SS will go bust if not privatized by 1988

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

That's what Dubya said in 1978:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.texasobserver.org/showArticle.asp?ArticleID=1175

[The Duke]

You idiot!  It did go bust!  It went bust in 1982 and we had to raise payroll taxes substantially to cover the shortfall!

If you want higher payroll taxes, oppose privatization.

[TeePee4Prez]

You idiot!  It did go bust!  It went bust in 1982 and we had to raise payroll taxes substantially to cover the shortfall!

If you want higher payroll taxes, oppose privatization.

You are a bigger idiot!  The reason payroll taxes were raised was because Reagan used Social Security funds to cover his budget shortfalls due to his excessive tax cuts.  It actually created a more regressive tax system.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You idiot!  It did go bust!  It went bust in 1982 and we had to raise payroll taxes substantially to cover the shortfall!

If you want higher payroll taxes, oppose privatization.

So you mean that Ronald Reagan saved Social Security by not privatizing it? That socialist!

[The Duke]

You idiot!  It did go bust!  It went bust in 1982 and we had to raise payroll taxes substantially to cover the shortfall!

If you want higher payroll taxes, oppose privatization.

You are a bigger idiot! The reason payroll taxes were raised was because Reagan used Social Security funds to cover his budget shortfalls due to his excessive tax cuts. It actually created a more regressive tax system.

Wrong.

The impending bankruptcy of Social Security was a conclusion derived not out of political calculations, but out of economci reality.  In 1977, the Carter adminstratin creted The National Commission on Social Security, who published a report in March of 1981 detailing the financial problems of Social Security and claiming that by the end of the decade the program would be essentially dead.

The Second National Commission on Social Security was set up by President Reagan only after the publication of the Carter adminsitration's report.  It was chaired by a bipartisan gorup of experts, including Alan Greenspan, and the raise in payroll taxes was the direct result of their recommendations and not some scheme by Reagan to cover up the deficit.  Nor was it an adminsitration hit job.  One third of the Commission memebrs were PResidential appointments, but one third was chosen by the Seante leadership and on third by the House leadership.  Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a liberal icon, was on the Commission.  Lane Kirkland, the head of the AFL-CIO was on the Commission.

Congress followed the Commission's lead on the issue when it came time to legislate, not the White House.  It was the White House's plan to reduce benfits, not raise taxes.  Caliming otherwise is asinine, and completley contrary to the facts.

[opebo]

The 'impending bankruptcy of social security' is just a lie the right-wing has been building up for decades.  It is their old strategy of 'repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it'.  It is particularly easy because it appeals to people's cyncism and negativity. 

John Ford, why should people prefer privatization to increase of social security taxes?  I'm sure if the increased taxes were brought in by eliminating the upper limit on Social Security taxation, most people would benefit.

[Erc]

Well, other than the purely minor effect that taxes kill the economy...no, there's no reason at all.

[opebo]

Well, other than the purely minor effect that taxes kill the economy...no, there's no reason at all.

This is just something you and Laffer believe. 

But actually I don't entirely disagree, I just think the percentage at which taxation of the wealthy effects economic behavior is much higher than you probably do. 

[Moooooo]

SS will not be privitized durring Bush's second term, IMO.  None of the Democrats want to touch it and a good portion of the Republicans are reluctant to get on board.

I would be open to privitization if President Bush can GURANTEE I will get a higher return in the stock market than I would otherwise.  I also want to be guranteed that if I lose money as a result of privitization or corruption on wall street the federal government will refund the money I lost.

[Blue Rectangle]

SS will not be privitized durring Bush's second term.  None of the Democrats want to touch it and a good portion of the Republicans are reluctant to get on board.

I would be open to privitization if President Bush can GURANTEE I will get a higher return in the stock market than I would otherwise.  I also want to be guranteed that if I lose money as a result of privitization or corruption on wall street the federal government will refund the money I lost.

Why do Democrats always say that the privatization can only mean stocks?  I assume it is because the average voter equates "stock" with "high risk" and the Dems want to label privatization as high risk.

The average return from Social Security has been less than 2%.  A decent, low risk fund that combines stocks and bonds returns roughly 10%, but of course it is not federally insured.  If you insist that all your retirement savings be in federally insured accounts, you could simply keep it in a bank account, which have far out-performed SS in returns.  You could put it in a CD, which are running at about 4% right now (interest rates are very low, but you'll still come out way ahead of SS).

The 'risk' of privatization is a non-issue.

[Moooooo]

SS will not be privitized durring Bush's second term.  None of the Democrats want to touch it and a good portion of the Republicans are reluctant to get on board.

I would be open to privitization if President Bush can GURANTEE I will get a higher return in the stock market than I would otherwise.  I also want to be guranteed that if I lose money as a result of privitization or corruption on wall street the federal government will refund the money I lost.

Why do Democrats always say that the privatization can only mean stocks?  I assume it is because the average voter equates "stock" with "high risk" and the Dems want to label privatization as high risk.

I know there is alternatives to high risk investments.  But will there be a gurantee that my money will be insured if it falls into the hands of a future Tyco, WorldCom, or Enron?

[Blue Rectangle]

SS will not be privitized durring Bush's second term.  None of the Democrats want to touch it and a good portion of the Republicans are reluctant to get on board.

I would be open to privitization if President Bush can GURANTEE I will get a higher return in the stock market than I would otherwise.  I also want to be guranteed that if I lose money as a result of privitization or corruption on wall street the federal government will refund the money I lost.

Why do Democrats always say that the privatization can only mean stocks?  I assume it is because the average voter equates "stock" with "high risk" and the Dems want to label privatization as high risk.

I know there is alternatives to high risk investments.  But will there be a gurantee that my money will be insured if it falls into the hands of a future Tyco, WorldCom, or Enron?

