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 : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: goldworldnet who wrote (10041)	3/13/2005 9:33:38 PM
From: CalculatedRisk	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 362350

There is no merit to the private accounts. First, the numbers don't add up. That is why Bush is keeping the details secret. Every time someone suggests an actual formula, a group of accountants/economists show that it requires a "free lunch" (like perpetual motion machines, free lunches do not exist). But what confuses most people is they think of Social Security as a retirement plan. It is called "Insurance" for a reason. Social Security is retirement insurance. Retirement Insurance is intended to provide a safety net; it protects working Americans from the vagaries of life. Retirement Insurance keeps the elderly from eating cat food and living in their cars. Why are people confused by the real nature of Social Security (even though it is called "insurance")? For three simple reasons: 1) It is paid to everyone, 2) It has higher payouts based on how much you pay in to the program, and 3) it is in the interest of some politicians and corporations to portray it as a retirement plan. Let me address points 1 & 2. The reason SS Insurance is paid to everyone is because that keeps overhead low (less than 1%). If someone could find a good method of means testing, then we could exclude anyone that does not need it. The reason it pays higher amount to those who pay in more (regressively) is to encourage workers to work more (and not just qualify for the minimum). I think we could make the higher payouts even more regressive and that would help with solvency. Private accounts detract from the insurance aspect of SS. This is just like removing all the healthy people from a Health Insurance plan ... in economics its called "adverse selection". And it doesn't work. I hope this helps.

To: goldworldnet who wrote (10041)	3/13/2005 9:44:28 PM
From: zonkie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 362350

If it's not worked out I don't understand how you could be in favor of it already. I don't believe there can be a real bipartisan program worked out with junior. In his mind bipartisan means doing exactly what he decrees should be done in the first place. To be supportive of his social security proposals before he lays them all out on the table requires you to trust him, to just take his word for it when he says he is going to "save" social security. I took his word for it when he said he wouldn't touch the money which was earmarked each year for Social Security. He lied. I took his word for it when he lied to me about how sure he was that Saddam had WMD's. He lied. I don't take his word for it about anything anymore. He has proven to me that he is not someone who is to be trusted. Every time he fixes something it turns out that his supporters make money off of the deal. For instance the contractors in Iraq or the energy companies and almost all other pollutes who make out like bandits from his approach to the environment. There are many other examples, like his tax cuts for the rich. I don't see how anyone who looks at his past record could trust junior about anything. As far as social security goes I agree that something has to be done before it really does fall into financial trouble in 35 or 40 years from now. The thing is junior and his crew are the last people who we would want to have anything to do with "fixing" it. I also believe there are a lot more pressing problems that should be addressed first. The deficit, national debt and terrorism are just some of those problems. Hell, I even think the problem of allowing republican owned and controlled companies to count votes after elections is more pressing than social security. If something isn't done about that we are headed toward a one party state that bears a strong resemblance to fascism.