What's funny is Clinton proposed a plan to fix SS but it went down in flames. The funny part is Clinton's plan and W's plan are fundamentally the same plan...only W is sugar coating it to give the appearance that you'll have control of the money since it goes into a "Personal Account." As usual, that is misleading...there is nothing personal about it. The money is still in the hands of the government. Clinton's plan was to invest the SS trust fund in the stock market so we'll earn money on it which would be used to fund the baby boomers. However, that was struck down because the possibility of corruption when the government is directly involved in making stock decisions is too large. Well, W's plan is effectively the same thing. The government will provide you "options" of funds to chose from. Then you select which ones you want from there. Then, here is the kicker, anything you earn over 3% will get forfitted back to the general SS fund. These extra funds will be used to cover the baby boomers. So you can see W's plan and Clinton's plan are the same. W just dressed it up a little. Clinton's plan, while I agree with the corruption concerns, would have been less expensive overall because the stock traders make money off of transactions. W's plan will involved exponantially more transactions since each individual makes their own trades. So much of the extra money goes into the hands of wallstreet instead of back into the general fund.
Here's an interesting article about it. It shows the risks of depending on a government forecast and also points out our complete inability to make an accurate forecast about the economy beyond a few years. If it ain't broke, don't fix it Commentary: Social Security 'cure' isn't a good idea By Dr. Irwin Kellner, MarketWatch Last Update: 12:01 AM ET Feb. 8, 2005 HEMPSTEAD, N.Y. (MarketWatch) -- Lost in the debate over the merits and demerits of privatizing Social Security is the very good possibility that such drastic surgery might not be needed. Here is the bottom line right up front: the Social Security system will remain solvent far longer than is generally expected, so there is no need to tinker with it. It is true that demographics appear to be working against this conclusion. Because of a long-term decline in the birth rate combined with increased life expectancy, the number of retirees is growing faster than the number of workers who support them through payroll taxes. But it is also a fact that the date when the system is projected to run out of the funds that it began accumulating back in 1983 has been pushed further into the future with each new projection. Since 1983, revenues from payroll taxes have exceeded benefits paid to retirees. In 2003, income totaled $632 billion while benefits paid were $471 billion. Assets held in special issue U.S. Treasury securities totaled $1.5 trillion (the trust fund), with this amount expected to grow significantly over the next dozen or so years. Ten years ago, the system's actuaries thought the trust fund would be depleted by 2029. Five years ago they thought it would be 2032. Now the date when the surplus is expected to be gone is 2042 -- and the Congressional Budget Office thinks it could be 2052. The reason for these changing projections? More money coming in than previously expected. This alone should signal policymakers that major surgery may not be needed. But when you look at the assumptions underlying these projections, you have to be even more cautious. The system's actuaries actually produce three long-range projections. The one that's been picked by the politicians, pundits and the press and turned into the conventional wisdom is their intermediate projection -- the one that expects the trust fund to be depleted by 2042. But the assumptions underlying these projections are very pessimistic -- especially when it comes to economic growth. The actuaries assume that the U.S. economy will grow by an annual rate of 1.9 percent per year over the next 75 years. This is far below the 3.6 percent average of the past 75 years -- a period that includes the Great Depression. The system's actuaries have a somewhat more optimistic projection. It assumes, among other things, a slightly faster rate of growth of 2.7 percent per year over the same period. While this, too, is below the economy's 75-year average, it shows that the system never runs out of money. That's right, never. So before they start fixing the Social Security system, policymakers should first understand that it's not broken to begin with. http://www.marketwatch.com/news/sto...66A-491F-90A6-A4A1F46B8EBB}&garden=&minisite=
wait a second. i've been hearing, from dems, for years that social security would fail eventually. haven't we all heard that?? have i been dreaming??? the social security trustees reports came out in the mid-90's saying we'd be running deficits by 2012...and talked about exhausting all resources in another 20 years or so after that. i remember all that. Bill Clinton 7/27/98: "Today, Social Security is sound, but a demographic crisis is looming. By 2030, there will be twice as many elderly as there are today, with only two people working for every person drawing Social Security. After 2032, contributions from payroll taxes will only cover 75 cents on the dollar of current benefits. So we must act, and act now, to save Social Security" http://clinton6.nara.gov/1998/07/19...-via-satellite-to-social-security-forums.html that was over 6 freaking years ago. how come nobody else does?? did somebody spike my punch? lockbox??
