. If you want to provide welfare for individuals who fail to put themselves in a position to be financially secure, then call it welfare, set it up as a direct wealth transfer from haves to have-nots, and be done with it.

The current government deficit is certainly not "living with your means". I don't think Ken is arguing that the government is well managed. In particular, that is further evidence that a government run pension system is a bad idea.

MP, not sure what you're referring to. If it's unemployment, in Illinois, it's a tax-supported system. You are entitled to a limited-time benefit based upon your income record. It's pretty closely monitored, and you have to be actively searching for work in order to continue receiving your benefit. it's not welfare. You have to have been employed to receive it.

If we're back to SS, how would increasing the tax limit for funding it make it a welfare plan? You still have to contribute in order to collect, and your benefit amount is based on your contribution. Those that don't work don't collect. welfare systems go to anyone, regardless of contribution.

And you'r right, Ken isn't saying that the current government is well run. However, his "liberal" comment suggests that he's a supporter of the current government, and he's basically saying that living beyond your means is irresponsible. Draw your own conclusions.

Yes, I'm still referring to SS. Unemployment Insurance was not an issue brought up by the SOTU.

Well, if you leave the system such that money in=money out, then I don't see how raising the cap makes it solvent.

It increases the inflow of funds. More revenue= more interest over time = pushing the negative flow of cash off further into the future or elimintes it all together. If the problem is paying for it, then we just need a way to generate more money. that's either with additinal jobs, or broadening the tax base.

If you continue to base SS benefits on what you put into the system, then someone who puts more in when the cap is increased will simply get more out. It nets out and doesn't change anything. The only way increasing the cap works is if the added revenue to paid out to beneficiaries without regards to contributions in, change SS to a redistributive system.

>

No, liberals are actually quite bit a better and honest when it comes to personal responsibilty. Almost as good as conservatives are at being arrogant douche bags.

I was going to say I hope you'd never have to experience true hardship. Things that have happened to my family and others, such as horrible diseases like luekemia and auto accidents (you know, those easily planned for and avoided things), never to happen to yours, even if it meant you'd never learn the error in your position. But you know, I can't honestly express that sentiment now. Start planning...

It may be "arrogant" to assume that anyone who can't make ends meet and save is not living within there means, but it is also foolish to assume the reverse.

We all can't have rich daddies with powerful friends to bail us out like Shrub. By the definition you give us. Shrub should not have been given assistance by his father's friends to bail out his companies when he drove them to ruin.

Mitch Evans,
No, I never "blew off" a Clinton State of the U for the same reason I have read Michael Moore books.
1.) I refuse to comment on something unless I can do so honestly, critically and with knowledge.

2.) Of all the speeches/ press conferences, the State of the Union sets the tone throughout the year politically. And it is impossible to get the same feeling via transcripts or soundbites.

3.) Maybe, just maybe, something will be said that will make me think differently, however slightly.

4.) Clinton's initiatives included many I agreed with like welfare reform and the Defense of Marriage Act. Some that sounded good, I would read up on. I mean, after he blew health care reform and lost the House, he never tried implementing anything risky politically that could be truly classified as liberal. Which is so odd, because he truly had charisma and charged his base. But he took the safe way out, and wound up accomplishing much less than he probably could have.

Peter, to be fair, Bush finally conceded that he had made mistakes when he spoke during the debates. He never articulated an example, but at least he corrected his previous statement to the contrary.

"It may be "arrogant" to assume that anyone who can't make ends meet and save is not living within there means, but it is also foolish to assume the reverse."

What does that even mean?

Jerome,
Of course,Karen,it is actually easier to spit out a slogan like "Bush is 'gutting' Social Security than to actually hear what the man has to say, right? I guess it's "never let the facts get in the way of a good story" (or talking point, slogan or soundbite).

I said I wasn't watching. I did not say I am not informed. Actual economic experts opinions on the issue are more valid than whatever feel good doublespeak Bush is spouting this week.

From Aaron,
Many Republicans want to use more of the surplus for across-the-board tax cuts and favor a gradual phasing out of the Social Security system, to be replaced by individual private-sector retirement accounts.

