Social Security-Kerry?

[Annie]

These are the sorts of things we should be hearing about!

Aug. 9, 2004, 2:49AM

HOUSTON CHRONICLE



How would you fix Social Security, Sen. Kerry?
He could legitimately be accused of implicitly endorsing tax increases
By MICHAEL TANNER
Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle News Service

When it comes to Social Security reform, John Kerry is clear about what he is against.

``I will not privatize Social Security,'' he declared in his acceptance speech to the Democratic National Convention. ``I will not cut benefits.'' The Democratic Party as a whole takes the same position through its party platform: ``Democrats believe in the progressive, guaranteed benefit that has ensured that seniors and people with disabilities receive a benefit not subject to the whims of the market or the economy. We oppose privatizing Social Security or raising the retirement age.''

It is a clear, resounding message... that says absolutely nothing about what Sen. Kerry or the Democrats would do to solve Social Security's looming financial crisis.

Yet Social Security will start running a deficit - spending more money on benefits than it takes in through taxes - in less than 15 years, by 2018, according to the last report of Social Security's trustees. The so-called Social Security Trust Fund, which is supposed to help pay benefits until 2042, in reality contains only government bonds, essentially an IOU. While few people doubt that those benefits will ultimately be paid, the federal government will still have to find the money to pay them.

And a lot of money it is. . .

 

[tpahl]

These are the sorts of things we should be hearing about!

Of course Bush is not for privatizing SS either. BTW, privatizing and elliminating are the same when you are talking about a government program. Do not be fooled into thinking you can have a privatized government program.

Travis

 

[CSM]

Of course Bush is not for privatizing SS either. BTW, privatizing and elliminating are the same when you are talking about a government program. Do not be fooled into thinking you can have a privatized government program.

Travis

I am not sure, but isn't our postal system privatized? How about the banking system? Just asking and too lazy to research.

 

[DKSuddeth]

I am not sure, but isn't our postal system privatized? How about the banking system? Just asking and too lazy to research.

postal system is private but federally protected. Banking system, private, partially protected.

 

[CSM]

postal system is private but federally protected. Banking system, private, partially protected.

Thanks; it's tough being old and lazy.

Not that anyone should use either of those two instances for justification of privatization of anything!

 

[Fmr jarhead]

The proposed "privatizing" of the SS would simply be the option of those who are younger, and have a better chance at investing their 6.5% of payroll taxes (half of what is currently taken out), and having a mixture of investment options very similar to a 401K but without the company stock plan. There would be several mutual funds to choose from, and, voila! Instant privatization....no muss, no fuss! The other half would remain in the SS fund.....

(No one has answered to what Kerry's real intent is, yet! Aren't there any screaming socialists on this forum who would be supportive of Kerry's plan?)

Wouldn't the proposed legalization of gay marriages have a huge impact on the cost of Social Security, as well? Wouldn't there be more spouses getting payments that are not currently accounted for in the system?

(More stuff to think about when deciding which chad to leave hanging!)

 

[tpahl]

I am not sure, but isn't our postal system privatized? How about the banking system? Just asking and too lazy to research.

government protected monopoly for the postal system.

Travis

 

[tpahl]

The proposed "privatizing" of the SS would simply be the option of those who are younger, and have a better chance at investing their 6.5% of payroll taxes (half of what is currently taken out), and having a mixture of investment options very similar to a 401K but without the company stock plan. There would be several mutual funds to choose from, and, voila! Instant privatization....no muss, no fuss! The other half would remain in the SS fund.....{/quote]

No. IUt would not be instant privatization. it would be Instant forced savings in government approved mutual funds. which has many problems associated with it.

Of course within a few years the choice of mutual funds will be politicized and fund managers being bribed to select certain stocks over other smarter choices. Give it a decade or two and a huge amount of power to fluctuate the market will be in the hands of the people managing these funds because everyone is forced to buy into them and they would be so large as to be able to mess with the economy.

forcing people to invest is just as morally wrong as forcing people to throw their money into the old SS. The whole problem with SS is that you are forcing people to do things with their money against their will.

This would not be privatization, it would be a government controled retirement scheme just like what we have now with perhaps a slightly better return, but a larger ability to screw up the economy (and investment industry).

Wouldn't the proposed legalization of gay marriages have a huge impact on the cost of Social Security, as well? Wouldn't there be more spouses getting payments that are not currently accounted for in the system?

Well if we are all going to be forced to pay into it, then the least that is fair is everyone have an equal shot at getting some money back. Why discriminate against gays?

 

[Fmr jarhead]

tpahl, I don't argue your point, that if you pay in, you should get something back....but what about this new "class" of recipient that is being created, and not accounted for, in the planning, and the depletion of the fund.

Spouses get more benefits (even if they don't work) after the income earner dies....so the proprtion of what is paid out, increases, and now has to provide for 2 people, instead of 1.

Do you see how this could cause an expedited demise of the Social Security system, if gay marriages become the law of the land?

 

[tpahl]

tpahl, I don't argue your point, that if you pay in, you should get something back....but what about this new "class" of recipient that is being created, and not accounted for, in the planning, and the depletion of the fund.

Spouses get more benefits (even if they don't work) after the income earner dies....so the proprtion of what is paid out, increases, and now has to provide for 2 people, instead of 1.

Do you see how this could cause an expedited demise of the Social Security system, if gay marriages become the law of the land?

I agree that it would expedite the process. and I welcome the demise of social security. But even if you think SS is a good thing, it is unfair to argue against gay marriage on this basis. Gays are paying in like everyone else. They should be able to chose a benficiary to their 'share' of the pot, just as heterosecusal get to give it to their spouses. The fact that it makes a screwed up system even worse is not gay peoples fault and they should not be punished because of it.

