House Reps now Look To Privatize Soc. Securiity

[BostonPirate]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/house-republicans-look-to-privatize-social-security.php

Republican leaders left Social Security untouched in their House budget this year, but a group of GOP lawmakers are looking to fill the gap themselves with legislation that would create a voluntary privatized version of the program.

Introduced by Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), who also chairs the House's campaign efforts at the NRCC, the "Savings Account For Every American Act" would allow people to immediately opt out of Social Security in favor of a private "S.A.F.E." account. Eventually the program would expand to let employers send their matching contribution to workers' Social Security to a "S.A.F.E." account as well.

So now the assault on social security begins as well. This failed once and they are never going to get this signed by a president who ever wants to be re elected. There are too many poor people out there now.

Though income inequality has been growing for some time, the paper paints a stark, disturbing portrait of wealth distribution in America. Saez calculates that in 2007 the top .01 percent of American earners took home 6 percent of total U.S. wages, a figure that has nearly doubled since 2000.

As of 2007, the top decile of American earners, Saez writes, pulled in 49.7 percent of total wages, a level that's "higher than any other year since 1917 and even surpasses 1928, the peak of stock market bubble in the 'roaring" 1920s.'"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/14/income-inequality-is-at-a_n_259516.html

 

[CowboyBob]

We all know that their next step is to do away with Social Security after they've wiped away Medicare. They're committing political suicide by squeaking about this.

Next on their agenda is to do away with labor unions, then public schools. After that is de-regulating all industry, taking away pollution and safety standards (because we can't afford them and they're job killers), doing away with the IRS, making abortion illegal under all circumstances and remove all gay rights.

You just watch. They've already successfully brainwashed a bunch of people into thinking like they do. The GOP Brownshirts are alive. They're even active in this forum.

They're already trying to do most of these things. And even making it harder to vote.

Republicans are using the "we can't afford it" and "job killers" excuses for everything.

 

[onetwothreefour]

Can you imagine if the last time they tried this under Bush it had passed? They wanted people investing their retirement funds like day traders in the stock market. Wouldn't have been a pretty picture.

 

[BostonPirate]

We all know that their next step is to do away with Social Security after they've wiped away Medicare. They're committing political suicide by squeaking about this.

Next on their agenda is to do away with labor unions, then public schools. After that is de-regulating all industry, taking away pollution and safety standards (because we can't afford them and they're job killers), doing away with the IRS, making abortion illegal under all circumstances and remove all gay rights.

You just watch. They've already successfully brainwashed a bunch of people into thinking like they do. The GOP Brownshirts are alive. They're even active in this forum.

They're already trying to do most of these things. And even making it harder to vote.

Republicans are using the "we can't afford it" and "job killers" excuses for everything.

Gingrich called it "right wing social engineering, and I think as an insider he KNEW that was true.

No easier way to get the GOP to hate you than to simply tell the truth. Its a shame Gingrich will equally dispense of the truth if it gets him ahead

Can you imagine if the last time they tried this under Bush it had passed? They wanted people investing their retirement funds like day traders in the stock market. Wouldn't have been a pretty picture.

that money has mostly come back into the market, but that would not have helped the people that had retired in the last two years.

They would have been made destitute by this innitiative.

Its just one more way for the GOP to hand the USA over to the mega Corps.

 

[jackoroe]

The democrat alternative. "Don't do anything and hope for the best!"

Just give me what I put in and we'll call it even.

 

[BostonPirate]

The democrat alternative. "Don't do anything and hope for the best!"

Just give me what I put in and we'll call it even.

We could always stop corporate america from raping the tax code and extend the life of the program for a decade or two until the economy recovers.

when did conservative (small "C") solutions become foreign to the GOP?

 

[Stardreamer]

Can you imagine if the last time they tried this under Bush it had passed? They wanted people investing their retirement funds like day traders in the stock market. Wouldn't have been a pretty picture.

