| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Harry Hope" |
| Date: |
08 May 2006 10:37:22 AM |
| Object: |
Republican Bush's "Social Security is going broke" scam is exposed |
From a New York Times editorial, 5/8/06:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/08/opinion/08mon2.html?ex=1304740800&en=627509b4f7532af4&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
Social Security Endures
Buried in the newly released 2006 annual report on Social Security,
there is good news on the program's long-term health.
But don't expect to hear President Bush talking about it.
His main comment on the new report is that the system is "going
broke."
He apparently still wants people to believe that their only options
are ending up with nothing from the government in old age or relying
on financial markets.
That's a false choice and Americans recognized it as such when they
rejected his push last year for private accounts.
Projected "cost rates" in this year's report show smaller annual
deficits in Social Security than had previously been assumed, starting
around mid-century.
The 75-year projection ends in 2080 with a shortfall that is less than
last year's estimates by $57 billion, in today's dollars.
That's important, because the smaller the deficit, the less drastic
the reforms needed to keep the program going strong.
The deficit is lower because government statisticians now assume that
American women will have two children, on average, versus an earlier
estimate of 1.95.
The happy result for Social Security is that more taxpayers make for a
healthier system.
That is not to suggest that increased fertility is the key to
strengthening Social Security.
It obviously helps, as would more immigration or stronger wage growth.
What the big impact of small adjustments shows is that Social Security
is a dynamic system, adaptable to the 21st century.
Currently, it is able to pay full benefits until 2040.
Reforms that are enacted between now and then must be structured to
take advantage of shifts that work in the system's favor, and to
protect against those that don't.
To that end, phasing in a modest package of benefit cuts and tax
increases over the next several decades is the best way to ensure that
the system won't come up short a generation from now.
_________________________________________________________
Right wingers now head back to their drawing boards to concoct a new
scare scam.
Harry
.
|
|
| User: "Wayne H. Wilhelm" |
|
| Title: Re: Republican Bush's "Social Security is going broke" scam is exposed |
08 May 2006 11:04:26 AM |
|
|
:Hi, Harry
Social Security is broke simply because it doesn't do what it's supposed to:
Enable Americans to retire.
Ask any politician: Social Security is for everything but for enabling
people to retire. The most you'll get any politician to claim is that
Social Security should only be considered as a supplement to retirement. In
other words, if your only recourse for retirement is Social Security; you're
screwed.
That is why Social Security needs fixed. It doesn't enable people to
retire, and it doesn't enable people to retire when they want. And now,
politicians claim the retirement age should be increased to 72 because
no-one does physical labor anymore? Those idiots need to visit where I
work. They'll drop dead within 60 minutes, and even though I've had three
stints placed in my heart to keep the ol' blood flowing, I'll still work
circles around them.
Of course, I don't expect the likes of John Kerry to know anything about the
real labor force of America. All Dem-wits know anything about (so they
claim) is the middle class who, by government claims, average $45,000 per
year in wages. Myself and 50 Million other Americans are still striving to
reach the $20,000 per year mark. Dem-wits don't even know we exist.
So you claim Social Security is stable. That's probably because Dem-wits
know every lower-class worker will die from excessive work by the time
they're old enough to retire and won't be able to collect.
--Wayne H. Wilhelm
Personal Web: http://www.hiddenpolitics.com
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:chpu525bq5nfb5f8hc953lehh90n8oqbk0@4ax.com...
From a New York Times editorial, 5/8/06:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/08/opinion/08mon2.html?ex=1304740800&en=627509b4f7532af4&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
Social Security Endures
Buried in the newly released 2006 annual report on Social Security,
there is good news on the program's long-term health.
But don't expect to hear President Bush talking about it.
His main comment on the new report is that the system is "going
broke."
He apparently still wants people to believe that their only options
are ending up with nothing from the government in old age or relying
on financial markets.
That's a false choice and Americans recognized it as such when they
rejected his push last year for private accounts.
