The Numbers Case For SS Reform

[nakedemperor]

These are not words in your mouth. This is how you see things, unbeknownst to even you, perhaps.

Are.. are you serious? Kathianne, do you see what I mean yet?



Let me introduce you to me nephew. I think you'd find a lot of common ground in terms of your debate skills. Although, you'd have to go pick him up from pre-school.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Are.. are you serious? Kathianne, do you see what I mean yet?



Let me introduce you to me nephew. I think you'd find a lot of common ground in terms of your debate skills. Although, you'd have to go pick him up from pre-school.

Your problem is you do not even see the patterns in your own thinking. You will as your brain grows. You like to imply things, then deny it. When I hold you to your implications, you scream like a baby busted for weed.

 

[Huckleburry]

Right Wing.
Calling somthing a ponzi scheme does not make it so. Moreover, SS is not a typical investment fund and is thus not subject to the same rules. SS is not illegal because it was established according to a different set of rules. You have yet to make a convincing case for SS privitization. This is economics, debates cannot be won with rhetoric and hotair because we can all look at the numbers. Make a case, use econometrics, actually begin a debate rather than flaming us "stupid" libs for opposing your three sentence comments.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Right Wing.
Calling somthing a ponzi scheme does not make it so. Moreover, SS is not a typical investment fund and is thus not subject to the same rules. SS is not illegal because it was established according to a different set of rules. You have yet to make a convincing case for SS privitization. This is economics, debates cannot be won with rhetoric and hotair because we can all look at the numbers. Make a case, use econometrics, actually begin a debate rather than flaming us "stupid" libs for opposing your three sentence comments.

It IS a ponzie scheme. I know it's not illegal now. I said IT WOULD BE illegal if someone tried it in the private sector. This is a ponzi scheme. If you can't see that, your head is in a hole.

once again, for you stupid libs:


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.

If you feel this is just rhetoric, then you don't read or think good.

 

[nakedemperor]

Your problem is you do not even see the patterns in your own thinking. You will as your brain grows. You like to imply things, then deny it. When I hold you to your implications, you scream like a baby busted for weed.

Let's look at this with a little bit of critical distance, shall we?

Person A accuses person B of proposition X being false.

Person B responds that they do not believe proposition X to be true, either.

Person A then responds that they know person B believes proposition X, even if person B isn't conscious of his own support of proposition X.


Does this make any sense? If everyone on this board conversed in this way, how much progress would there be? You have made presumptions, which you initially denied ever making, and then defended by saying you knew them to be true even if I, the only person capable of possibly making such a determination, denied them. I ask that you curb this tendancy to presume, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Huckleburry]

Right Wing,
The difference is that SS is quite transparent about the benefits you recive. If you take the time and examine your circumstance you can calculate your future SS return. They have a payout schedual and they follow it. This, however, is beside the point. I asked if a conservative on this board could make an argument defending the Bush position on SS. How will it fix the current problem and how will it prevent future problems. That is the question on the table and that is the question that the GOP has yet to answer.

 

[Annie]

Are.. are you serious? Kathianne, do you see what I mean yet?



Let me introduce you to me nephew. I think you'd find a lot of common ground in terms of your debate skills. Although, you'd have to go pick him up from pre-school.

NE, I've made it clear that I only speak for myself. In no way does RWA's posts reflect anything I've said, or think. You too should not be insinuating what I've 'said' in a private correspondence, especially since I am clueless to what I may have added or not. I could be wrong, but I believe I've both dinged and rep'd you, depending on your post and attitude. I do think you say things just to play at someone's feelings. You're choice of course, but expect it back.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Right Wing,
The difference is that SS is quite transparent about the benefits you recive. If you take the time and examine your circumstance you can calculate your future SS return. They have a payout schedual and they follow it. This, however, is beside the point. I asked if a conservative on this board could make an argument defending the Bush position on SS. How will it fix the current problem and how will it prevent future problems. That is the question on the table and that is the question that the GOP has yet to answer.

Those letters are lies.

If people take care of their own retirement, they won't NEED ss. It's so simple.

Can you really not see the wisdom of relying on yourself versus a pack of government lies? You're beyond hope.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Let's look at this with a little bit of critical distance, shall we?

Person A accuses person B of proposition X being false.

Person B responds that they do not believe proposition X to be true, either.

Person A then responds that they know person B believes proposition X, even if person B isn't conscious of his own support of proposition X.


Does this make any sense? If everyone on this board conversed in this way, how much progress would there be? You have made presumptions, which you initially denied ever making, and then defended by saying you knew them to be true even if I, the only person capable of possibly making such a determination, denied them. I ask that you curb this tendancy to presume, nothing more, nothing less.

It's called being able to discern an agenda based on people's actions and words. Of course you won't SAY you're an illogical lib, full of hate and reactionary statements, but we all see that's what you are. Transparent. Look in the mirror.

