The Numbers Case For SS Reform

[Bonnie]

DEMOCRATS NEED SOCIAL SECURITY TO SCARE OLD PEOPLE.to get the elderly vote.

DEMOCRATS RIGHT NOW ARE ATTEMPTING TO GIVE FELONS THE RIGHT TO VOTE.to get the criminals to vote for them.

DEMOCRATS WILL NOT SECURE THE BORDERS.to get the hispanic vote.

DEMOCRATS WILL NOT CONTROL SPENDING.to get the poor vote.

DEMOCRATS BELIEVE IN ABORTION ON DEMAND AND WITHOUT PARENTAL NOTIFICATION OR CONSENT.to get the female vote

Bravo Maestro!!!!!

 

[Huckleburry]

"I'm happy to let the facts speak for themselves.

The fascist dictatorship of Gen. Augusto Pinochet introduced private accounts as part of a reinvention of Chile's social security system in 1981, essentially creating a huge 401(k) plan.

The new pension program was intended to relieve the government (and employers) of the burden of providing for citizens in their retirement. Instead, workers themselves pay for their pensions by investing money in state- approved funds.

Since 1981, the Chilean funds have delivered average annual returns of 10. 3 percent, adjusted for inflation. Very impressive.

However, Chile's system doesn't cover the country's millions of self- employed and low-income people who may drift from job to job.

Moreover, about a quarter of all money invested in the private pension funds is lost to "administrative fees."

On top of all that, Chile's system still requires federal subsidies -- 4 percent of the country's gross domestic product -- after nearly a quarter- century of privatization.

Peter Diamond, a professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who studies overseas pension plans, said many of the original goals set for Chile's system have been accomplished.

For example, privatized accounts have helped the country's financial markets develop and have fostered a new regulatory framework.

Changes not required

But Diamond said such changes are not required in the United States. Moreover, he observed that Chile was able to fund its costly transition to private accounts with government surpluses, whereas the Bush administration would be forced to borrow up to $2 trillion.

"The new system has accomplished a lot of things in Chile compared to what's going on in countries comparable to Chile," Diamond said. "Essentially, all of that is irrelevant to the United States."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/01/21/BUGLHATVQP1.DTL

Honest comparison guys. Take a system that covers every worker who recives a legal pay check and compare it to a system that covers very few workers, has not been around for very long, and still runs a deficit. Chile's system did what Chile needed it to do however comparing the US economy to Chile is not much of a comparison.

 

[Huckleburry]

The thrust of my argument here is not whether privitization is good or bad, that's irrelevent because either way it does not cure the problem at hand. The thrust of my argument is that we have a problem with SS and the presidents plan (by his own admission) does very little to actually solve the SS problem.

 

[Annie]

The thrust of my argument here is not whether privitization is good or bad, that's irrelevent because either way it does not cure the problem at hand. The thrust of my argument is that we have a problem with SS and the presidents plan (by his own admission) does very little to actually solve the SS problem.

And your solution is?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The thrust of my argument here is not whether privitization is good or bad, that's irrelevent because either way it does not cure the problem at hand. The thrust of my argument is that we have a problem with SS and the presidents plan (by his own admission) does very little to actually solve the SS problem.

My sources say something completely different. That and the fact that SS is a Ponzi Scheme tells me something must be done, and privatization is part of it.

In case people forgot.


Pon·zi scheme ** (*P*)**Pronunciation Key**(pnz)
n.

An investment swindle in which high profits are promised from fictitious sources and early investors are paid off with funds raised from later ones.

 

[Huckleburry]

I started this thread asking if there was a conservative on the board who could give a coherent argument as to how the proposed sollution is going to help. I have gotten right wing quoting the CATO institute (Hahahaha) and repeating the definition of Ponzi Scheme rather than arguing his point (typical parrot). When someone makes an argument I will offer what I think is a solution but first I am going to ask that the conservatives defend their postion.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I started this thread asking if there was a conservative on the board who could give a coherent argument as to how the proposed sollution is going to help. I have gotten right wing quoting the CATO institute (Hahahaha) and repeating the definition of Ponzi Scheme rather than arguing his point (typical parrot). When someone makes an argument I will offer what I think is a solution but first I am going to ask that the conservatives defend their postion.

The current system IS A ponzi scheme. Maybe that's the link you were missing. Bickering over when exactly it will go bust is stupid. It needs to be fixed. Some of the dems who are against pia's now were for them before bush came into office. Your party is a bunch of intellecually dishonest, obstructionist political hacks.


