As a nation, we have made so many forward-focused advances in mindset that we feel like a backward nation when someone backward-focused like [insert almost any republican's name here] comes along. i have to keep reminding myself we aren't backwards. although after living in barbados ( a third-world country even ) for 6 weeks, i realize america has a lot of catching up to do, mentally. it's refreshing looking at america from outside the box. "dangerous" and "self-centered" are probably the most common words used to describe us. when someone asks my dad and i where we are from, we say canada, even though he's never been there before. we tried saying Texas once, and we got swarmed.

_________________
RIP Shiloh - I'll never forget ya

Anyone have any links to greater specifics of these privitization schemes? Like who is going to insure these bonds? the accounts? Will these accounts earn interest? Will that be taxable/deductable?

From the coverage given by that articial at least one generation is going to pay the difference in getting the new system underway while maintaining the current dispursement of existing retired persons.

I think it would prove interesting to see that second plan in action. I also think it would end up being a big joke.

bush set up a committee to develop a social security privatization plan, but i haven't seen any of their plans yet. here is a proposal by a private group. i think they submitted their ideas to the government.

--Individuals would be allowed to divert their half (6.2 percentage points) of the payroll tax to individually owned, privately invested accounts. Those who chose to do so would agree to forgo all future accrual of retirement benefits under the traditional Social Security system.

--The remaining 6.2 percentage points of payroll taxes would be used to pay transition costs and to fund disability and survivors' benefits.

--Workers who chose the individual account option would receive a "recognition bond" based on the accrued value of their lifetimeto- date benefits. Those bonds, redeemable at the worker's retirement, would be fully tradable in secondary markets.

--Those who wished to remain in the traditional Social Security system would be free to do so, accepting a level of benefits payable with the current level of revenue.

Read more about it here: http://www.socialsecurity.org/about/index.html

According to John Kerry, all of this can be avoided...

_________________
RIP Shiloh - I'll never forget ya

Social Security is going tits up, and that's why Kerry won't touch it with a ten foot pole. Seeing as how it's my retirement money that's going the way of the dodo, I'd at least like a chance to invest (Read: get control over) my money, rather than having some 94 year old New Yorker enjoy what's left of my pension plan as the government watches Social Security die off.

I guess my only concern is education for this plan. If the lower incomes are not educated properly into how to invest in a private plan, and enough of moderate to upper incomes do invest, then I can see more lower income retirees on welfare. Of course, that makes the assumption that there is a mass exodus from the old system to the private one.

If they cap the spending at something silly, like 6.2 percent, then I will probably pay the minimum required to opt out of the old system and invest in other better yielding and unrestricted avenues. Heck, at that point they may as well make the investment optional completely. That would mean more money for local private sector banks anyway.

2 Questions:
What are the primary causes for the social security collapse assessment?
What would happen if we try to reverse those causes?

_________________
RIP Shiloh - I'll never forget ya

Its immenient collapse is due to the large number of soon to be retired persons, whom will no longer be contributing to the system. Thus, the amount of income to SS will fall short of what is being dispursed.

Possible counters under the current system? Increase the amount of taxable income for SS, increase the tax percentage, cut benefits, levee new taxation, or slash federal spending in areas to compensate for the loss until the boomer generation dies off. Not much else is available without venturing into the private sector, which is viewed largely as too volitile to serve as a base to provide federal services.

gil++

The privatization measures that Bush proposes won't save social security. If anything it will increase the rate at which we will need to truly address the problem (that being for 50 years the government has been stealing from the account to pay off their deficit). You remember how Clinton was hailed for giving the US a Budget Surplus? That Surplus was achieved by factoring in the Social Security trust fund allocations for the year. If you don't steal from Social Security, the closest we ever came to a balanced budget was in 1999 when we came up 100 million short of balanced.

The upside is that privatization of the accounts is that it brings long term sustainability to the program, and in fact makes it profitable (assuming the US continues it's generally positive economic growth). The plan would in essence allow younger workers to allocate a percentage of the SS tax towards restricted mutual funds. It wouldn't allow you to buy any stock you want, but would more closely mirror a conservative 401k plan. The Government would determine which mutual funds show a decent growth, and yet still are safer than some of the more risky technology stock indexes, and then the participant would be able to choose which sectors they wish to invest in and encourage growth, as well as merit themselves a higher rate of return than the trust fund it currently dwells in.

At some point in the near future however, we're going to have to suck it up and stop the expenditures and start paying back all the money we've stolen from Social Security over the past few decades, or you can kiss your pension goodbye. The plus side is that if it does go insolvent as expected in 2042, at least I'll get my 4 years worth of checks before it goes away! If you were born in 1977 or later, like Peejo though, don't expect to see any retirement in the United States unless you're prepared to make some tough choices about social programs and defense expenditures, or start raising taxes so we can generate more income.