 

[cptpwichita]

First of all the social security trust fund is empty, the congress spent all of the money and in its place put IOU's kinda like in that movie dumb and dumber, loyd says"that's an IOU it's just as good as money".social security is a pay as you go system the current workers pay the benefits of the current retirees.When social security started there was a 16 to 1 ratio of workers to retirees also people did not live as long as they do today.Now that same ratio is 3 to 1 heading to 2 to 1.consider higher benefits,lower ratio of workers to retirees,and people living longer you have a situation start to occur where there is more money going out than coming in,now you can do one of three things-1.increase taxes 2.cut benefits 3.raise the retirement age.

or

private accounts with which we already have seen the great benefits from both chile and galvaston texas.The main question is the transition cost and making sure everyone who was in the current system gets the benefits promised them.It can be done.

THE GOVERNMENTS PROBLEM IS A SPENDING PROBLEM.we have to control spending and increase revenue while implementing policies that will make us the manufacturing power of the world.the real wealth of a nation is in mining,manufacturing and agriculture-NOT sales and services

 

[Bonnie]

private accounts with which we already have seen the great benefits from both chile and galvaston texas.The main question is the transition cost and making sure everyone who was in the current system gets the benefits promised them.It can be done.

THE GOVERNMENTS PROBLEM IS A SPENDING PROBLEM.we have to control spending and increase revenue while implementing policies that will make us the manufacturing power of the world.the real wealth of a nation is in mining,manufacturing and agriculture-NOT sales and services

Scary but I have to agree with most of what you said! It's really not a question of whether to do it, but how to make the transition as smooth as possible.

 

[Huckleburry]

Chile's system has bombed. In spite of the privatization, Chile still pays trillions of dollars into the system because the system has been susceptible to global shocks in the market. It is a good idea to critically examine Chile before we use it as an example because the fact is that Chile has not been typically successful. Finally, and the administration admits this, privatization does little to ameliorate the current problem with SS.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Chile's system has bombed. In spite of the privatization, Chile still pays trillions of dollars into the system because the system has been susceptible to global shocks in the market. It is a good idea to critically examine Chile before we use it as an example because the fact is that Chile has not been typically successful. Finally, and the administration admits this, privatization does little to ameliorate the current problem with SS.

http://www.socialsecurity.org/daily/07-12-99.html

n May 1981 Chile adopted a revolutionary reform by replacing its bankrupt pay-as-you-go retirement system with a fully funded system of individual retirement accounts managed by the private sector. The new system is based on three important pillars: freedom of choice, private-sector management and property rights in the retirement accounts. In its 18 years, the private retirement system has been an enormous success: more than 95 percent of Chilean workers have joined the system; the pension funds have accumulated over $34 billion in assets; and the average real rate of return has been 11.3 percent per year.

If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, the Chilean system should be blushing from the accolades it has received. Since 1993 seven other Latin American nations have implemented pension reforms modeled after Chile's. In March Poland became the first country in Eastern Europe to implement a partial privatization reform based on the Chilean model. In short, the Chilean system has clearly become the point of reference for countries interested in finding an enduring solution to the problem of paying for the retirement benefits of aging populations.

 

[Bonnie]

Chile's system has bombed. In spite of the privatization, Chile still pays trillions of dollars into the system because the system has been susceptible to global shocks in the market. It is a good idea to critically examine Chile before we use it as an example because the fact is that Chile has not been typically successful. Finally, and the administration admits this, privatization does little to ameliorate the current problem with SS.

Okay then what's your rememdy to this???? Just keep people dependent on governement forever??

 

[no1tovote4]

Okay then what's your rememdy to this???? Just keep people dependent on governement forever??

You remedy it by setting aside the money that was promised to be set aside, it will be expensive to fix the problem but worth it. Having a portion that is allowed to be in Private accounts is just a bonus.

Keep the politicians hands out of the SS funds and the program would never have become a ponzi scheme like it is today.

 

[Said1]

Okay then what's your rememdy to this???? Just keep people dependent on governement forever??

They haven't covered that in class yet.

Now lets examine that for a moment shall we?

 

[no1tovote4]

Chile's system has bombed. In spite of the privatization, Chile still pays trillions of dollars into the system because the system has been susceptible to global shocks in the market. It is a good idea to critically examine Chile before we use it as an example because the fact is that Chile has not been typically successful. Finally, and the administration admits this, privatization does little to ameliorate the current problem with SS.

And you base this Chilean failure on what?

Above there is a post that refutes your claims rather effectively.

4 posts up, ^ that way for you D voters.

 

[cptpwichita]

chile has been a huge success but not only chile we also have a model here in the united states-galveston, texas.the funds are managed by the county and have averaged 8.64 percent rate of return.galveston funds are very conservatively invested and if they had been invested in a large stock index fund they would have almost doubled their rate of return.galveston also pays up to $150,000 death benefit while social security pays what?does anyone know?take a guess.

 

[cptpwichita]

ohhh and in a privatized system your family gets to keep your money instead of the government which makes great decisions like giving a 150,000 dollars to the golden globe awards.

 

[cptpwichita]

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