Usa Forum - Just 1 question for the texasss clown.

grinder

11/12/2004 9:02:00 PM

"I do not favor 'privatization' of Social Security,'' Mr. Bush wrote last
month in the AARP Bulletin. "Those workers who do not want a personal
account would continue to receive their benefits from the federally
administered Social Security system. Even those who choose a personal
account would continue to draw traditional Social Security benefits.''

Dear Hoople-head:

Where are you going to get the money to pay the first group if the second
group is not kicking into the system?

4 Answers

Mike Flannigan

11/12/2004 9:29:00 PM

"grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:nx9ld.24987$KJ6.12819@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "I do not favor 'privatization' of Social Security,'' Mr. Bush wrote last
> month in the AARP Bulletin. "Those workers who do not want a personal
> account would continue to receive their benefits from the federally
> administered Social Security system. Even those who choose a personal
> account would continue to draw traditional Social Security benefits.''
>
> Dear Hoople-head:
>
> Where are you going to get the money to pay the first group if the second
> group is not kicking into the system?

The General Fund.

Dear Grinder Head:

Where are you going to get the money to pay retires when the baby boomers
start retiring?

Anwser: The General Fund.

What are you going to do about long term solvency if you don't start
shifting the system toward privatization? Why do you oppose taking that
money away from the government and giving people the opportunity to put that
money into private accounts the government can't steal like the dems did
when they looted the fund? So they can have a way to demagogue and fear
monger old folks every election cycle?

Animal Farm

11/12/2004 9:55:00 PM

"Mike Flannigan" <mikef@flanniganelectric.com> wrote in message
news:10paapq9fkcbf59@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
> news:nx9ld.24987$KJ6.12819@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > "I do not favor 'privatization' of Social Security,'' Mr. Bush wrote
last
> > month in the AARP Bulletin. "Those workers who do not want a personal
> > account would continue to receive their benefits from the federally
> > administered Social Security system. Even those who choose a personal
> > account would continue to draw traditional Social Security benefits.''
> >
> > Dear Hoople-head:
> >
> > Where are you going to get the money to pay the first group if the
second
> > group is not kicking into the system?
>
> The General Fund.
>
> Dear Grinder Head:
>
> Where are you going to get the money to pay retires when the baby boomers
> start retiring?
>
> Anwser: The General Fund.
>
> What are you going to do about long term solvency if you don't start
> shifting the system toward privatization? Why do you oppose taking that
> money away from the government and giving people the opportunity to put
that
> money into private accounts the government can't steal like the dems did
> when they looted the fund? So they can have a way to demagogue and fear
> monger old folks every election cycle?

Looks like Bush's Brainwashing Fear Mongering won out but now the oldsters
are pissed off at themselves.

AARP Opposes Bush Plan to Replace Social Security With Private Accounts
By ROBERT PEAR

Published: November 12, 2004

"Younger people think private accounts make sense,'' Mr. Davis said. "Polls
by some organizations suggest that young people believe in flying saucers
more than in Social Security. We have a problem with that.

One message, by an editor of an AARP magazine, says, "There is a new
forbidden word at AARP: Social Security privatization.''

In general, Social Security payroll taxes are credited to the Social
Security trust funds, and revenues not needed to pay benefits in the current
year are invested in government securities. White House officials and many
Republicans in Congress say workers could get higher rates of return if some
of their retirement savings were invested in private stocks and bonds rather
than in government securities.

AARP says retirees would bear a substantial investment risk and would have
to accept lower guaranteed benefits under the president's plan.

http://snipur...

In essence, Bush is lost in the woods, as usual.
I spoke with one of my near 80 year old neighbors who said he supported
Bush, mostly because he felt Bush was doing great killing Arabs.

He said he wasn't too up on Bush's SS plans.
Now, he's walking around his yard kicking stuff.
He says he should have figured as much from Bush but he was suckered.