The goal is to phase out the safety net that so many rely on. SS is an insurance, not welfare. We and our employers pay a premium with every paycheck. So, those of you who agree with privatization, stop twisting the argument with false definitions.

Last year, I made just over $30k.

My wife is permanently, totally disabled by her depression, PTSD, and OCD. Our daughter is autistic.

I'm working full-time, we're living in a crappy little one-bedroom slum-level apartment whose one door doesn't even bloody well close, I drive a decade-old Geo Metro that I keep both because of its fuel economy and because I simply can't afford anything better, and we eat a lot of pasta (it's cheap around here). The apartment costs approximately 40% of my income (the non-slumlords around here want it to be no more than 33%, which cuts out upward mobility in lifestyle).

We are indeed living from paycheck to paycheck, with no sign things will get better - I'm too old to work 40+ hours a week, help my family with their needs, and still go to school.

I did make one serious mistake years back, when I got out of the service (during Bush the First). I believed someone who told me he had a COBOL-programming job for me in Seattle. I moved my first family up there, thinking I'd have it made. After three months on unemployment, we found ourselves living in a tent in the woods on the shoulder of Mount Rainier, because we couldn't even afford the cost of living in the campgrounds any more. An apartment was completely out of the question. Years of hard work pulled us out of that hole, despite Newt Gingrich's best efforts...

Now, tell me again how I can just make a few changes and suddenly live better.

"The current government deficit is certainly not "living with your means". I don't think Ken is arguing that the government is well managed. In particular, that is further evidence that a government run pension system is a bad idea."

Given how many privately-owned businesses go bankrupt on any given year, I'm not sure the governement is always that much worse.

The thing that gets me about privatization is that it's an apparent admission that they aren't competent to run a pop stand. So? What then makes them think they are competent to run a country?

The debt thing is another oddity. Consider the comments made above about educational costs. In Canada, we've had that debate, too, with lots of people saying it's bad for government to get into debt by putting too much money into health and education. So, why is it any better for individuals to get that deeply into debt? Norway manages to have free post secondary education. What's wrong with us that we can't manage it? After all, someone university educated should, in theory, get a better-paying job and thus pay more taxes back into the system.

Seems like as good a place as any to mention that the LA Times--no right wing rag they--crunched the numbers of the latest unemployment figure and found out:

"But the bureau also revised its total for the March 2003 to March 2004 period as part of its annual benchmarking. As expected, this added 203,000 jobs to the period.

Coupled with January's modest growth, this was enough to prevent Bush from becoming the first president since Herbert Hoover to have a net loss of jobs during his administration."

Now...given the way that some liberals act about predictions that don't quite come true I suppose one could argue that those of us on the other side could start screaming "Liars! Lying liars of lyingosity, choking on the lyingness of your lying lies!" Except that A- it seemed like it would be true at the time and B- who wants to sound like that anyway?

And exactly how many people died because of that prediction, Bill?

I would hope you would be willing to admit there is such a thing as a difference in degree in such matters...

Sigh...actually I was trying to convey how incredibly foolish people look when throwing around the L word. That's all.

Yeah, I can get that.

Sorry if I seemed to kinda snap on ya, there was just this sense of deep bitterness to your post that triggered a reaction. (My perception, anyway. But that's all any of us have to work with, yes? *g*)

There's more coherent thooughts lurking at the edge of my consciousness, but frankly, I'm too tired at the moment to make them...

1.) When noting income levels, are these levels in BEFORE tax dollars or AFTER tax dollars? This is important, because there is a huge difference. Let's use $30,000.00 as an example. If they are before tax dollars, you can estimate that fully 30% of that wage will disappear into taxes of various types, all the way from basic income tax to sales tax to user fees, even to toll fees for commuters! Just some examples, not to be taken completely literally. However in this case, that $30,000 really represents only $20,000 to $21,000 in DISPOSABLE income. If that's true and no more than 40% should go towards housing for example, then that translates into about $700 per month for rent at the top end. That leaves $12,600 for the rest of the year to cover food, clothes, vehicles, medical insurance (in the US), and maybe the odd movie on the weekend. So you can see that it leaves precious little to save for a rainy day, let alone breath easy. I don't case hoe much financial planning you do in that situation, it just does not add up. Of course the situation is a bit easier (though not much) if that $30K is AFTER taxes.