Projected "cost rates" in this year's report show smaller annual
deficits in Social Security than had previously been assumed, starting
around mid-century.
The 75-year projection ends in 2080 with a shortfall that is less than
last year's estimates by $57 billion, in today's dollars.
That's important, because the smaller the deficit, the less drastic
the reforms needed to keep the program going strong.
The deficit is lower because government statisticians now assume that
American women will have two children, on average, versus an earlier
estimate of 1.95.
The happy result for Social Security is that more taxpayers make for a
healthier system.
That is not to suggest that increased fertility is the key to
strengthening Social Security.
It obviously helps, as would more immigration or stronger wage growth.
What the big impact of small adjustments shows is that Social Security
is a dynamic system, adaptable to the 21st century.
Currently, it is able to pay full benefits until 2040.
Reforms that are enacted between now and then must be structured to
take advantage of shifts that work in the system's favor, and to
protect against those that don't.
To that end, phasing in a modest package of benefit cuts and tax
increases over the next several decades is the best way to ensure that
the system won't come up short a generation from now.
_________________________________________________________
Right wingers now head back to their drawing boards to concoct a new
scare scam.
Harry
.
|
|
|
| User: "ouroboros rex" |
|
| Title: Re: Republican Bush's "Social Security is going broke" scam is exposed |
08 May 2006 01:19:02 PM |
|
|
"Wayne H. Wilhelm" <doremewayne@quadracalc.com> wrote in message
news:e_J7g.29663$mh.6008@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
:Hi, Harry
Social Security is broke simply because it doesn't do what it's supposed
to: Enable Americans to retire.
So let's steal it, problem solved, right? roflmao
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd King" |
|
| Title: Re: Republican Bush's "Social Security is going broke" scam is exposed |
08 May 2006 01:32:12 PM |
|
|
"Wayne H. Wilhelm" <doremewayne@quadracalc.com> wrote in message
news:e_J7g.29663$mh.6008@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
:Hi, Harry
Social Security is broke simply because it doesn't do what it's supposed
to: Enable Americans to retire.
That has never been the purpose of Social Security. It was *always*
intended as supplemental retirement income, it was *never* intended to be a
full-ride pension.
Ask any politician: Social Security is for everything but for enabling
people to retire. The most you'll get any politician to claim is that
Social Security should only be considered as a supplement to retirement.
In other words, if your only recourse for retirement is Social Security;
you're screwed.
Yes, that's true.
That is why Social Security needs fixed. It doesn't enable people to
retire, and it doesn't enable people to retire when they want. And now,
politicians claim the retirement age should be increased to 72 because
no-one does physical labor anymore? Those idiots need to visit where I
work. They'll drop dead within 60 minutes, and even though I've had three
stints placed in my heart to keep the ol' blood flowing, I'll still work
circles around them.
Of course, I don't expect the likes of John Kerry to know anything about
the real labor force of America. All Dem-wits know anything about (so
they claim) is the middle class who, by government claims, average $45,000
per year in wages. Myself and 50 Million other Americans are still
striving to reach the $20,000 per year mark. Dem-wits don't even know we
exist.
You're old enough to have 3 stents in your heart, and you're still working
for minimum wage? That helps explain your take on Social Security.
It's funny that you fault Democrats for Social Security not paying enough to
pay for your retirement, when it's *Republicans* who have always fought
Social Security paying *anything* - from its very inception. If you think
Social Security doesn't pay enough now, how would you like it if the Repubs
had their way and there was NO Social Security at all?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wayne H. Wilhelm" |
|
| Title: Re: Republican Bush's "Social Security is going broke" scam is exposed |
10 May 2006 05:18:15 PM |
|
|
"Lloyd King" <lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote in message
news:125v3ld47ku8me7@corp.supernews.com...
"Wayne H. Wilhelm" <doremewayne@quadracalc.com> wrote in message
news:e_J7g.29663$mh.6008@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
:Hi, Harry
Social Security is broke simply because it doesn't do what it's supposed
to: Enable Americans to retire.
