Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (52521)	10/26/2000 7:47:31 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

This is what Lisa Meyers of NBC has to say of the candidates SS plans: Dissembling on Social Security By Lisa Myers NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT WASHINGTON, Oct. 25 — What are the presidential candidates saying about the highly charged issue of Social Security these days — and how might what they say differ from the truth? SOCIAL SECURITY is the most high stakes issue in the election, hotly debated on the campaign trail and on the airwaves. “So what happens when Bush promises the same money to young workers and to seniors? Answer: one promise gets broken,” an ad for Democrat Al Gore declares. “Why does Al Gore say one thing, when the truth is another? His attacks on George Bush’s Social Security plan: exaggerations,” a Republican ad counters. Experts say the truth is that both candidates are misleading voters and failing to tell the whole story. The basic problem with Social Security is this: as baby boomers grow old and retire, there won’t be enough money to pay all the benefits promised. This year, there are 3.4 workers paying into the system for each retiree getting a check. In 35 years, there will be only two workers per retiree. That’s not enough. Bush’s plan is to change the system to let younger workers put some of their Social Security taxes in private accounts to help fund their retirement. The loss to the Social Security system: $1 trillion. So where would the money to make up for that come from? Bush says the current surplus in the Social Security trust fund. “The trillion dollars comes out of the surplus, so that you can invest some of your own money,” Bush said in one of the three debates. But Gore says that will rob older Americans on Social Security today. “If we take a trillion dollars out of the Social Security trust fund, then the benefit checks for the people who receive Social Security benefits this year will have to be cut,” Gore told a campaign rally. Experts say that’s misleading and that today’s seniors are safe. “Benefit cuts will not have to take place for current retirees,” says Eugene Steuerle of the Urban Institute. “But eventually you have to come up with the money to pay for this transfer.” If that money is not found, will future benefits will have to be cut? Yes, says Steuerle. So Gore does have a point. In fact, experts say younger workers who opt for private accounts almost certainly would get lower benefits from the government. What about Gore’s plan that he would use of some of the budget surplus to pay down the national debt, and then pledge future money saved on interest payments to shore up Social Security? Bush ridicules the idea. “He’s got a plan called Social Security Plus, Social Security plus 40 trillion dollars of debt down the road,” Bush said at a campaign rally. Experts say that’s misleading. Gore is transferring IOUs around, but if he does pay down the debt, he puts government on a more solid footing. “He’s promising that future generations would make up the gap in the Social Security system,” says Robert Bixby of the Concord Coalition, a bipartisan group that focuses on government spending and debt reduction. But does Gore’s plan fix the long-term problem? “His plan doesn’t solve Social Security,” Bush says. “It delays the pain.” Experts say that’s true. But Bush’s plan doesn’t fix it either and arguably speeds the day of reckoning, making Social Security insolvent even sooner. So the bottom line, experts say, is that both candidates are promising an easy fix. Experts complain that Bush’s plan isn’t fully paid for and that Gore pretends hard choices are not even needed. Both candidates, they claim, are telling less than the full truth. msnbc.com As you can see, I chose something even- handed and expert driven. Gore does not have a plan, really, just a deferment of pain, and it is not clear that Bush would cause an earlier crisis, there are too many variables. I agree that Bush is deferring the full truth, that some adjustments will eventually have to be made, until he can have a commission do a definitive study. But I don't think he is more misleading than Gore, and he may be less. In any event, he is taking the first step in alleviating the crisis. If the returns on the privatized portion of SS exceed the current 2% benchmark, there can be a reduction in future obligations, while retirement income will nevertheless equal or exceed current expectations in constant dollars. That is not a difficult goal to reach. If that is insufficient to relieve pressure, a rise in the retirement age might be necessary. The main thing is, though, that Bush is not lying about the essentials: current obligations will be met, and the pool of money available for retirement will be greater in the long run through privatization........

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (52521)	10/26/2000 9:08:07 AM
From: Frank Griffin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

flapjack, tell us how the lockbox works? Will we have our own money in an account in our name? Will the money be set aside in an interest bearing account? How much will it earn? How can we determine how much money is in our account? Do we have access to the money in a lump sum or is it available to our heirs when we die? Is the money always ours, no matter what? Of course not. However, under the Bush proposal the working people will invest in approved investments, (mutual funds, etc.) and the money will belong to them at the end. If they pass away the money will belong to their estate. It will be a wealth creator. Also, the earnings will be 6 to 10% which is huge compared to the claimed 2% but probably 0% earned by our fine government. In my opinion, you are going against the working man with your position on trying to keep them economic slaves to the government. You need to break free from your dependence. Remember what FDR said, "You have nothing to fear but fear itself." Don't be afraid to follow an opportunity. Right now, you are not free because you feel you need the union and/or the government to intercede and take care of your needs. You will find great freedom thinking for yourself rather than having to parrot their talking points.