2.) An example of why the government should NOT be in charge of the investments: Here in Friendly Manitoba we had a thing called the Crocus Fund. (and yes, you can apply the phonetic "Croak-Us" to the word if you wish as you'll see.) Anyways, the government urged individuals to use this vehicle for their Registered Retirement Savings Plan (our equivalent of the 401K) with the added incentive of an extra 30% of the contribution in tax writeoff. For example, a person investing $1000 in Crocus would receive not only the tax credit for the $1K, but an additional credit for $300, AND the money would theoretically grow within the fund tax-free within the RRSP account.
Now, the mandate of the fund management was to invest the funds in Manitoba companies and earn a ROI based on the initial values of those companies combined with ongoing economic activity, all under the watchful eye of government managers. You can see where this is going, can't you?
Long story short, a fall audit discovered some "irregularities" in the initial valuations of some of the companies chosen as fund investments. The result was that that fund shares carried a false value. When contributors heard this, there was a short-lived panic, short-lived because share selling was halted. The fund is still being extensively audited even now, and the head management has largely resigned. The current provincial government is trying to distance itself from responsibility, blaming the previous administration. The end result is going to be that the fund may have a value closer to 15% of that which was actually stated and thousands of Manitobans will have seen their hard-earned dollars go straight to money heaven.
So the minute you see any investment deal where government manages the funds a la a mutual pool, do not walk, but RUN as far and as fast as you can to get away from it, AND anything that may be affected by it, because it will surely be a house of cards and you will lose lose lose. So if this privatization scheme of Bush's goes through, it will become very apparent very quickly that the real value of money will be closer to zero than anyone can even conceive. Mark my words.

Sigh...actually I was trying to convey how incredibly foolish people look when throwing around the L word. That's all.

Well...yeah.

I mean, since the new season of The L Word doesn't start for a couple more weeks.

;-)

Privatization is a nice, neutral word to cover what it really is: Every Man For Himself.

Yes, it'll be a sad day for America when the individual is given freedom of choice over what to do with his own property.

Of course, the key word there is "choice." Most of the privatization/account schemes being floated don't require everyone to set up private accounts. Most don't require that of all young people.

Rather, the individual is given a CHOICE. Do you want to stick with the 10.6% OASI tax, and get retirement benefits that are guaranteed by the feds? Fine, you can do that. Some people prefer the security, or don't trust their own financial know-how.

BUT, what if you'd rather keep some of your money, and invest it the way YOU want to? Then private accounts would allow you that option, that choice. I'm in my mid-20s, with a college education. I don't enjoy paying $4000 a year in retirement taxes, and then having to save and invest more on top of that because the first four grand won't produce a large enough return.

I want the CHOICE to invest MY money MY way. Is there risk? Sure, but I want the opportunity to take that risk. There's a risk that I won't make it to 65 too, and if that happens, then all those $4000 payments are lost. I'm not asking anything of anybody else. You like Social Security? Then stick with it. I just want freedom to be an option.

Folks above are suggesting raising the tax, or raising the maximum income level that is subject to the tax. When Social Security began, the OASI tax took just 2% of the first $3000 of income ($37,000 today). A maximum tax of $60 a year (about $800 today). Today, the tax is 10.6%, and applied to the first $87,000. Some people pay over $9200 a year just in Social Security retirement taxes.

In other words, the tax today is over five times what it was 60 years ago, and the taxable income is more than twice as much. (Benefits have risen too, but not that much.) Social Security already makes up 20% of the US Budget (about the same percentage as the entire Dept of Defense), and yet the program is still short on money, and some people want to raise those levels even *higher*.

Luigi Novi: Ah, but what’s the quality of that stay? When I visited my uncle in the hospital last April during my trip to Italy, it didn’t look like much to crow about. The place actually looked run-down. I don’t know if this was the exception or the rule, but I’d like to know.