Smokin the Demo Crack Pipe

11/12/2004 10:19:00 PM

"Animal Farm" <AnimalFarm@zoo.net> wrote in message
news:10pac974vuhmpad@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Mike Flannigan" <mikef@flanniganelectric.com> wrote in message
> news:10paapq9fkcbf59@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:nx9ld.24987$KJ6.12819@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > > "I do not favor 'privatization' of Social Security,'' Mr. Bush wrote
> last
> > > month in the AARP Bulletin. "Those workers who do not want a personal
> > > account would continue to receive their benefits from the federally
> > > administered Social Security system. Even those who choose a personal
> > > account would continue to draw traditional Social Security benefits.''
> > >
> > > Dear Hoople-head:
> > >
> > > Where are you going to get the money to pay the first group if the
> second
> > > group is not kicking into the system?
> >
> > The General Fund.
> >
> > Dear Grinder Head:
> >
> > Where are you going to get the money to pay retires when the baby
boomers
> > start retiring?
> >
> > Anwser: The General Fund.
> >
> > What are you going to do about long term solvency if you don't start
> > shifting the system toward privatization? Why do you oppose taking that
> > money away from the government and giving people the opportunity to put
> that
> > money into private accounts the government can't steal like the dems did
> > when they looted the fund? So they can have a way to demagogue and fear
> > monger old folks every election cycle?
>
> Looks like Bush's Brainwashing Fear Mongering won out but now the oldsters
> are pissed off at themselves.
>
> AARP Opposes Bush Plan to Replace Social Security With Private Accounts
> By ROBERT PEAR
>
> Published: November 12, 2004
>
>
> "Younger people think private accounts make sense,'' Mr. Davis said.
"Polls
> by some organizations suggest that young people believe in flying saucers
> more than in Social Security. We have a problem with that.
>
> One message, by an editor of an AARP magazine, says, "There is a new
> forbidden word at AARP: Social Security privatization.''
>
> In general, Social Security payroll taxes are credited to the Social
> Security trust funds, and revenues not needed to pay benefits in the
current
> year are invested in government securities. White House officials and many
> Republicans in Congress say workers could get higher rates of return if
some
> of their retirement savings were invested in private stocks and bonds
rather
> than in government securities.
>
> AARP says retirees would bear a substantial investment risk and would have
> to accept lower guaranteed benefits under the president's plan.
>
> http://snipur...
>
> In essence, Bush is lost in the woods, as usual.
> I spoke with one of my near 80 year old neighbors who said he supported
> Bush, mostly because he felt Bush was doing great killing Arabs.
>
> He said he wasn't too up on Bush's SS plans.
> Now, he's walking around his yard kicking stuff.
> He says he should have figured as much from Bush but he was suckered.
>
>
>
From http://www.ncpa.org/pub...

Social Security reform is one of the most prominent domestic policy issues
in the United States. The U.S. is not alone in facing the daunting
challenges posed by its retirement security program. The gross implicit
unfunded debts of retirement security programs in developed countries (that
is, the amounts they owe current pensioners and workers) far surpass the
official explicit federal debt. The same is true of the net implicit
liabilities, adjusted for projected future rights and contributions.

a.. The United States' gross public pension debt is more than 100 percent
of Gross Domestic Policy (GDP).
a.. Public pension debts in Italy and Japan are more than double their
official federal debts and the two combined exceed 240 percent of GDP.
a.. France and Germany shoulder public pension debts four times the size
of their official federal debts.
Paying this debt will put a huge strain on public treasuries and on these
economies more broadly. Under traditional systems, either benefits will have
to be cut below scheduled levels, or contributions will have to rise
substantially.

Recognizing the problem, 20 countries have made funded private retirement
accounts (PRAs) for 80 million workers part of their mandatory retirement
security programs. Many other countries are about to do the same. The
reformed systems in these countries have many differences, but share certain
characteristics:

a.. The private retirement accounts represent a partial shift from a
pay-as-you-go system to a prefunded system.
a.. They represent a partial shift from defined benefit (DB) plans to
defined contribution (DC) plans under which retirement income is determined
by contributions plus investment earnings.
a.. The account balances, and their contribution to national saving and
economic growth, increase through time.
a.. Contributions to the private accounts are compulsory for new workers
and sometimes for current workers as well; the investments are regulated;
and the private accounts are integrated with the remaining public program.
a.. Future benefits to retirees under the new social security system come
from two places the public DB and the annuity from the individual's own
account. Part of the pension is financed by assets in the accounts, rather
than by contributions coming from young workers.
Reformers in the United States can take several lessons from the experiences
of other countries around the world. In constructing their systems of funded
private accounts, these countries have grappled with problems that we will
face, as we decide how to shape our system. Their solutions are not
necessarily right for us, but they do show us that solutions exist and they
provide us with a menu of tested options.