Traivs

 

[Fmr jarhead]

The fact that it makes a screwed up system even worse is not gay peoples fault and they should not be punished because of it.

Traivs

Nor should the little old lady and the little old man who have paid in to the systme for 80 years be shorted because now there is a new "class" of citizen being created. If a new system is devised for this new class of citizens, then go for it! But the system was intended for marriages between a man and a woman.

I don't care if civil unions are legalized, but in my opinion it should not come with the same social benefits as a legal marriage between a man and a woman. I guess we can just disagree on this issue, eh? (unless you have some information that would change my mind)

 

[tpahl]

Nor should the little old lady and the little old man who have paid in to the systme for 80 years be shorted because now there is a new "class" of citizen being created. If a new system is devised for this new class of citizens, then go for it! But the system was intended for marriages between a man and a woman.

No new class of citizens is being created. Gay people are supposed to be citizens just like everyone else now. They are not. Right now they are not allowed to have their ss benfits be given to their partner like regualr citizen. granting that right to them would make them more like the class of citizen that you are today, not some new class.

I don't care if civil unions are legalized, but in my opinion it should not come with the same social benefits as a legal marriage between a man and a woman. I guess we can just disagree on this issue, eh? (unless you have some information that would change my mind)

Well it is not new, but the equal protection amendment comes to mind.

Let me ask you? If social security was originally created to where only whites spouses got benifits but if your spouse was black they would not get the benifits. Would it be wrong to correct such an injustice because then the current white spouses would be getting less as you are implying that the current heterosexual spouses get less if we allow gay spouses to collect benifits?

Travis

 

[Fmr jarhead]

Color of skin (race) is not the same as sexual orientation. Many people choose abstinence, even though they are heterosexual.....does that mean they should be allowed the same rights as priests?

Behavior is not akin to race.....you can change behavior (experiment, anyone?), but you cannot change your race, unless you are Michael Jackson.

There is a big difference, in my opinion. My gay friends and I have this discussion on a regular basis, and they see the validity of the arguement, can you?

 

[tpahl]

Color of skin (race) is not the same as sexual orientation. Many people choose abstinence, even though they are heterosexual.....does that mean they should be allowed the same rights as priests?

Behavior is not akin to race.....you can change behavior (experiment, anyone?), but you cannot change your race, unless you are Michael Jackson.

There is a big difference, in my opinion. My gay friends and I have this discussion on a regular basis, and they see the validity of the arguement, can you?

I understand that there is a difference, but for the point of my analogy, the difference does not matter. You are not creating a new class of people, but in fact elliminating a seperate class. And it is not correct to continue an injustice to one group of people (homosexual spouses) just to prevent another group (heterosexual spouses) from continueing to reap benifits from a government program longer.

Whether gay people are born that way or decided to be that way should make no difference in terms of getting SS benifits. Both hetero and homosexual people are forced to put money into social security and both should be able to designate a benificiary.

 

[Fmr jarhead]

...and as an individual paying in to the system, they are entitled to the benefits. There was no accounting for gay marriages when the Social Security system was implemented. I seriously doubt that the Social Security Act was written to include the "modern era" social aspects and change that were unforeseen during the 1930's. If Social Security was meant to be inclusive of partner rights, wouldn't it clearly be spelled out, and not be written as marital rights?

(I am not making a judgement, here, just looking at the letter of the law....if it needs to be changed, then let's get on with it....but Social Security, balancing on a razor's thin margin already, will no doubt fail that much quicker, and that is not a good thing for those that need the pensions the most right now....

Us younger folks (even those in their 50's) should be making alternate plans.

 

[tpahl]

...and as an individual paying in to the system, they are entitled to the benefits. There was no accounting for gay marriages when the Social Security system was implemented. I seriously doubt that the Social Security Act was written to include the "modern era" social aspects and change that were unforeseen during the 1930's. If Social Security was meant to be inclusive of partner rights, wouldn't it clearly be spelled out, and not be written as marital rights?

(I am not making a judgement, here, just looking at the letter of the law....if it needs to be changed, then let's get on with it....but Social Security, balancing on a razor's thin margin already, will no doubt fail that much quicker, and that is not a good thing for those that need the pensions the most right now....

Us younger folks (even those in their 50's) should be making alternate plans.

It does not matter what the new deal politicians were thinking when they created the system. They were wrong to not treat everyone equally.

Travis

 

[Fmr jarhead]

It does not matter what the new deal politicians were thinking when they created the system. They were wrong to not treat everyone equally.

Travis

So should we all get free cheese, and not just the poor people, then? Sounds a little socialist to me.

 

[tpahl]

So should we all get free cheese, and not just the poor people, then? Sounds a little socialist to me.

Yeah, we are talking about the SOCIAL security program. Ultimately I would rather see the entire system dismantled. But until that happens, i want to see the government treat people fairly and give everyone their handout.

Now we have the worst of both worlds, a crappy socialist retirement scheme AND unfair distribution.

Travis

 

[Fmr jarhead]

I must have missed the queue....where do I go get the rules on life being fair?

Is that some utopian ideal that you are shooting for? Best of luck to you, but there will ALWAYS be inequality and a lack of FAIRNESS as long as there is life on this planet. (doesn't make it correct, but it is a fact).

 

[DKSuddeth]

I must have missed the queue....where do I go get the rules on life being fair?

Is that some utopian ideal that you are shooting for? Best of luck to you, but there will ALWAYS be inequality and a lack of FAIRNESS as long as there is life on this planet. (doesn't make it correct, but it is a fact).

I disagree, there will always be inequality and a lack of fairness as long we continue to let selfishness rule our lives.