That has never been the purpose of Social Security. It was *always*
intended as supplemental retirement income, it was *never* intended to be
a full-ride pension.
Thank you for confirming that.
I've been well aware that Social Security is only a supplemental retirement
income, and for many, barely that. Getting anyone to verbally state such is
the challenge. Four (4) of you have just confirmed (for the records) what I
already knew.
It's my assertion that Social Security should be able to do far more than
what it does towards allowing the poor to retire. The middle-class and
upper class know that Social Security can never be a full-ride pension for
them. For the lower class, enhancing the Social Security system so that it
can be a full-ride pension system may not be a far-fetched call. If
Mexicans can live on $200 per week, it shouldn't take much more for
Americans to be able to retire on Social Security. However, the upper class
couldn't care less simply because Social Security has no value to them.
When Bush attempted to push Social Security reform, he was pushing reform
which could have the potential to benefit the lower class to a greater
degree, in just such a manner. Unfortunately, the Democrats tromped that
effort because Democrats don't give a hoot about the lower-class other than
to keep them poor and destitute, dependent upon the government handouts for
which the Democrats are so famous.
When I hear politicians state the retirement age should be increased to 72
because no-one performs physical labor in this country anymore, it becomes
quite clear they have absolutely no idea of what the lower-class must do to
obtain an income and that it is not possible for the lower-class to
establish a proper retirement fund.
--Wayne H. Wilhelm
Personal Web: http://www.hiddenpolitics.com/retirement.htm
Ask any politician: Social Security is for everything but for enabling
people to retire. The most you'll get any politician to claim is that
Social Security should only be considered as a supplement to retirement.
In other words, if your only recourse for retirement is Social Security;
you're screwed.
Yes, that's true.
That is why Social Security needs fixed. It doesn't enable people to
retire, and it doesn't enable people to retire when they want. And now,
politicians claim the retirement age should be increased to 72 because
no-one does physical labor anymore? Those idiots need to visit where I
work. They'll drop dead within 60 minutes, and even though I've had
three stints placed in my heart to keep the ol' blood flowing, I'll still
work circles around them.
Of course, I don't expect the likes of John Kerry to know anything about
the real labor force of America. All Dem-wits know anything about (so
they claim) is the middle class who, by government claims, average
$45,000 per year in wages. Myself and 50 Million other Americans are
still striving to reach the $20,000 per year mark. Dem-wits don't even
know we exist.
You're old enough to have 3 stents in your heart, and you're still working
for minimum wage? That helps explain your take on Social Security.
It's funny that you fault Democrats for Social Security not paying enough
to pay for your retirement, when it's *Republicans* who have always fought
Social Security paying *anything* - from its very inception. If you
think Social Security doesn't pay enough now, how would you like it if the
Repubs had their way and there was NO Social Security at all?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd King" |
|
| Title: Re: Republican Bush's "Social Security is going broke" scam is exposed |
11 May 2006 09:36:43 AM |
|
|
"Wayne H. Wilhelm" <doremewayne@quadracalc.com> wrote in message
news:HEt8g.31613$mh.2664@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
"Lloyd King" <lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote in message
news:125v3ld47ku8me7@corp.supernews.com...
"Wayne H. Wilhelm" <doremewayne@quadracalc.com> wrote in message
news:e_J7g.29663$mh.6008@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
:Hi, Harry
Social Security is broke simply because it doesn't do what it's supposed
to: Enable Americans to retire.
That has never been the purpose of Social Security. It was *always*
intended as supplemental retirement income, it was *never* intended to be
a full-ride pension.
Thank you for confirming that.
I've been well aware that Social Security is only a supplemental
retirement income, and for many, barely that. Getting anyone to verbally
state such is the challenge. Four (4) of you have just confirmed (for the
records) what I already knew.
Well then, what's the problem? You already knew it, everybody already knew
it. I don't know what you mean about not getting anyone to verbally state
it, nobody has said anything OTHERwise. You originally said it was broke
"because it doesn't do what it's supposed to." But now you admit that
nobody ever said it was supposed to be a full-boat retirement package and
you even knew that along with everybody else.
