Nobody's gonna ask me, but here goes...

I should start by saying that I understand the government doesn't have a little account with my name on it from which my Social Security benefits will be drawn when the time comes.

And let's even pretend that the whole idea of privatizing Social Security isn't a big political payoff to all these brokerage firms who are foaming at the mouth over the prospect of 7% of every worker's wages going into brokerage accounts which will be subject to broker fees.

Using private, self-directed accounts for Social Security is still a rotten idea, for 2 reasons:
1. It will hurt the blue collar worker who won't have any idea how to invest his money (I've seen this happen with corporate self-directed retirement plans); &
2. The whole idea behind Social Security in the 1st place was to have something for retirees that wasn't subject to market forces, so that it's still there in the event of recession.

The real solution, which nobody has the political courage to advocate:

MEANS TESTING!!!

Do you realize how many retirees with high-6-figure incomes from pensions or investments are collecting Social Security? Isn't it ridiculous to take from secretaries & hamburger flippers & give to wealthy retirees? I say---No benefits to people who don't need 'em!

The argument against my idea will be that these wealthy recipients paid into the system. Bah! Social Security is an insurance program, & one collects on insurance only when the event he was insuring against happens! Try calling your car insurance co. some day & telling 'em, "Hey, I know I've never had an accident, but I've been paying all these years, & I think I should get some money back..."

I tire of hearing about the "bold new direction" this President has taken our country. Hell, it takes no courage to cut taxes for the wealthy or to drop bombs on a defenseless country--or even to reward a bunch of brokerage firms. I say, show some real political courage & adopt my idea!

That's today's sermon....

Joe, I think your characterization of Social Security Retirement as an INSURANCE program is not exactly correct. Many aspects of Social Security are true INSURANCE programs, such as SSI and Disability. The real problem with Social Security is the fact that it was never meant to be the ONLY income for retired persons, but rather one piece of the stream of retirement income for oldsters. I, too, am against any form of privatization for many, but not all, of the reasons you put forth.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mikey:

Joe, I think your characterization of Social Security Retirement as an INSURANCE program is not exactly correct.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not the 1st time I've heard that argument, & you may very well be right about that.

But if not an insurance program, what is it? A social program, perhaps? If so, why are wealthy retirees benefitting from a social program?

Hey Joe, your right. Everyone gets MEANS TESTED here for our version of Social Security. Lots of Baby Boomers are hoping
to be self funding retirees as most don't think there will be enough tax payers in the next generation to support us because of the Baby Boom Bulge. We used to get Lectures on that 13 years ago when I started out in my former career in aged care. My soulution is living wills and the right of people to choose to die if they wish. Some of you may not agree but if you spent 9 years working in aged care, 6 in a Special Care (Dementia Unit) you'd soon change your mind. (I'm a Horticulturist now, had to get out to save my life after years of watching the suffering and despair of others and beating my head against the wall of idiotic Bureaucracy). That's my little sermon for today.

Hey Joe how's the Pope Mobile? A lot more comfy than my soapbox I bet. Maybe you can give me a ride in it when I come for the Pilgrimage to The Wall one year!!

The Popemobile just needed a new set of brakes, which was all right. My life story is that I'm always flyin' without brakes anyways.

Joe

As i have found is typical, i agree with the theory of your sermon I just have concerns about the implementation. the first is the establishment of "means testing". In our system, this would require a minimum of politicians equivalent to two full houses of Congress and at least as many lawyers as the current population of the State of Tennessee. Then, after being tested, I am sure the average American would be befuddled and confused as to what their entitlement would be while there would be plenty of loopholes for those within the elite population. (bureaucracy is truly a bipartisan institution).

The other concern, and probably the most important, is that no matter what is done with Social Security, America needs Health Care Reform before the aging population ages. As I have posted before (I think in discussion of one of your sermons) the current application of Health Care in this country is inadequate and needs to be reformed. This is particularly true when it comes to the elderly. The system is designed to deplete whatever financial security that the elderly may have accrued during their lifetime. As my father wasted away i found that the doctors that saw him quickly prescribed any and every drug that came down the pike particularly the new and expensive drugs including a stint on Vioxx. I think this form of medicine is encouraged by drug companies and, i for one, all though I respect the medical profession on the whole, don't think the Doctors take the time to review the charts of the chronically ill as would probably be appropriate. True Medical reform is a required contingent to any type of Social Security reform.

later

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PSBeaty:

I think this form of medicine is encouraged by drug companies

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As an ex-nurse, I can tell you that you have hit the nail on the head PS. It's not just the drug companaies, it's the people that sell the catheters for heart caths, or any other procedure that is done. It is also the Docs. They make big bucks for every procedure they do. Don't get me started. I used to know a doc that could make $10,000 a day in the cath lab, before he went to see his patieints in the hospital, and then the office.

We nurses profitted too. The salespersons would court us to get to the docs. I've had free hotel rooms, meals, and conferences (that I got continuing education credit for) paid for by sales reps.

Like I said. Don't get me started.

<FONT size="1">edited once for grammer</FONT s>

<center><FONT COLOR="#000080">--- Edited 1 times, lastly by Goofus on Nov 29, 2004 ---</FONT></center>

Now the plan to "fix" or "save" Social Security has been revealed---Bush wants the government to borrow $1-2 trillion to pay current benefits so that current SS taxes can be invested in the stock market.