Well, like in the USA, it depends on the hospital. There are some hospitals that can get the short end of the stick. However, my wife's brother, who studied to be a nurse and has been hospitalized various times (one of which was for a fall similar to O.J. Simpson's at end of the first Naked Gun film SERIOUSLY) has had some very good hospital stays. They've been so good that I'm tempted to send him back there everytime he screams at his TV when I am writing. Okay, that previous snetence was a joke... sort of.

JHL

Note to self: Spell check what you write on this site before posting.

I meant sentence, not snetence.

Loren, the SS system isn't short funds. It might be short fund in about 20 years or so, of we do nothing now.

Those choices you're looking at having? Using the TSP as an example, you get a "choice" of about 5 different funds, each with a varying level of risk. I don't know if that's the kind of choice you're expecting, but Bush is going to use TSP as a model, although he's stated that there might be more funds available.

The problem? Having more funds means more administrative costs. Before you decide to support any new plan, I'd be demanding to see start up and administration costs, and a see how long it'll be before the new system starts taking in more than it costs. If it really does cost trillions of dollars, it's going to end up being just a different kind of administrative money sink.

MP, SS is paid for by taxes. We don't have a flat tax scheme, and it's somewhat progressive. Except for the SS tax, which is actuall REgressive. Someone working full time making $90K pays about 6% of their income into SS. Someone making double that, $180K, pays 3% of their income. The more you make over $90, the less spending power you're putting into the program.

I'm not sure if benefits have been increased when the tax base has been increased. I also don't know the kinds of numbers needed to address the coming shortfall in the program. But consider this.

According to other information posted above, a full 25% of US households make more than $90K. Using totally made up numbers, let's say there are 100 million taxpayers. That means that a full 25 million are in that regressive SS tax group. Now, let's assume that we increase the SS tax base to $100K. That means that 25 million people will be paying an effective 15% tax on $10,000, or $1,500 each. Or an annual $37,500,000,000....$37.5 billion, if I've counted my zeroes correctly. That's for every $10,000 that 25% makes over $90K. , if the SS tax is raised even more.

If they don't see an increase in benefits, there is some income redistribution involved. But don't all taxes include some aspect of that?

Sorry if I seemed to kinda snap on ya, there was just this sense of deep bitterness to your post that triggered a reaction. (My perception, anyway. But that's all any of us have to work with, yes? *g*)

No harm, no foul. It's one of the challenges of this sort of thing--we are essentially having phone conversations with writing but of course a lot gets lost.

Re Social Security. Math makes my head hurt. The republicans should just shrug and let it go. If, in 20 years or so it looks like the whole deck of cards is about to collapse they can sit back and let the loyal opposition figure a way out of the mess.

I'm afraid it is part of our modern mindset that we don't want to spend time, money or political capital on a crisis until it it a looming disaster. It would probably be smart to do something now but it's probably not going to happen, anymore than people are probably willing to spend a few trillion dollars now planning for the Big California quake, the east coast mega tsunami or the explosion of the Yellowstone caldera.

Those choices you're looking at having? Using the TSP as an example, you get a "choice" of about 5 different funds, each with a varying level of risk. I don't know if that's the kind of choice you're expecting,

Well it's not my ideal, but any choice is better than none.

The problem? Having more funds means more administrative costs.

Naturally. Treating large numbers of people in exactly the same way is efficient. If Ford only made one model car, and only in black, it could save a lot of costs, and they could sell a single car for less. But I think the availability of options is worth the trade-off.

Except for the SS tax, which is actuall REgressive. Someone working full time making $90K pays about 6% of their income into SS. Someone making double that, $180K, pays 3% of their income.

But benefits are, and always have been, scaled to the taxes paid. A person who made $90K gets the same SS benefits check that the $180K person does.

And people in upper income brackets get worse returns on their SS taxes than folks in lower brackets do. Their returns have gotten worse over time, too. While the maximum OASI tax is now 12 times what it originally was, the maximum benefit is only about 3 times as big.

According to other information posted above, a full 25% of US households make more than $90K.