Sheesh!
It's my assertion that Social Security should be able to do far more than
what it does towards allowing the poor to retire. The middle-class and
upper class know that Social Security can never be a full-ride pension for
them. For the lower class, enhancing the Social Security system so that
it can be a full-ride pension system may not be a far-fetched call. If
Mexicans can live on $200 per week, it shouldn't take much more for
Americans to be able to retire on Social Security. However, the upper
class couldn't care less simply because Social Security has no value to
them.
When Bush attempted to push Social Security reform, he was pushing reform
which could have the potential to benefit the lower class to a greater
degree, in just such a manner.
What? BS. WHat Bush was proposing would have destroyed SS, which is what
he and the repubs have wanted all allong, since 1935. You're right that the
"upper class" couldn't care less. In fact, they want the whole thing done
away with. That seems to be the very opposite of the full-boat retirement
pension that you are advocating.
Unfortunately, the Democrats tromped that effort because Democrats don't
give a hoot about the lower-class other than to keep them poor and
destitute, dependent upon the government handouts for which the Democrats
are so famous.
Wow. You're really wlaking down both sides of the road on this. You're
against "governmental handouts" but you want SS to provide all the money
anyone needs to retire. Do you ever get dizzy?
When I hear politicians state the retirement age should be increased to 72
because no-one performs physical labor in this country anymore, it becomes
quite clear they have absolutely no idea of what the lower-class must do
to obtain an income and that it is not possible for the lower-class to
establish a proper retirement fund.
And yet you decry "governmental handout" programs and praise George W Bush's
privatization scheme?
Wow.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wayne H. Wilhelm" |
|
| Title: Re: Republican Bush's "Social Security is going broke" scam is exposed |
11 May 2006 07:28:14 PM |
|
|
"Lloyd King" <lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote in message
news:1266ivtpln51o35@corp.supernews.com...
"Wayne H. Wilhelm" <doremewayne@quadracalc.com> wrote in message
news:HEt8g.31613$mh.2664@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
"Lloyd King" <lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote in message
news:125v3ld47ku8me7@corp.supernews.com...
"Wayne H. Wilhelm" <doremewayne@quadracalc.com> wrote in message
news:e_J7g.29663$mh.6008@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
:Hi, Harry
Social Security is broke simply because it doesn't do what it's
supposed to: Enable Americans to retire.
That has never been the purpose of Social Security. It was *always*
intended as supplemental retirement income, it was *never* intended to
be a full-ride pension.
Thank you for confirming that.
I've been well aware that Social Security is only a supplemental
retirement income, and for many, barely that. Getting anyone to verbally
state such is the challenge. Four (4) of you have just confirmed (for
the records) what I already knew.
Well then, what's the problem? You already knew it, everybody already
knew it. I don't know what you mean about not getting anyone to verbally
state it, nobody has said anything OTHERwise. You originally said it was
broke "because it doesn't do what it's supposed to." But now you admit
that nobody ever said it was supposed to be a full-boat retirement package
and you even knew that along with everybody else.
Sheesh!
The vast majority of the poor don't know it. They're generally too sutpid
to comprehend the complexities, that's why they believe the Democrats when
the Democrats claim the Republicans are trying to destroy Social Security.
If the poor understood the truth, they wouldn't vote for a Democrat.
OK. Let's get technical. Social Security was never intended to be a full
retirement package. I'm not sure I agree since I have been unable to find
the original declaration of the purpose of Social Security. If you have a
link, please post it.
I do agree that Social Security as it is currently being applied does not
serve as a full retirement program. I do maintain that if we alter Social
Secuity, that it can be used as in such a manner (for the poor /
lower-class.)
It's my assertion that Social Security should be able to do far more than
what it does towards allowing the poor to retire. The middle-class and
upper class know that Social Security can never be a full-ride pension
for them. For the lower class, enhancing the Social Security system so
that it can be a full-ride pension system may not be a far-fetched call.