Isn't that like the government borrowing money to invest in the stock market?

Would you borrow money to invest in the stock market?

Me neither.

That goes to show how stupid this idea is.

Maybe we should wait until the braindead asshole in the whitehouse finishes breaking social security before we fix it?

I wouldn't even borrow 32cents to invest in the Stock Market Joe (see it really is me).
Hey I heard a rumour (don't quote me) that our leader (Dubya's little bro) is thinking of changing our social security system to something like yours!! I will investigate!

The industry has a euphemistic word for investing in the stock market with borrowed funds. It's called margin, and history tells us that margin calls were the biggest single reason for the stock market crash of 1929 and its deep, long-lasting aftershocks.

Would love to be a fly on the wall when the phone rings in the Oval Office, and it's the government's stockbroker calling to tell Dubya that he needs to come up with another trillion or so to cover his "exuberant optimism."

Right! And the SEC is currently investigating brokers who talk people into taking out home equity loans to invest in the stock market. So if the agency that regulates the markets thinks this is a bad idea, why does our government wanna do it?

Because Bush wants to leave a fitting legacy!

Borrowing on margin? BIG, BIG mistake! When value begins to drop, your broker and everyone elses broker calls and says, "I need the doe right now or cover the margin with your stocks" The negative direction system-wide becomes exponential, meaning the rate of change in the negative direction continually increases with equal increments in time, meaning value drops faster and faster until there's nothing left financially,...uh, for you that is. A perfect recipe for spiralling down to nothing if things get just a little bit tight. A concept or scheme(you decide), with odds in favor of the gamblin' house. Know what I'm sayin'? Right on there Mikey.

<center><FONT COLOR="#000080">--- Edited 1 times, lastly by GerryB on Dec 23, 2004 ---</FONT></center>

Paul Krugman: Social Security -- Privatization is a phony solution to a ginned-up crisis
Paul Krugman, New York Times
January 5, 2005 KRUGMAN0105


The people who hustled America into a tax cut to eliminate an imaginary budget surplus and a war to eliminate imaginary weapons are now trying another bum's rush.

If they succeed, we will do nothing about the real fiscal threat and will instead dismantle Social Security, a program that is in much better financial shape than the rest of the federal government.

There are much more urgent fiscal problems the administration hopes you won't notice while it scares you about Social Security. Let's focus on one piece of those scare tactics: the claim that Social Security faces an imminent crisis.

That claim is simply false. Yet much of the press has reported the falsehood as a fact. For example, the Washington Post recently described 2018, when benefit payments are projected to exceed payroll tax revenues, as a "day of reckoning."

Here's the truth: By law, Social Security has a budget independent of the rest of the U.S. government. That budget is currently running a surplus, thanks to an increase in the payroll tax two decades ago. As a result, Social Security has a large and growing trust fund.

When benefit payments start to exceed payroll tax revenues, Social Security will be able to draw on that trust fund. And the trust fund will last for a long time: until 2042, says the Social Security Administration; until 2052, says the Congressional Budget Office; quite possibly forever, say many economists, who point out that these projections assume that the economy will grow much more slowly in the future than it has in the past.

So where's the imminent crisis? Privatizers say the trust fund doesn't count because it's invested in U.S. government bonds, which are "meaningless IOUs." Readers who want a long-form debunking of this sophistry can read my recent article in the online journal the Economists' Voice (www.bepress.com/ev).

The short version is that the bonds in the Social Security trust fund are obligations of the federal government's general fund, the budget outside Social Security. They have the same status as U.S. bonds owned by Japanese pension funds and the government of China. The general fund is legally obliged to pay the interest and principal on those bonds, and Social Security is legally obliged to pay full benefits as long as there is money in the trust fund.

There are only two things that could endanger Social Security's ability to pay benefits before the trust fund runs out. One would be a fiscal crisis that led the United States to default on all its debts. The other would be legislation specifically repudiating the general fund's debts to retirees.

That is, we can't have a Social Security crisis without a general fiscal crisis -- unless Congress declares that debts to foreign bondholders must be honored, but that promises to older Americans, who have spent most of their working lives paying extra payroll taxes to build up the trust fund, don't count.

Politically, that seems far-fetched. A general fiscal crisis, on the other hand, is a real possibility -- but not because of Social Security. In fact, the Bush administration's scaremongering over Social Security is in large part an effort to distract the public from the real fiscal danger.

There are two serious threats to the federal government's solvency over the next couple of decades. One is the fact that the general fund has already plunged deeply into deficit, largely because of President Bush's unprecedented insistence on cutting taxes in the face of a war. The other is the rising cost of Medicare and Medicaid.

As a budget concern, Social Security isn't remotely in the same league. The long-term cost of the Bush tax cuts is five times the budget office's estimate of Social Security's deficit over the next 75 years. The botched prescription drug bill passed in 2003 does more, all by itself, to increase the long-run budget deficit than the projected rise in Social Security expenses.

That doesn't mean nothing should be done to improve Social Security's finances. But privatization is a fake solution to a fake crisis.