Pia's will get people out of the ponzi scheme. It's just that simple. Are you really this dense?

And also. You will never be able to control the world through price fixing.

 

[cptpwichita]

Comparing the san fransico chronicle to the cato institute?please give me a liberal policy creating think-tank so i can compare it against all the research the cato institute has done.One more thing the cato institute is not right-wing it is libertarian.

 

[Huckleburry]

Is that your argument for SS reform?

 

[cptpwichita]

Is that your argument for SS reform?

Is it better for people to have ownership over their own property?
Is it better for people to get a higher rate of return on their investments?
Is it better to deal with an impending problem now rather than latter when it may be much worse?
Is it better to have a smaller less intrusive government?
Is there a problem with social security,what is the problem,and what is possible solutions to solving the problem?
Is there a problem with government spending?what is it and where do we cut?
Is there a problem with our current tax system?how do we reform it?
Do we have an immigration problem?How do we solve it?
All of this will determine how we are going to compete economically with the rest of the world.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Is that your argument for SS reform?

Pay attention. This whole thread is on ss reform.

 

[nakedemperor]

Everyone's going around in circles here. RWA keeps saying social security is a ponzi scheme, and it needs to be reformed. Huck keeps agreeing that it needs to be reformed, but doesn't think the private accounts plan will do anything to prevent the eventual insolvency of social security. No one has offered an argument on why PIA's will work do this, and I believe its because they won't. Everyone seems to agree PIA's are a neutral to good thing, but not something that will prevent insolvency.

So it seems that Huck is arguing it won't solve the problem;

RWA is arguing there's a huge problem;

cpt is arguing there are lots of problems;

and no1 (i think) is the only one who has offered a solution (set aside money)...

can we agree that while the president's PIAs plan might under very different circumstances be a good plan, but that as it is it doesn't solve the problem he's yelling about over the megaphone? Its like saying the termites are invading and then handing us a mouse trap.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Everyone's going around in circles here. RWA keeps saying social security is a ponzi scheme, and it needs to be reformed. Huck keeps agreeing that it needs to be reformed, but doesn't think the private accounts plan will do anything to prevent the eventual insolvency of social security. No one has offered an argument on why PIA's will work do this, and I believe its because they won't. Everyone seems to agree PIA's are a neutral to good thing, but not something that will prevent insolvency.

So it seems that Huck is arguing it won't solve the problem;

RWA is arguing there's a huge problem;

cpt is arguing there are lots of problems;

and no1 (i think) is the only one who has offered a solution (set aside money)...

can we agree that while the president's PIAs plan might under very different circumstances be a good plan, but that as it is it doesn't solve the problem he's yelling about over the megaphone? Its like saying the termites are invading and then handing us a mouse trap.

Thanks mr. summary. The fact is I have explained how pia's will help. PEOPLE WILL BE OUT OF THE PONZI SCHEME. Please remove your head from your hairy sphincter.

 

[Itsthetruth]

What social security crisis?

So just how is the Social Security Trust Fund doing? Listening to the right one would think the fund is doing worse than ever and is about to go bankrupt. Now remember, those who want to destroy social security are claiming that the funds assets are getting smaller and smaller and smaller year after year. Only one problem with that claim. They never provide any hard data to back it up. Ya wanna know why? Because they have none! The hard money facts prove just the opposite!

------------------------------------------------------------------

Investments held at the end of September 2004 by the
Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance Trust Funds

1,635,397,934,000.00 dollars. That's one trillion, 635 billion, 397 million, 934 thousand dollars held in government guaranteed securities.

The average interest rate, weighted by the amount invested at each rate, is 5.525 percent at the end of September 2004. Similarly, the average number of years to maturity, weighted by the amounts maturing, is 7.701 years.

And each year more money is being paid into the trust fund than is being spent for old age, survivors and disability benefits.

The amount of trust fund investments in government guaranteed no risk securities should exceed two trillion dollars in just a few years. At the end of 2003, trust fund investments in government securities totaled 1,530,363,559 and just nine months later that had increased to 1,635,397,934. That's a 105 billion dollar increase!

So let's see exactly how the social security trust fund assets have declined and are getting worse year after year as social security opponents claim.

Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance Trust Funds, 1957-2003

Year End Assets After All Benefits Were Paid

1957 23,042 23 billion, 42 million dollars
1958 23,243
1959 21,966
1960 22,613
1961 22,162
1962 20,705
1963 20,715
1964 21,172
1965 19,841 19 billion, 841 million dollars surplus
1966 22,308
1967 26,250
1968 28,729
1969 34,182
1970 38,068
1971 40,434
1972 42,775
1973 44,414
1974 45,886 45 billion, 886 million dollars surplus
1975 44,342
1976 41,133
1977 35,861
1978 31,746
1979 30,291
1980 26,453
1981 24,539 24 billion, 538 million dollars surplus
1982 24,778
1983 24,867
1984 31,075
1985 42,163
1986 46,861
1987 68,807 68 billion, 807 million dollars surplus
1988 109,762
1989 162,968
1990 225,277
1991 280,747
1992 331,473
1993 378,285
1994 436,385
1995 496,068
1996 566,950
1997 655,510
1998 762,460
1999 896,133
2000 1,049,445
2001 1,212,533
2002 1,377,965
2003 1,530,764 One trillion, 530 billion, 764 million dollars surplus

Social Security Trust Fund assets are projected to increase to over 5 trillion dollars by 2018.

Oh ya! The sky is falling, the sky is falling. Time to panic! Hardly any money is left in the trust fund. As you can clearly see the right-wingers have a point. Every year the funds assets are getting smaller, and smaller and smaller. And besides, the few dollars left in the fund are invested in U.S. government securities and everyone knows that's the most risky investment one can make! Just forget the fact that the government has never defaulted on such securities, not even during the great 1930's depression!

 

[Itsthetruth]

So will some "voodoo" economist crunch out some new numbers for us that prove:

1. President Bush knows how to balance a budget.

2. President Bush knows what he's talking about when he says the Social Security Trust Fund is nearly bankrupt.

Would anyone here want Bush handling your bank account?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

What social security crisis?

So just how is the Social Security Trust Fund doing? Listening to the right one would think the fund is doing worse than ever and is about to go bankrupt. Now remember, those who want to destroy social security are claiming that the funds assets are getting smaller and smaller and smaller year after year. Only one problem with that claim. They never provide any hard data to back it up. Ya wanna know why? Because they have none! The hard money facts prove just the opposite!

------------------------------------------------------------------

Investments held at the end of September 2004 by the
Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance Trust Funds

1,635,397,934,000.00 dollars. That's one trillion, 635 billion, 397 million, 934 thousand dollars held in government guaranteed securities.

The average interest rate, weighted by the amount invested at each rate, is 5.525 percent at the end of September 2004. Similarly, the average number of years to maturity, weighted by the amounts maturing, is 7.701 years.

And each year more money is being paid into the trust fund than is being spent for old age, survivors and disability benefits.

The amount of trust fund investments in government guaranteed no risk securities should exceed two trillion dollars in just a few years. At the end of 2003, trust fund investments in government securities totaled 1,530,363,559 and just nine months later that had increased to 1,635,397,934. That's a 105 billion dollar increase!

So let's see exactly how the social security trust fund assets have declined and are getting worse year after year as social security opponents claim.

Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance Trust Funds, 1957-2003

Year End Assets After All Benefits Were Paid

1957 23,042 23 billion, 42 million dollars
1958 23,243
1959 21,966
1960 22,613
1961 22,162
1962 20,705
1963 20,715
1964 21,172
1965 19,841 19 billion, 841 million dollars surplus
1966 22,308
1967 26,250
1968 28,729
1969 34,182
1970 38,068
1971 40,434
1972 42,775
1973 44,414
1974 45,886 45 billion, 886 million dollars surplus
1975 44,342
1976 41,133
1977 35,861
1978 31,746
1979 30,291
1980 26,453
1981 24,539 24 billion, 538 million dollars surplus
1982 24,778
1983 24,867
1984 31,075
1985 42,163
1986 46,861
1987 68,807 68 billion, 807 million dollars surplus
1988 109,762
1989 162,968
1990 225,277
1991 280,747
1992 331,473
1993 378,285
1994 436,385
1995 496,068
1996 566,950
1997 655,510
1998 762,460
1999 896,133
2000 1,049,445
2001 1,212,533
2002 1,377,965
2003 1,530,764 One trillion, 530 billion, 764 million dollars surplus

Social Security Trust Fund assets are projected to increase to over 5 trillion dollars by 2018.

Oh ya! The sky is falling, the sky is falling. Time to panic! Hardly any money is left in the trust fund. As you can clearly see the right-wingers have a point. Every year the funds assets are getting smaller, and smaller and smaller. And besides, the few dollars left in the fund are invested in U.S. government securities and everyone knows that's the most risky investment one can make! Just forget the fact that the government has never defaulted on such securities, not even during the great 1930's depression!

did you subract the projected payouts from the projected assets? That's really what you have to do. idiot.