Or privately invest, which means less net income but better returns over time. Of course, that also means becoming education at least on some level with how such investments function. I guess I would question the mutual funds they decide are the best to go with. Since so many pirvate sector institutions offer such funds, I am guessing the government is going to allow banks to bid on the deal. What private sector repurcussions could come about from gaining such a huge deal?

I'm not really sure how a bank could bid on offering mutual funds. They are just a composite of the stocks, bonds, etc.. available to guarantee that all your eggs aren't in one basket. I guess there could perhaps be a bid by a company to manage to mutual funds, but I suspect that in the end it would be determined by a board of economics guru's as to which funds provide a relatively safe return and the money market itself would be overseen by the Social Security administration, since they are the ones who actually have the funds.

You think the Government is going to wire 1.2 trillion dollars to Prudential?

Of course not. That would be silly. But making such a large diverse competitive bid available is naturally going to have banks cut premium deals in order to get that bid. Even on a heavily diverseified distribution of banks, smaller financial institutions would never be able to compete for that kind of market. Meaning a lot of current revenue, if the yields end up being a good yeild for the near absolute level of stablity to be offered, could divert revenue from small insitutions that are allready stuggleing due to the Community Reinvestment Act. Of course, all of this income to all of the banks that win bids will probably not have to apply this to the CRA, or skirt it with the proposed legisitation and invest in foreign assests, which is still going to hurt rural areas where a lot of labor still resides.

Cut premium deals on what? I think you misunderstand the concept of how exactly a mutual fund operates. Banks don't make money off mutual funds, with the exception of handling the funds that are directed to the companies, but that is decided on a company by company basis. The only people making money (or losing it) off them are the investors (gain/loss) and the mutual fund managers. (flat rate gain)

You're consistently talking about money lost for banks about losing bids and smaller institutions not getting a cut of the pie. What bidding? What lost money? What piece of the pie did the smaller institutions or any institution for that matter have with respect to our social security trust fund in the first place?

This won't be banks saying we'll offer you a 5.5% interest rate on your return if you invest in "us". It is a mutual fund which is comprised of many stocks or bonds that offer long term stability and credible growth over a substantial period of time. You can't "undercut" your competition to get included in these funds. They are based on a companies long term profitability and outlook.

I can tell you from a younger workers outlook, that I am more likely to risk 401k money in high risk, high yield smaller companies index like you mentioned if I have assurances that my Social Security money has solid money backing it up rather than the pipe dream currently offered today.

Obviously my view of the system is entirely skewed. I'll review that in time. But I would maintain the point that banks will make money off of mutal funds since they will most likey push the stocks and bonds of those buisnesses whom with they do buisness.

It wouldn't matter if they push it or not, they don't decide which companies are included into the funds, the market decides that based on the long term profitability of the companies. If the companies they do business with are not profitable over an extended period, they won't be included in a stable mutual fund. There's no lobbying, bidding, or cheerleading by banks involved.

Right you are. I guess the greatest concern would then be the long term qualifiers ending up like Enron. While that would not be an apocolyptic event, lost money is lost money. With proper diversity I can see the added stability in this manner of privatization. Anything falling short of near total market de-stabilization in a short time frame would probably only cause minor ripples as investments could be shifted from questionable sectors by what even firm or firms end up managing this thing. That or hyper inflation on the commodities markets driving down profitablity.

Now that's a definite valid concern. Companies that cook the books need to get prosecuted more harshly in my opinion. When I watch these knuckleheads get off with a slap on the wrist, I can't help but think that encourages other future book cookers to do the same thing.

The worst case scenario in my opinion would be a stock market crash, which would basically rob retirees of half of their retirement. I think that's a risk that people need to be made aware of before they invest in this type of program. I like it overall though, America's all about rolling the dice.

Right now laws encourage, or at least don't deter, crooked book keeping. Take MCI World Com for instance. They declared a chapter 13 ( or was it 11 ) dropped all currents debts, kept all of thier infrastructer, and are back doing buisness.

At least there is legislation that is attempting to put an end to inverted domestic corporations.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/ ... index.html

There seems to be a lot of accusations that Kerry cannot defend the country from terrorists, or keep the country safe.
If you agree with this, please clarify what it is that Bush does that Kerry couldn't/wouldn't do, and why you agree with this accusation.
If you don't agree with this accusation, also please explain why.

Why i think we would be safer with John Kerry as president:

1. John Kerry understands that we are actually creating new terrorists by the actions we are currently taking.

2. A John Kerry administration would devote more funds to defense rather than offense, which would tighten our security at home in the event someone tries to attack us.

3. John Kerry understands the importance of global cooperation. He would work with the UN rather than against it.

_________________
RIP Shiloh - I'll never forget ya

Cheney is just a Boogeyman

_________________
RIP Shiloh - I'll never forget ya

OMG

hannity=dinav?