If Mexicans can live on $200 per week, it shouldn't take much more for
Americans to be able to retire on Social Security. However, the upper
class couldn't care less simply because Social Security has no value to
them.
When Bush attempted to push Social Security reform, he was pushing reform
which could have the potential to benefit the lower class to a greater
degree, in just such a manner.
What? BS. WHat Bush was proposing would have destroyed SS, which is what
he and the repubs have wanted all allong, since 1935. You're right that
the "upper class" couldn't care less. In fact, they want the whole thing
done away with. That seems to be the very opposite of the full-boat
retirement pension that you are advocating.
Unfortunately, the Democrats tromped that effort because Democrats don't
give a hoot about the lower-class other than to keep them poor and
destitute, dependent upon the government handouts for which the Democrats
are so famous.
Wow. You're really wlaking down both sides of the road on this. You're
against "governmental handouts" but you want SS to provide all the money
anyone needs to retire. Do you ever get dizzy?
When I hear politicians state the retirement age should be increased to
72 because no-one performs physical labor in this country anymore, it
becomes quite clear they have absolutely no idea of what the lower-class
must do to obtain an income and that it is not possible for the
lower-class to establish a proper retirement fund.
And yet you decry "governmental handout" programs and praise George W
Bush's privatization scheme?
Wow.
I know.
George W. Bush's modifications would give individuals the ability to
allocate portions of their Social Security contributions to specialized
retirement accounts which could be expected to substantially exceed the
capabilities of the Social Security system. While Social Security is
currently 100% controlled by the US government, Bush's revisions would place
a substantial portion of that control into the hands of the individuals.
Social Security gives the individual a what, 1% return? Stock Market
returns vary from 6 to 16% over the past 30 years. An expectation of 6%
return on Social Security returns of private investments should be the norm.
If such can be achieved, individuals would no longer be dependent upon
Social Securities measly parial retirement supplement. Instead, individuals
could very well retire at a much earlier age with a far greater monthly
retirement income.
The only problem this would create is that Democrats would no longer be able
to prey upon the lower class dependency upon government handouts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd King" |
|
| Title: Re: Republican Bush's "Social Security is going broke" scam is exposed |
12 May 2006 09:54:30 AM |
|
|
"Wayne H. Wilhelm" <doremewayne@quadracalc.com> wrote in message
news:yEQ8g.31754$mh.6004@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
"Lloyd King" <lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote in message
news:1266ivtpln51o35@corp.supernews.com...
"Wayne H. Wilhelm" <doremewayne@quadracalc.com> wrote in message
news:HEt8g.31613$mh.2664@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
"Lloyd King" <lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote in message
news:125v3ld47ku8me7@corp.supernews.com...
"Wayne H. Wilhelm" <doremewayne@quadracalc.com> wrote in message
news:e_J7g.29663$mh.6008@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
:Hi, Harry
Social Security is broke simply because it doesn't do what it's
supposed to: Enable Americans to retire.
That has never been the purpose of Social Security. It was *always*
intended as supplemental retirement income, it was *never* intended to
be a full-ride pension.
Thank you for confirming that.
I've been well aware that Social Security is only a supplemental
retirement income, and for many, barely that. Getting anyone to
verbally state such is the challenge. Four (4) of you have just
confirmed (for the records) what I already knew.
Well then, what's the problem? You already knew it, everybody already
knew it. I don't know what you mean about not getting anyone to verbally
state it, nobody has said anything OTHERwise. You originally said it was
broke "because it doesn't do what it's supposed to." But now you admit
that nobody ever said it was supposed to be a full-boat retirement
package and you even knew that along with everybody else.
Sheesh!
The vast majority of the poor don't know it. They're generally too sutpid
to comprehend the complexities, that's why they believe the Democrats when
the Democrats claim the Republicans are trying to destroy Social Security.