But that's households, and OASI taxes are applied on an individual basis. A husband and wife each earning $80K ($160K combined) both pay OASI taxes on every dollar they earn. Only when an individual's earnings go above $87K are OASI taxes not taken out. And only about 10% of individuals make more than that.

>

Mr. David,

You should really avoid inferring if that's the kind of result you're going to get. I do not support Mr. Bush nor did I vote for him in any of his runs for office. I am, however, just a bit perturbed by your utter unwillingness to blame or condemn the people who are actually killing Americans for their acts.

Quite honestly, if you're not going to bother getting yourself properly informed, you'd be better off skipping these political postings of yours. Anyone who's actually been paying attention, for instance, has seen that the administration is trying like hell to discourage anyone from thinking of their privatization as "privatization."

I did watch most of the speach, because,as someone else noted, I'd rather see/hear/read something for myself and form an opinion about it rather than essentially be told what happened and what I should think about it. I don't know much about SS in general, but all the back and forth and different statistical manipulations are just irritating. The thing that stuck out about the speach (other than the humorous sight of the Republicans giving standing ovations left and right while the Democrats were glued to their seats) was the schpeal about needing to become less dependent on middle east oil, finding cleaner renewable energy sources. I perked up. I was surprised to hear such things coming from Bush's mouth. I thought "good for him. Maybe I'd actually have something good to say about him". Then he followed it by pushing "nucular" energy. Um, I didn't realize radioactive waste was "clean" at all, much less cleaner than wind or solar power. I mean, really, in this day and age of terrorism, do we really want more "nucular" power plants? Is there some huge draw back to solar and wind power that I'm missing? I'm no expert, but I've been doing some research on them because at some point I plan to plunk down some solar panels and a windmill on my property just for my own personal use (I'm really into self sufficiency and non-materialism) and the only drawbacks I've come across are initial set up expenses (which wouldn't really be any more of an issue than building a nuclear power plant and doing the research and building facilities for waste disposal) and living in an area of the country with enough wind or year round sun exposure (which wouldn't be an issue on a large scale I assume, because you'd set up "fields" of either windmills or solar panels, collect or convert or whatever the energy, and pump it out to homes much like the current grid works).

Anywhat, it's late for me and I think I'm babbling, so I'll stop now.

Monkeys.

Living within your means is very easy to say...
to some it may be easy to do as well, but only for the very lucky. But what happens then when you are forced to deal with emergencies that you have no ability to foresee? Insurance only covers so much... (and even then if your lucky enough to have ensurance!) My job never offered insurance and paid just barely over the minimum wage hear in california... Luckily my wifes job did have insurance and we got married before I got diagnosed with PKD. (Otherwise I would have suffered the same problems as a freind of mine who is subject to the occasional epileptic seizures, his job doesn't have insurance coverage either, it pays well enough but he's had no luck finding an insurance plan to cover him that he can afford.) As it is we still live paycheck to paycheck, barely saving any money. We aren't in debt but thats only due to the Medical Insurance. My wife and I are forced to live within our means. Without the insurance we'd be deep in debt and living on the streets wich makes it incredibly hard to keep a professional job...

I'm playing catch up on this topic, but I just had to respond to a few things:
PAD,
"I think that the business of privatizing Social Security stems from a time when the country endeavored to pull together generationally, with the young paying in to support the elderly."

What a nice,nostalgic, Rockwellian look at the past.
Putting aside for the moment that it's also bovine excrement, let's look at TODAY, shall we?
1.)The system was and still is a Ponzi scheme. It used to be easier to get away with because there used to be 16 workers paying for everyone who receives benefits. Now there are only 3 for every person who receives benefits. Soon there will be two. Which means, essentially, that every working couple in America will be paying for the retirement of another "parent". Is this fair to them? I think absolutely not.