_________________
RIP Shiloh - I'll never forget ya

i noticed some familiar names on the targeted-antimuslim page. hannity, oreilly, coulter, pat robeertson, and the beloved jerry f'ing falwell.
http://www.proislam.com/targeted_individuals.htm

also, just to give Princess and anyone else who might not be familiar with Sean Hannity an idea of what his tactics are:

HANNITY: "First of all, this president -- you know and I know and everybody knows -- inherited a recession...it was by every definition a recession" (11/6/02)

HANNITY: "Now here's where we are. The inherited Clinton/Gore recession. That's a fact." (5/6/03)

HANNITY: "The president inherited a recession." (7/10/03)

HANNITY: "He got us out of the Clinton-Gore recession." (10/23/03)

HANNITY: "They did inherit the recession. They did inherit the recession. We got out of the recession." (12/12/03)

HANNITY: "And this is the whole point behind this ad, because the president did inherit a recession." (1/6/04)

HANNITY: "Historically in every recovery, because the president rightly did inherit a recession. But historically, the lagging indicator always deals with employment." (1/15/04)

HANNITY: "Congressman Deutsch, maybe you forgot but I'll be glad to remind you, the president did inherit that recession." (1/20/04)

HANNITY: "He did inherit a recession, and we're out of the recession." (2/2/04)

HANNITY: "The president inherited a recession." (2/23/04)

HANNITY: "The president inherited a recession." (3/3/04)

HANNITY: "Well, you know, we're going to show ads, as a matter of fact, in the next segment, Congressman. Thanks for promoting our next segment. What I like about them is everything I've been saying the president ought to do: is focusing in on his positions, on keeping the nation secure in very difficult times, what he's been able to do to the economy after inheriting a very difficult recession, and of course, the economic impact of 9/11." (3/3/04)

HANNITY: "All right. So this is where I view the economic scenario as we head into this election. The president inherited a recession." (3/16/04)

HANNITY: "First of all, we've got to put it into perspective, is that the president inherited a recession." (3/26/04)

HANNITY: "Clearly, we're out of the recession that President Bush inherited." (4/2/04)

HANNITY: "Stop me where I'm wrong. The president inherited a recession, the economic impact of 9/11 was tremendous on the economy, correct?" (4/6/04)

HANNITY: "[President George W. Bush] did inherit a recession." (5/3/04)

HANNITY: "[W]e got [the weak U.S. economy] out of the Clinton-Gore recession." (5/18/04)

HANNITY: "We got out of the Clinton-Gore recession." (5/27/04)

HANNITY: "We got out of the Clinton-Gore recession." (6/4/04)

FACT: "The recession officially began in March of 2001 -- two months after Bush was sworn in -- according to the universally acknowledged arbiter of such things, the National Bureau of Economic Research. And the president, at other times, has said so himself." (Washington Post, 7/1/03)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy ... Found=true

He loves, oh how he loves, to repeat certain lines over and over and over again. Over and over. See how it works? True/False? Doesn't matter. He is the person most responsible for the spread of "FLIP! FLOP! FLIP! FLOP!" which has severely hurt Kerry's reputation. It turns out, every single issue Kerry supposedly flip-flopped on was either A) He didn't flip flop, or B) He wisely changed his mind. Being dynamic is a good thing, but through repetition, Hannity has painted a nationwide picture of a man who can't make up his mind. What is Sean Hannity's exposure? He gets a talk radio program that lasts several hours, usually during rush hour so all the people who are stuck in the rat-race can become brainwashed. Then they can in turn brainwash their easily brainwashable relatives. He also has a TV show. Ah what a great patriotic American.

And the pics I posted of Hannity and Dinav--that's just looks, I have nothing against Dinav (that &#%@ &%&$ just kidding ;p

_________________
RIP Shiloh - I'll never forget ya

Whisp, you should call into his show and debate him. It would be nice for someone to go on and actually have an idea of what they are talking about with stuff to back it up.

_________________

Academically this is correct. Now, find me an economist who states that President Bush's policies caused the recession, rather than the inherited problems from the Clinton Administration (Tech bubble burst, stock market crash). Good luck.

I have a feeling that Teresa Heinz's recent quote about Laura Bush will hurt Kerry with women voters. Maybe costing him the election, considering this will be fresh on voter's minds at the polls.

Heinz:
"Well, you know, I don't know Laura Bush. But she seems to be calm, and she has a sparkle in her eye, which is good," Heinz Kerry said. "But I don't know that she's ever had a real job — I mean, since she's been grown up. So her experience and her validation comes from important things, but different things."

The Republicans are having a field day, telling everyone that Teresa Heinz doesn't view being a teacher, a librarian, or a mother as a real job.

From Yahoo! News:
But Karen Hughes, an adviser to President Bush, said Heinz Kerry's apology "made it worse because she left out the very important real job of a mother. Clearly she knows Laura Bush was a mother ... who chose to stay home and rear her family. That's a noble choice that should be celebrated not denigrated."