If the poor understood the truth, they wouldn't vote for a Democrat.
LOL! This coming from someone who is old enough to have 3 stents in his
heart, but still works for minimum wage. It's funny that you accuse large
groups of people as being too stupid to understand something that everybody
here has explained to you and that you seem to be the only person who is
confused about.
OK. Let's get technical. Social Security was never intended to be a full
retirement package. I'm not sure I agree since I have been unable to find
the original declaration of the purpose of Social Security. If you have a
link, please post it.
Wow. And you can't even find information about Social Security's history.
Jeeze.
You could start here: http://www.ssa.gov/history/history.html Just start
reading. See these pages:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/35actpre.html
http://www.ssa.gov/history/35actinx.html
Get some books about FDR. Read history books. Arguing that your points are
valid simply because you don't know any better is not likely to persuade
anyone to your position.
I do agree that Social Security as it is currently being applied does not
serve as a full retirement program. I do maintain that if we alter Social
Secuity, that it can be used as in such a manner (for the poor /
lower-class.)
Sure, we could create such a system. It's interesting that you keep ranting
about the Democrats and praising the Republicans AND pushing such a system -
a system that the Democrats would be overjoyed to support and is completely
anathema to the Republicans. You're seriously confused.
It's my assertion that Social Security should be able to do far more
than what it does towards allowing the poor to retire. The middle-class
and upper class know that Social Security can never be a full-ride
pension for them. For the lower class, enhancing the Social Security
system so that it can be a full-ride pension system may not be a
far-fetched call. If Mexicans can live on $200 per week, it shouldn't
take much more for Americans to be able to retire on Social Security.
However, the upper class couldn't care less simply because Social
Security has no value to them.
When Bush attempted to push Social Security reform, he was pushing
reform which could have the potential to benefit the lower class to a
greater degree, in just such a manner.
What? BS. WHat Bush was proposing would have destroyed SS, which is
what he and the repubs have wanted all allong, since 1935. You're right
that the "upper class" couldn't care less. In fact, they want the whole
thing done away with. That seems to be the very opposite of the
full-boat retirement pension that you are advocating.
Unfortunately, the Democrats tromped that effort because Democrats
don't give a hoot about the lower-class other than to keep them poor and
destitute, dependent upon the government handouts for which the
Democrats are so famous.
Wow. You're really wlaking down both sides of the road on this. You're
against "governmental handouts" but you want SS to provide all the money
anyone needs to retire. Do you ever get dizzy?
When I hear politicians state the retirement age should be increased to
72 because no-one performs physical labor in this country anymore, it
becomes quite clear they have absolutely no idea of what the lower-class
must do to obtain an income and that it is not possible for the
lower-class to establish a proper retirement fund.
And yet you decry "governmental handout" programs and praise George W
Bush's privatization scheme?
Wow.
I know.
George W. Bush's modifications would give individuals the ability to
allocate portions of their Social Security contributions to specialized
retirement accounts which could be expected to substantially exceed the
capabilities of the Social Security system.
*****. Those accounts of small investors would quickly be milked and
drained dry, as are the accounts of most small investors in the stock
market. And that's not to mention all the huge problems with having the US
government's fingers in the stock market with all the vested interests and
incentives for manipulation and corruption. The US government picking
mutual funds? The US government deciding what investments are "approved"?
Jeeze...
While Social Security is currently 100% controlled by the US government,
Bush's revisions would place a substantial portion of that control into
the hands of the individuals.
You still completely miss the point of Social Security. There is NOTHING
stopping anybody from investing for their retirement. That's not what SS
does. You're just talking about killing SS an getting the government
involved in the stock market. Both are bad ideas.
Social Security gives the individual a what, 1% return?
No. You completely misunderstand the purpose of SS. It is NOT an
investment program. You don't get a "return" on your money. Some people
get nothing back. Some people get a LOT more back than they put in.
Stock Market returns vary from 6 to 16% over the past 30 years. An
expectation of 6% return on Social Security returns of private investments
should be the norm. If such can be achieved, individuals would no longer
be dependent upon Social Securities measly parial retirement supplement.