2.) Speaking of generations "endeavoring together", well things have changed dramatically in that regard.
When Social Security was created, the elderly were the poorest age group. They are now the wealthiest. They own the homes (and summer homes) and cars, etc.
Since the elderly have grown so exponentially as a percentage of the population, they receive an overwhelming amount of dollars, programs and slice of the federal budget pie.
There's Medicare and Medicaid, and pushes for more government help on prescription drugs, etc.
On top of all this, the Joes and Janes just getting by are expected to pay the social security benefits for the retired the couple with the summer home in Florida. That's the way the system is set up now, and it's NOT FAIR. It is simply WRONG!

Mark Walsh,
"Personal accounts, ok? Great. I'm glad we're on the same page. Doesn't matter what they call it - it's just another Bush scheme to make sure the Haves have more."

WRONG! The way the system is set up now, YOU are paying for the "haves", namely the wealthiest age group in our society to get paid benefits whether they are Ted Turner or somebody's grandmother in a nursing home. And if you die at, say, 60 under the current system, you get SQUAT! What Bush is proposing would allow you to help fund YOUR retirement, and pass it on to your widow or children should you pass on.

Fred Chamberlain,
"A statement that includes both 'America is better off with...' and his proposed Social Security changes left me shaking my head,"

You seem to do that a lot. Shaking your head, I mean. Do you have a neurological disorder or something?
Seiously, though. I don't recall him using that phrase in regard to Social Security at all. I checked the transcript of the speech in The New York Times and could not find it there either.
But, for the sake of argument, let's say just don't recall and that Jayson Blair secretly submitted the transcript to the Times, America and Americans will be better off with the changes he is proposing.

"wondering how anyone can say for certain that a country is better off when initiating a program has not yet begun"

Well, nothing is certain except death and taxes. But he is confident it will be positive, as are (and have been) many others like the late Senator Moynihan. Or didn't you get that in your all-encompassing soundbites?
By your logic, FDR should have been wishy-washy on creating Social Security, LBJ on Medicare, and they would never have passed.
And I didn't agree with Clinton on Health Care Reform, but you could tell he was confident it was the right thing to do.
It's called leadership.

"and has no comparable predecessor."
Wrong! Chile has had a simlar system to what Bush is proposing in place for a long time now. Back in the '90s, I remember an article in Time that spotlighted it, in which the writer was amazed that the citizens of Chile were getting a better retirement value under their system than the citizens of the wealthiest nation on Earth.

"More magical thinking from the leader of the free world."

No. More ill-informed comments from you.

"...or perhaps Bush should put together a Brain Trust to come up with several ideas before he gets the U.S. into another mess by going with his first instincts"

Or perhaps if you actualy did some homework on the subject, you would find out he already has.
As stated in the January 24, 2005 issue of Time:
'As Moore learned when he visited Austin, Bush's fascination with Social Security began before he got to Washington. As Governor, his advisers say, he was struck by the experiences of local governments in places like Galveston County that had allowed their employees to opt out of government retirement plans and invest the proceeds in private funds - yielding legends of courthouse janitors retiring with $750,000 nest eggs. As Bush planned his first presidential campaign, he brought in experts to brief him on how privatization had worked in places like chile, and even Sweden - surely one of the rare instances of a Republican taking the lead from a country known for a near socialist welfare system.'"

Wade Tripp,
"Why I dont like private accounts? Because I see it as a way of people with large salaries getting larger ones because of inside knowledge, special buying deals such as with the varous mutual funds...Those who don't have the money or connections will not get as big a returnand lose money whe the scandels hit."

First, it's scandals. Second, did it ever dawn on you that those with "connections" and the like would rather put their money in higher-risk, higher rate of return stocks than Bush is offering under his plan. Ever think they might see Socal security as small potatoes compared to IRAs, 401ks, and other retirement plans avilable to them?

J. Alexander,
"I really do not believe that there is an urgent Social security problem. Nevertheless, if you do believe one exists, why not raise the cap on taxing social security from $90,000 to $150,000 a year."

Because instead of soaking the rich, Bush wants the average worker to be able to create their own wealth.
However, let me ask you this, instead of "raising the cap", why not means test and stop paying out benefits to those who do not need them? That I would be for. Wholeheartedly.

"However, let me ask you this, instead of "raising the cap", why not means test and stop paying out benefits to those who do not need them? That I would be for. Wholeheartedly."