 

[cptpwichita]

there is no trust fund!the government spent the money and replaced it with iou's.the government will always spend every dollar you send them and ask for more!the federal government both republicans and democrats love to spend money and it doesn't really matter why.in 2018 more money will go out than comes in (remember the trust fund has been completely emptied by politicians) and we will need to raise taxes,cut benefits,raise the retirement age or reform the system which would be ideal but there is transition costs.

the question is what kinda country do you want to live in and will we be able to compete with the rest of the world and maintain our high standard of living.
which is why i asked earlier.

1.do you believe that people should be in control of their own retirement accounts?(if so,with what restrictions and how will it be paid out(possibly as an annuity)?)

2.do you believe in a progressive tax,a flat tax,a national retail sales tax,etc.?

3.do you believe in unrestricted immigration,as is, or using the military to secure our border,border fence or wall?

4.free trade,tarriffs,etc?


personally i believe in limited government,privatize social security,national retail sales tax,end all foreign aid,end all welfare programs,end all subsidies,privatize education and push towards a voucher system,privatize the postal service,secure our borders with a high-tech border wall and military presence,health-care savings accounts,close all over seas military bases and work towards a missile defense shield,increase inspection of cargo containers entering the united states,tort reform,congressional term limits,a set pay scale for congressman based on the median family income minus the top 10 and bottom 10 percent x5 adjusted annually,same retirement for congressmen as the tax-payers (social security),funding for hydrogen and alternative power,stop trying to democratize the world and bring our soldiers home,and legalize gambling,prostitution,and marijuana (so we can regulate and tax).

 

[Itsthetruth]

did you subract the projected payouts from the projected assets? That's really what you have to do. idiot.

YES. The answer to your question is YES. These are the year end balances after ALL payouts for ALL costs.

 

[Itsthetruth]

there is no trust fund!the government spent the money and replaced it with iou's.

I'm not going to discuss gambling, prostitution and other subjects that have little or nothing to do with the attack on our social security system.

I understand you, like George Bush, don't like the social security system and want to destroy it. But, at least you're more honest than Bush and are not pretending to defend social security. If Bush adopted your public stance against social security what do you think his chances would be of having his various schemes adopted. Somewhere between none and zero.

It seems you have absolutely no confidence in the ability of the capitalist economic system to survive into the future. Do you think an economic collapse is coming? Must be. Otherwise you would not be so damn sure that the government will no longer honor and pay United States treasury notes. I take it you are encourging people to avoid buying government notes and instead urge people to invest in high tech and other completely safe and risk free stocks. Or do you stuff money in your mattress?

 

[cptpwichita]

I'm not going to discuss gambling, prostitution and other subjects that have little or nothing to do with the attack on our social security system.

I understand you, like George Bush, don't like the social security system and want to destroy it. But, at least you're more honest than Bush and are not pretending to defend social security. If Bush adopted your public stance against social security what do you think his chances would be of having his various schemes adopted. Somewhere between none and zero.

It seems you have absolutely no confidence in the ability of the capitalist economic system to survive into the future. Do you think an economic collapse is coming? Must be. Otherwise you would not be so damn sure that the government will no longer honor and pay United States treasury notes. I take it you are encourging people to avoid buying government notes and instead urge people to invest in high tech and other completely safe and risk free stocks. Or do you stuff money in your mattress?

in 2018 more money is going out than coming in and we both know that politicians spend money like drunken sailors at port call.the problem is a spending problem and government will not stop wasting our money.social security has never been a guranteed program,politicians can change it at the drop of a hat.politicians can reduce benefits,raise the retirement age(so hopefully you will die and they can keep your money),or raise taxes(including the payroll tax for social security).the changing demographics in our country means that in the current pay as you go system we have less workers to support the retirees (now 3 to 1 heading to 2 to 1 when social security started it was 16 to 1).privatization encourages saving and investing which result in a much higher rate of return.we could make privatized accounts highly diversified with part in a large index stock fund and the rest in less risk investments.

no i don't stuff my money in the mattress i work for a aircraft company and have an excellent 401k program.i also have savings bonds,a saving account,a pension plan,a company stock program,am hoping to start investing in the future in real estate and lastly my social security.
my question is- of all my investments which one do you think i will gain the worst rate of return on?

as far as an economic collapse is concerned i believe that europe will be hit harder first.we must reform taxes and government to help us compete with other countries in the future.we fall way behind in the number of new scientists and engineers,our public school system is failing us.