Instead, individuals could very well retire at a much earlier age with a
far greater monthly retirement income.
Not only are you completely mystified by the workings and purpose of Social
Security, but you clearly know nothing about the stock market as well. I
suppose that's to be expected from someone who makes $20,000 a year, or
whatever it was you said you make. You just have fantasies about what it
means to invest in the stock market, and if you every actually did so, you'd
probably be shocked at how quickly your investments would evaporate through
fees and other costs. The stock market is like gambling in Vegas - for the
little people, it's just set up to take your money. The Big Players know
how to suck the money right out of your pockets and then throw you to the
curb as they move on to the next sucker.
The only problem this would create is that Democrats would no longer be
able to prey upon the lower class dependency upon government handouts.
You are VERY naive about these things.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Republican Bush's "Social Security is going broke" scam is exposed |
12 May 2006 10:41:26 AM |
|
|
Lloyd King wrote:
"Wayne H. Wilhelm" <doremewayne@quadracalc.com> wrote in message
news:yEQ8g.31754$mh.6004@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
"Lloyd King" <lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote in message
news:1266ivtpln51o35@corp.supernews.com...
"Wayne H. Wilhelm" <doremewayne@quadracalc.com> wrote in message
news:HEt8g.31613$mh.2664@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
"Lloyd King" <lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote in message
news:125v3ld47ku8me7@corp.supernews.com...
"Wayne H. Wilhelm" <doremewayne@quadracalc.com> wrote in message
news:e_J7g.29663$mh.6008@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
:Hi, Harry
Social Security is broke simply because it doesn't do what it's
supposed to: Enable Americans to retire.
That has never been the purpose of Social Security. It was *always*
intended as supplemental retirement income, it was *never* intended to
be a full-ride pension.
Thank you for confirming that.
I've been well aware that Social Security is only a supplemental
retirement income, and for many, barely that. Getting anyone to
verbally state such is the challenge. Four (4) of you have just
confirmed (for the records) what I already knew.
Well then, what's the problem? You already knew it, everybody already
knew it. I don't know what you mean about not getting anyone to verbally
state it, nobody has said anything OTHERwise. You originally said it was
broke "because it doesn't do what it's supposed to." But now you admit
that nobody ever said it was supposed to be a full-boat retirement
package and you even knew that along with everybody else.
Sheesh!
The vast majority of the poor don't know it. They're generally too sutpid
to comprehend the complexities, that's why they believe the Democrats when
the Democrats claim the Republicans are trying to destroy Social Security.
If the poor understood the truth, they wouldn't vote for a Democrat.
LOL! This coming from someone who is old enough to have 3 stents in his
heart, but still works for minimum wage. It's funny that you accuse large
groups of people as being too stupid to understand something that everybody
here has explained to you and that you seem to be the only person who is
confused about.
OK. Let's get technical. Social Security was never intended to be a full
retirement package. I'm not sure I agree since I have been unable to find
the original declaration of the purpose of Social Security. If you have a
link, please post it.
Wow. And you can't even find information about Social Security's history.
Jeeze.
You could start here: http://www.ssa.gov/history/history.html Just start
reading. See these pages:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/35actpre.html
http://www.ssa.gov/history/35actinx.html
Get some books about FDR. Read history books. Arguing that your points are
valid simply because you don't know any better is not likely to persuade
anyone to your position.
I do agree that Social Security as it is currently being applied does not
serve as a full retirement program. I do maintain that if we alter Social
Secuity, that it can be used as in such a manner (for the poor /
lower-class.)
Sure, we could create such a system. It's interesting that you keep ranting
about the Democrats and praising the Republicans AND pushing such a system -
a system that the Democrats would be overjoyed to support and is completely
anathema to the Republicans. You're seriously confused.