Depending on where they set the means, I agree.

Because instead of soaking the rich,

Ahh, and that's the center of the matter, isn't it?

And people wonder why the middle class is disappearing... heaven forbid the rich pay their fair share.

Jerome, since it looks like one of my comments garnered a "go do your homework" comment from you, I'll just rebound that right back atchya and let you know that Social Security benefits include death benefits for a spouse and other suriving family. So, while it may indeed be true that if you die at age 60, you get nothing, but your wife, kids, or even your parents could collect your SS benefit.

Bush's plan apparantly (despite his claim that his private account idea is transferable to other family members) would require your account to grow to a very, very large sum, more than most people will probably reach, and only that portion above that high level will be transferable. The rest just goes "poof" if you die before you are eligible to claim it.

As to Bush studying the issue before making this claim, I knew full well his "fascination" with the program, and that he'd been briefed on a few systems. But an executive briefing is just scratching the surface of the issues. So Chile has a successfuls system? So what? Chile has about 16 million people, or 6% of the population of the US. What works for them may not and probably will not work on a much larger scale. The additional administration costs alone might make an identicle program unsustainable. I doubt that any executive briefing would include such detail. Especially because Bush has a history of not wanting to hear that his plans won't work.

US agencies are bound by law to conduct extensive research on their actions before they take them, in order to understand the impacts and benefits of those actions, and to evaluate alternatives to the action they want to take. The President's office is exempt from any such requirement, and it's pretty clear to anyone who's looked at Bush's plan that he's not really studied the problem enough.

Cutting off benefits based on a financial needs test? Sounds good, but once you do that, doesn't SS become more of a welfare program than it is today? Today, you have to pay in to get benefits. If we cut some off from those benefits, then it just becomes a tax that the most wealthy receive no direct benefit from.

Maybe if we made the voluntary? Allow anyone the opportunity to put their claim back into the fund.

I've yet to see a Social Security type plan that can be viewed universally as fair. Either the middle class bears a greater proportional burden, or the upper class pay a greater total share, or someone's benefits have to be reduced.

Face, people that make more money pay more taxes. They SHOULD. That's how taxes work, unless someone can come up with a legitimate reason for a flat tax. I fail to understand why there's a cap on the Social Security tax. What other taxes are capped? And why the assumption that paying more taxes means you should get more benefits? Are those that make $50 million a year (and thus paying a lot more income tax than those of us making under $100K a year) entitled to better roads, shorter lines, quicker responses from government? Maybe in some cases they *do* get better service, but *should* they?

Waaay up there, someone said:
"It struck me that more people might have to be selling old valuables to keep it going themselves if Social Security isn't secure anymore."

I'm curious as to what's wrong with this? Why shouldn't they sell their stuff to survive?

I'm 41, just got completely out of debt (much of it from catastrophies). I bought my first home several years ago, financed college, etc. etc.

A 21 year old friend of mine has just graduated college that he paid out of pocket for. He is getting married, paying out of pocket for it, and buying a house with 50% down. His parents are poor. He has done this because 15 years ago, a church mentor told him about finances and he started saving immediately (10% to the church; 60% to savings; 30% for spending). When he first started, it was pennies a week. He followed this formula for the rest of his childhood, flipping the savings and spending ratio when he moved out on his own. This kid is finacially set, all from barely better than minimum wage jobs.

He made good financial decisions and I made bad ones up until 15 year ago (took me that long to dig out). It can be done but most of us refuse to try.

Some Social Security oddities:

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and,
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to "put away," you may be interested in the following:

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent "Trust" fund and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically-controlled House and Senate.

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the U. S.

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive SSI Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!

Okay, the SS stuff is from an e-mail, but still intresting...

http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=896

February 2, 1998 -- "We have a great opportunity now to take action now to avert a crisis in the Social Security system."

February 9, 1998 -- "every one of you know that the Social Security system is not sound for the long-term, so that all of these achievements ... are threatened by the looming fiscal crisis in Social Security."

February 9, 1998 -- "This fiscal crisis in Social Security affects every generation. ... That would be unconscionable, especially since, if you move now, we can do less and have a bigger impact..."