If you buy federally insured CDs and not stock in the next Enron, then yes, you are guaranteed to not lose it.  It is simply a matter of personal choice to balance your desired return versus your tolerance for risk.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The best solution to SS is simple: ban wealthy retirees from it. No one is eligible if they are more than double the poverty line. I'm sick of money being taken out of my paycheck so some rich old folks can use the extra cash to go on Carribean vacations.

SS is a SAFTEY NET. Let's get it back to that.

[opebo]

The best solution to SS is simple: ban wealthy retirees from it. No one is eligible if they are more than double the poverty line. I'm sick of money being taken out of my paycheck so some rich old folks can use the extra cash to go on Carribean vacations.

SS is a SAFTEY NET. Let's get it back to that.

Good idea, BRTD, I like this idea somewhat better than my similar one of eliminating the income limit on SS taxation.  It is more true to the idea of a safety net.

[A18]

I'm sick of money being taken out of my paycheck so some rich old folks can use the extra cash to go on Carribean vacations.

They paid into the system all their life.

It's not "your money" going to their retirement, because you will get out what you put in (well, no you won't, but in theory).

[David S]

Right now Social Security takes in more than it spends. The politicians spend the excess and leave what amounts to an IOU in the SS trust fund. Some time around 2017 Social Security will begin to pay out more than it takes in. At that time government will get a double hit; it will lose the excess SS funds as a source of revenue, and it will have to start paying off the IOUs. That means taxes will have to increase.

I'm one of the old geezers who will be collecting SS at that time while you young guys have to work harder to pay the taxes. So why should I worry about it? I worry about it because it seems very unfair that young people will bear the burden of paying for an irresponsibly funded government program that has grown out of control. But hey its really your problem not mine.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Make it opt out. I'd do that in a heartbeat. More hair gel, vinyls and strippers. mmmmm....

[Blue Rectangle]

The best solution to SS is simple: ban wealthy retirees from it. No one is eligible if they are more than double the poverty line. I'm sick of money being taken out of my paycheck so some rich old folks can use the extra cash to go on Carribean vacations.

SS is a SAFTEY NET. Let's get it back to that.

That certainly extends the life of SS.  So would increased taxes.  So would further increases to the retirement age.  But none of those "solutions" fixes the underlying problem: the required payout to retirees is increasing faster than the tax base.  Only a plan that addresses the growth of retirees can completely "solve" the problem.  Bush's plan does this by gradually removing high- and middle-income workers from the beneficiary role latter through private retirement savings.  In the end, SS would be exactly what you want to "get back to" (and what it was originally intended to be): a safety net for low-income retirees.

[Moooooo]

The best solution to SS is simple: ban wealthy retirees from it. No one is eligible if they are more than double the poverty line. I'm sick of money being taken out of my paycheck so some rich old folks can use the extra cash to go on Carribean vacations.

SS is a SAFTEY NET. Let's get it back to that.

Yeah, but they pay into the system so they should be entitled a return.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The best solution to SS is simple: ban wealthy retirees from it. No one is eligible if they are more than double the poverty line. I'm sick of money being taken out of my paycheck so some rich old folks can use the extra cash to go on Carribean vacations.

SS is a SAFTEY NET. Let's get it back to that.

Yeah, but they pay into the system so they should be entitled a return.

wealthy people pay very high taxes that go to pay for social programs and they don't make a net gain on it. Tax plans are all about wealth redistribution. Some people have too much, some have too little. So the people with too much have to give up a little.

[David S]

The best solution to SS is simple: ban wealthy retirees from it. No one is eligible if they are more than double the poverty line. I'm sick of money being taken out of my paycheck so some rich old folks can use the extra cash to go on Carribean vacations.

SS is a SAFTEY NET. Let's get it back to that.

Yeah, but they pay into the system so they should be entitled a return.

Tax plans are all about wealth redistribution.

1) Another word for that is theft.
2) What part of the constitution says the government is allowed to do that?

[ATFFL]

The best solution to SS is simple: ban wealthy retirees from it. No one is eligible if they are more than double the poverty line. I'm sick of money being taken out of my paycheck so some rich old folks can use the extra cash to go on Carribean vacations.

SS is a SAFTEY NET. Let's get it back to that.

Yeah, but they pay into the system so they should be entitled a return.

Tax plans are all about wealth redistribution.

1) Another word for that is theft.
2) What part of the constitution says the government is allowed to do that?

Taxes are income redistribution, not wealth redistribution.  There is a huge difference.

The government is currently barred from taxing wealth, thank goodness.

[John Dibble]

Make it opt out. I'd do that in a heartbeat. More hair gel, vinyls and strippers. mmmmm....

OMFG, are you actually suggesting that people be allowed to opt out of paying SS if they agree to opt out of benefits as well? If you are, we agree!? WHAT THE HELL!? *has a seizure*

[A18]

Make it opt out. I'd do that in a heartbeat. More hair gel, vinyls and strippers. mmmmm....

OMFG, are you actually suggesting that people be allowed to opt out of paying SS if they agree to opt out of benefits as well? If you are, we agree!? WHAT THE HELL!? *has a seizure*

Everyone would opt out, but I fully support it.

[John Dibble]

Make it opt out. I'd do that in a heartbeat. More hair gel, vinyls and strippers. mmmmm....

OMFG, are you actually suggesting that people be allowed to opt out of paying SS if they agree to opt out of benefits as well? If you are, we agree!? WHAT THE HELL!? *has a seizure*

Everyone would opt out, but I fully support it.

Heck yeah, I'd opt out, and hopefully get that 15% that my employer pays in too. That would be nice. I'd put it all in a CD and make lots more than I would with SS.