Lesson 1: Private sector control over personal retirement accounts is more
profitable than a centrally controlled pension reserve. The average
privately managed pension fund around the world earned a large positive rate
of return, that far exceeded inflation and wage growth, during the last 30
years. By contrast, the average publicly managed pension fund lost much of
its capital during the same time period. This occurs for two reasons

a.. Public managers are often required to invest in low-interest
government securities, as is the case with the U.S. Social Security system,
or are pressured to make politically motivated investments.
a.. Hidden and exclusive access to centralized pension reserves makes it
easier for governments to run larger deficits or spend more wastefully than
they could if they had to rely on a more accountable source of funds.
Competitively managed private pension plans are more likely to invest in
diversified portfolios and to resist political manipulation.

Lesson 2: Individual accounts can be created in a way that minimizes
administrative fees.

a.. In Chile, administrative costs relative to assets have fallen
substantially as assets have grown, and now amount to less than 1 percent of
assets per year for an average worker who contributes for 40 years. This is
lower than the fee paid by the average mutual fund investor in the US.
a.. Most Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
countries, like Switzerland, Australia, Denmark and the Netherlands, use
group plans with an employer and/or union choosing the investment manager,
which often produces administrative costs that are far lower than those in
Chile.
a.. Bolivia used a competitive bidding process to choose two investment
managers, thereby cutting out most marketing costs.
a.. In Sweden, pension authorities established a maximum fee schedule for
fund managers and mandated central collections and record keeping.
Administrative costs are projected to be less than 0.5 percent of assets per
year in the long run.
Lesson 3: Personal retirement accounts, if structured properly, do not
involve undue risk. Reforming countries typically reduce risk by 1)
encouraging diversification of pension fund investments; 2) guaranteeing
absolute or relative returns; and /or 3) instituting a pension floor or
other benefit from tax-financed sources that supplements the personal
account.

a.. Chile and other Latin American countries started with a list of
quantitative regulations over permissible fund investments but they have
gradually liberalized.
a.. Switzerland requires a nominal return of at least 4 percent of assets,
over the worker's lifetime with an employer.
a.. Several Latin American countries provide a minimum pension guarantee;
Argentina provides a flat (uniform) public pension to all eligible workers;
Australia sets a floor through a means and asset-tested old age pension.
Lesson 4: Reformed systems can continue the redistribution of income. In
some cases, the reformed systems redistribute income from high earners to
low-income earners better than traditional pay-as-you-go programs, which are
biased against people with shorter life expectancies.

a.. Argentina's flat pension (about 25 percent of the average wage to all
workers with at least 30 years of contributions), disproportionately
benefits low-income workers. Chile's minimum pension guarantee goes mainly
to low earning women.
a.. Australia's means and asset-tested public old age benefit goes to the
bottom 2/3ths of workers in the income distribution.
a.. In Switzerland, a public benefit that is almost flat, financed by a
payroll tax that has no ceiling, accompanies the personal accounts, so the
net result is a very redistributive old age pension that also reduces risk.
Lesson 5: Reform involves transition costs. Borrowing temporarily to
transition to a funded system does not increase the size of a country's
total public debt. Instead, it transforms a hidden implicit debt into a
transparent explicit debt. Because this pension debt stops growing when
personal accounts are created, eventually it can be paid off.

All Latin American and Eastern European countries have funded their personal
account systems by moving some portion of the workers' contributions from
the public system to the private, in what is known as the carve-out
approach. This creates a transition cost. But in the course of reform, the
total pension obligation of the government has actually been reduced in
almost every country. By contrast, most OECD countries have avoided the
transition cost by mandating additional contributions. They can use this
approach because they started with a modest public benefit and contribution
rate.

Currently, some 80 million workers in 20 countries have access to personal
retirement accounts. These countries include Chile, the United Kingdom,
Switzerland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Argentina, Colombia, Peru, Bolivia,
Mexico, Uruguay, Australia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Poland, Latvia, Sweden,
Hong Kong, El Salvador and Croatia (roughly in the order in which they
adopted the plans).

Macedonia, the Dominican Republic, Kosovo and even China have passed reform
laws, which they are now in the process of implementing. Other countries are
moving in that direction. Interestingly, the United States is not yet on
this list.

Read the rest here http://www.ncpa.org/pub...

Mike Flannigan

11/12/2004 10:26:00 PM

alt.politics.liberalism

Just 1 question for the texasss clown.

grinder

Mike Flannigan

Animal Farm

Smokin the Demo Crack Pipe

Mike Flannigan

x Login to ForumsZone