April 7, 1998 -- "Today the system is sound, but the demographic crisis looming is clear."

April 7, 1998 -- "All these trends will impose heavy strains on the system. Let's look at the next chart here. You can see that in 1960, which wasn't so long ago, there were over five people working for every person drawing Social Security. In 1997, last year, there were over three people --3.3 people -- working for every person drawing. But by 2030, because of the increasing average age, if present birthrates and immigration rates and retirement rates continue, there will be only two people working for every person drawing Social Security."

April 7, 1998 -- "If we act now, we can ensure strong retirement benefits for the baby boom generation without placing an undue burden on our children and grandchildren. And we can do it, if we act now, with changes that will be far simpler and easier than if we wait until the problem is closer at hand."

October 24, 1998 -- "Unfortunately, some in Congress already may be backing away from this historic opportunity. Just last week, the Senate Majority Leader said he may not be willing to join me in our efforts to save Social Security. That would be a grave mistake. As with so many other long-term challenges, if we act now, it will be far, far easier to resolve the problem than if we wait until a crisis is close at hand. I believe we must save Social Security and do it next year."

February 17, 1999 -- "the evident financial crisis which will be imposed on Social Security when the baby boomers retire"

March 12, 1999 -- "Now, if we do what I'm suggesting, not only can we deal with the financial crisis in Social Security and Medicare..."

August 6, 1998 -- "I don't want us to run right out and spend [the surplus] before we take care of the crisis in Social Security that is looming when the baby boomers retire."

And what GOP bastid said all those phonie-baloney garbage about SS back then? Ummmm, oops, sorry, why, that was the King of Liberal Ratfinks, President Bill Clinton. Why, if it wasn't for the Great Liberal Memory Hole Dump and the fact you are almost out of power, you'd people almost be dangerous...

Carl:

>Why, if it wasn't for the Great Liberal Memory Hole Dump and the fact you are almost out of power, you'd people almost be dangerous...

I am constantly amused by the generalizing of individuals into easy-to-label groups, whether it be from "conservatives" or "liberals" here. Why is it commonplace to throw everyone into one side or the other, rather than respond to 1 individuals statements and beliefs as they are shared.

My immediate inner response after reading the last post was "What does what Clinton said 6 years ago have to do with my observations of what Bush is currently doing?"

This blog didn't exist back then for the open discourse to take place, but it is interesting to consider how the threads would look had it been.

I think Robbnn demonstrates the failing we have as a society: We've neglected to teach our next generations how to manage finances. And in many cases, our older generations don't know how to, either. Our government isn't setting a good example, running a huge deficit and floating an even bigger debt.

So it should be no surprise that many in our society live like that, either through choice, laziness, or as a result of unfortunate circumstances.

So, do we want to trash one our safety nets, and let people fend for themselves? I tend to think that doing so would cost more in the long run, that the very, very rich are better off keeping the middle and lower classes solvent than seeing increasing numbers of financially devastated people appearing.

And in the meantime, let's get more education out there like Robbnn's friend received.

"This blog didn't exist back then for the open discourse to take place, but it is interesting to consider how the threads would look had it been."

Well, speaking for myself, I would have been posting threads complaining about Clinton, and conservatives would likely have been complaining about Clinton. As opposed to now, when I complain about Bush and conservatives complain about Clinton.

Jerome:

In answering your earier question, I want to save Social Security rather than convert it to a welfare institution. Social Security could probably be saved (if it was truly in danger) by raising the cap from $90,000 to $120,000. This does not tamper with the system, just strengthens it.

This does not tamper with the system, just strengthens it.

Yeah, but you don't actually expect the upper class to pay their share of this system, right?

I mean, you might never know if they too might still need SS as well when they get old.

Welp, I just want to know, why was it the Dim's "duty" to fix SS back then (and they apparently did nothing) and now.... GWB is some kind of fiend for proposing fixing it.... like the Dims proposed back in the '90s? Could it just be 'cause it's GWB's idea and automatically "evil" and must be opposed? Sounds logical to me...