Actually they would have been investing in government approved managed funds designed for diversification and security, not speculative day trading. If it were in place now there would be no significant impact from this recession as the individuals invested in it would not be retired yet and in the long run would be doing better than they are now.

I read a news story several months ago about a study that took the type of market accounts Bush proposed and did a historical study based on the historic market performance. The scenario was set up on the presumption that persons invested their entire SSI tax input (not what Bush proposed) in such accounts and were retiring at the worse possible time in the middle of the 2008 recession. The finding was that they would still have more money for retirement even with the loss from the market downturn than they would have had from Social Security. Of course you can tinker with the elements of course and get different results but most studies I've heard of have found the same thing, in most cases historically you are better off having private managed retirement accounts than Social Security.

I haven't found that report but I did find this one from 2005: Social Security vs Private Retirement Accounts

I've never quite understood why the opposition to allowing the poor to have a means to have retirement investments they can own and leave them better off?

 

[White Eagle]

When I worked for Merrill Lynch I tried to play the market. When ML went public I had money taken out of my check each payday and bot ML. I had to hold it for 2 years according to rules. As soon as I could sell I did. I made $29.00, that's right 29, and had the biggest tax problem that I ever had. So no, I would be against using my money for stocks.

 

[Kulindahr]

Can you imagine if the last time they tried this under Bush it had passed? They wanted people investing their retirement funds like day traders in the stock market. Wouldn't have been a pretty picture.

that money has mostly come back into the market, but that would not have helped the people that had retired in the last two years.

They would have been made destitute by this innitiative.

Inaccurate -- as this shows:

Actually they would have been investing in government approved managed funds designed for diversification and security, not speculative day trading. If it were in place now there would be no significant impact from this recession as the individuals invested in it would not be retired yet and in the long run would be doing better than they are now.

I read a news story several months ago about a study that took the type of market accounts Bush proposed and did a historical study based on the historic market performance. The scenario was set up on the presumption that persons invested their entire SSI tax input (not what Bush proposed) in such accounts and were retiring at the worse possible time in the middle of the 2008 recession. The finding was that they would still have more money for retirement even with the loss from the market downturn than they would have had from Social Security. Of course you can tinker with the elements of course and get different results but most studies I've heard of have found the same thing, in most cases historically you are better off having private managed retirement accounts than Social Security.

I haven't found that report but I did find this one from 2005: Social Security vs Private Retirement Accounts

I've never quite understood why the opposition to allowing the poor to have a means to have retirement investments they can own and leave them better off?

And I've never understood why Democrats tend to lie about the whole business. What it boils down to is that they're anti-choice.

 

[pat grimshaw]

We could always stop corporate america from raping the tax code …

But are the Dems doing enough to modify the 'rape'?

 

[jackoroe]

We could always stop corporate america from raping the tax code and extend the life of the program for a decade or two until the economy recovers.

when did conservative (small "C") solutions become foreign to the GOP?

Or we could come clean and admit that it's been a Ponzi scheme. You know, the whole lockbox line of bullshit? There isn't any lockbox and SS has been part of the general fund since LBJ purposely made it so.

The problem has been well known for decades. We have a bulge in the population called the "Baby Boomers". They are now reaching retirement age and there are less people behind them to pay into the Ponzi scheme. It collapses under it's own weight as they all do. Or you can raise taxes to a point where people will simply stay home and pick their belly button lint instead of working.

The sad part is we've kicked the can down the road until there's no where left to kick it.

 

[Kulindahr]

Or we could come clean and admit that it's been a Ponzi scheme. You know, the whole lockbox line of bullshit? There isn't any lockbox and SS has been part of the general fund since LBJ purposely made it so.

The problem has been well known for decades. We have a bulge in the population called the "Baby Boomers". They are now reaching retirement age and there are less people behind them to pay into the Ponzi scheme. It collapses under it's own weight as they all do. Or you can raise taxes to a point where people will simply stay home and pick their belly button lint instead of working.