It's my assertion that Social Security should be able to do far more
than what it does towards allowing the poor to retire. The middle-class
and upper class know that Social Security can never be a full-ride
pension for them. For the lower class, enhancing the Social Security
system so that it can be a full-ride pension system may not be a
far-fetched call. If Mexicans can live on $200 per week, it shouldn't
take much more for Americans to be able to retire on Social Security.
However, the upper class couldn't care less simply because Social
Security has no value to them.
When Bush attempted to push Social Security reform, he was pushing
reform which could have the potential to benefit the lower class to a
greater degree, in just such a manner.
What? BS. WHat Bush was proposing would have destroyed SS, which is
what he and the repubs have wanted all allong, since 1935. You're right
that the "upper class" couldn't care less. In fact, they want the whole
thing done away with. That seems to be the very opposite of the
full-boat retirement pension that you are advocating.
Unfortunately, the Democrats tromped that effort because Democrats
don't give a hoot about the lower-class other than to keep them poor and
destitute, dependent upon the government handouts for which the
Democrats are so famous.
Wow. You're really wlaking down both sides of the road on this. You're
against "governmental handouts" but you want SS to provide all the money
anyone needs to retire. Do you ever get dizzy?
When I hear politicians state the retirement age should be increased to
72 because no-one performs physical labor in this country anymore, it
becomes quite clear they have absolutely no idea of what the lower-class
must do to obtain an income and that it is not possible for the
lower-class to establish a proper retirement fund.
And yet you decry "governmental handout" programs and praise George W
Bush's privatization scheme?
Wow.
I know.
George W. Bush's modifications would give individuals the ability to
allocate portions of their Social Security contributions to specialized
retirement accounts which could be expected to substantially exceed the
capabilities of the Social Security system.
*****. Those accounts of small investors would quickly be milked and
drained dry, as are the accounts of most small investors in the stock
market. And that's not to mention all the huge problems with having the US
government's fingers in the stock market with all the vested interests and
incentives for manipulation and corruption. The US government picking
mutual funds? The US government deciding what investments are "approved"?
Jeeze...
While Social Security is currently 100% controlled by the US government,
Bush's revisions would place a substantial portion of that control into
the hands of the individuals.
You still completely miss the point of Social Security. There is NOTHING
stopping anybody from investing for their retirement. That's not what SS
does. You're just talking about killing SS an getting the government
involved in the stock market. Both are bad ideas.
Social Security gives the individual a what, 1% return?
No. You completely misunderstand the purpose of SS. It is NOT an
investment program. You don't get a "return" on your money. Some people
get nothing back. Some people get a LOT more back than they put in.
Stock Market returns vary from 6 to 16% over the past 30 years. An
expectation of 6% return on Social Security returns of private investments
should be the norm. If such can be achieved, individuals would no longer
be dependent upon Social Securities measly parial retirement supplement.
Instead, individuals could very well retire at a much earlier age with a
far greater monthly retirement income.
Not only are you completely mystified by the workings and purpose of Social
Security, but you clearly know nothing about the stock market as well. I
suppose that's to be expected from someone who makes $20,000 a year, or
whatever it was you said you make. You just have fantasies about what it
means to invest in the stock market, and if you every actually did so, you'd
probably be shocked at how quickly your investments would evaporate through
fees and other costs. The stock market is like gambling in Vegas - for the
little people, it's just set up to take your money. The Big Players know
how to suck the money right out of your pockets and then throw you to the
curb as they move on to the next sucker.
The only problem this would create is that Democrats would no longer be
able to prey upon the lower class dependency upon government handouts.
You are VERY naive about these things.
Willfully ignorant is a better description.
If you read the rightard moron's posts in other threads, you'll find
that it's a pattern with him.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lamont Cranston" |
|
| Title: Re: Republican Bush's "Social Security is going broke" scam is exposed |
08 May 2006 01:40:56 PM |
|
|
Wayne H. Wilhelm wrote:
:Hi, Harry
Social Security is broke simply because it doesn't do what it's supposed to:
Enable Americans to retire.
That's not what it's supposed to do.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