The sad part is we've kicked the can down the road until there's no where left to kick it.

Though if the money paid in had increased at the average rate of the stock market, the fund would be solvent for the next century.

Except Congress would still have raided the fund, so there still wouldn't be any money.

 

[jackoroe]

Though if the money paid in had increased at the average rate of the stock market, the fund would be solvent for the next century.

Except Congress would still have raided the fund, so there still wouldn't be any money.

Stealing our savings was bad enough. Stealing our savings on the profits we made on the investment would be more than we could bear!

 

[swerve]

Would the NEW plan allow for TRANSFERENCE of the money to the heirs???

Just curious...

 

[Kulindahr]

Would the NEW plan allow for TRANSFERENCE of the money to the heirs???

Just curious...

Good question. The whole thing has been a form of gambling, just like life insurance.

 

[CoolBlue71]

This is precisely what the Republicans need to unseat President Obama.

 

[landers]

It's funny how the Republicans are so against government anything that they're missing a golden opportunity. If they really want to save social security, they should do what Canada did in the late 90s. Allow social security to invest in things other than government bonds and increase payroll taxes. Think of the money that could be injected into the American economy if the Social Security fund started investing in America.

 

[BostonPirate]

Or we could come clean and admit that it's been a Ponzi scheme. You know, the whole lockbox line of bullshit? There isn't any lockbox and SS has been part of the general fund since LBJ purposely made it so.

The problem has been well known for decades. We have a bulge in the population called the "Baby Boomers". They are now reaching retirement age and there are less people behind them to pay into the Ponzi scheme. It collapses under it's own weight as they all do. Or you can raise taxes to a point where people will simply stay home and pick their belly button lint instead of working.

The sad part is we've kicked the can down the road until there's no where left to kick it.

It's actually worse than people really understand. The treasury runs its deficits off of buying bonds from social security, made payable with interest on the date of retirement of the individual contributor.

That means that when the debt ceiling is hit, social security will be the first to fold. Over and out.

Geithner has used the money invested in the federal employees retirement funds to pay these bonds to social security to send out the checks monthly. The USA has to default on itself before it can on its other creditors.

So the debt ceiling argument is really all about the destruction of the social security system. That is going to happen on August 2nd, the day before the Gov't has to send out a batch of social security payments. On that day the US will have to choose between sending checks to their seniors or sending its debt payments to china.

IF that happens, then the USA's bond rating with the IMF will be reduced to warn nations that we are a risk.

What we see in greece is what will occur, and that is why the greek meltdown is affecting the stock markets right now so much.

Its a pretty fucked up shell game that is going to come to an end if the debt ceiling is not raised by august. The treasury needs to be allowed to borrow more money from china to pay the treasury to pay social security to pay the senior citizens.

so we have to get permission from congress to borrow money from china to pay the money we owe china.... all that does is compund the interest and balloon the debt, and its all done completely off the books.

It shows in the debt amount, but never shows in the deficit estimates from the CBO.

 

[Kulindahr]

It's funny how the Republicans are so against government anything that they're missing a golden opportunity. If they really want to save social security, they should do what Canada did in the late 90s. Allow social security to invest in things other than government bonds and increase payroll taxes. Think of the money that could be injected into the American economy if the Social Security fund started investing in America.

They'd have to make Social Security as independent as the Fed -- or more.

But it's a good idea: deprive the general fund of that income to play with, immediately. Raise taxes on the highest bracket enough to cover the difference.

 

[BostonPirate]

[Quoted post: Removed by Moderator]

Its either that or let the value of american bonds depreciate due to the IMf giving them a lower rating.

IF a nuclear meltdown is the china syndrome, then this theoretical meltdown would have to be called the greece syndrome, except that we now have proof that the greece syndrome economic meltdown is a very real event, not a theory any longer.