I remembered it the same way. That's why I posted the article that I did, because it seems to shed some light on what is going on. However, my point wasn't intended to be what krosfyah apparently took out of it. I think he interpreted the article to say (in effect) there is no problem. That is what the author is saying, but I think the most important take-away from the article isn't the author's message, rather, projections beyond 3-5 years out are virtually worthless. Unfortunately, if we wait that long to do something it will be too late to save the system. Logic generally says that the system will have problems. Something should probably be done, but I am not sure if W's proposal is the right one. Of course, there is no W proposal out there yet - it's just vague ideas. I'll pass judgment on his proposal when the details come out. Until then, I think I would prefer to make the tax structure on SS a little less regressive. I'd like to add a tax on some extreme higher level incomes. That doesn't mean $200K or even $500K. But to the extent a 6% tax doesn't hurt the lifestyle of people earning over a million a year, I'd like to tax a section of their income. Frankly, as long as my parents get the system, I don't care if it goes bankrupt for me. I've never expected it, and have saved accordingly. I suspect most people in my generation are the same way. And if they're not, they should be very very quickly.
Sam, posting people's real names is not allowed. I pioneered the concept of using names to attack others, but have jettisoned it at the request of the administrators. Play by the rules.
As much as it pains me to agree with Trader_J, I do. Although I don't know what Khan's real name is, or if Sam made one up, we need to keep the personal info out of here. If a poster chooses to make it public, which Khan apparently did, then they leave themselves open for this sort of thing. And if they do, it's up to the rest of us not to beat them over the head with it, but to respect the fact that they have the balls, or the stupidity , to do it. In my opinion, of course. And I'm glad you have stopped your practice of doing that, Trader_J, although I won't comment on your other ones that you still relish! Not at the moment, anyway. Keep D&D Civil!!
First of all this says it needs to be fixed. He doesn't call it bankrupt, or that it is a crisis. Secondly Bush's plan by the admission of his own staff doesn't do anything to help fix the solvency issue of S.S.
FB -- how is he saying it's not a crisis?? he's saying that we won't be bringing in enough to match expenditures. how do you define bankrupt? he's saying that we have to "save it." i'll see if i can find a quote where he used the word, "crisis," but it will say roughly the same as this.
admittedly from a biased source...but here are quotes, nonetheless: http://www.gop.com/RNCResearch/Read.aspx?ID=5087 President Clinton: “f You Don’t Do Anything, One Of Two Things Will Happen. Either It Will Go Broke And You Won’t Ever Get It, Or If We Wait Too Long To Fix It, The Burden On Society … Of Taking Care Of Our Generation’s Social Security Obligations Will Lower Your Income And Lower Your Ability To Take Care Of Your Children To A Degree That Most Of Us Who Are You Parents Think Would Be Horribly Wrong And Unfair To You And Unfair To The Future Prospects Of The United States.” (President Bill Clinton, Remarks At Georgetown University On Social Security, Washington, DC, 2/9/98) http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=896 Senator Kohl - Democrat: Wisconsin [March 22, 2000]: "Comprehensive Social Security Reform is still necessary. Today's changes will do nothing to hold off the coming crisis that will begin when we start drawing down the Social Security Trust fund in 2014. Congress needs to deal with this soon, otherwise we are shirking our duty to the American people." Bill Clinton February 9, 1998 -- "every one of you know that the Social Security system is not sound for the long-term, so that all of these achievements ... are threatened by the looming fiscal crisis in Social Security." Bill Clinton March 12, 1999 -- "Now, if we do what I'm suggesting, not only can we deal with the financial crisis in Social Security and Medicare..."
There will always be money coming into the SS system. If the system goes "bankrupt," estiamtes say you'll still get about 70-80% of your benefits. That dollar amount that you'll receive is actually twice as much as retirees receive today...in real dollars...not adjusted. TL, I read the article you posted and I didn't interpret that to mean it isn't in trouble. The interpretation is that it isn't as bad as W portrays it to be. We don't need to rip apart the program. We can make adjustments to get us over the "baby-boomer" hump.
MadMax, Yes, Clinton was preaching that SS was a problem. And by all accounts it is. But go back and read the article by TL and that will put things into perspective for you about where Clinton got those figures. I didn't agree with Clinton's plan and I dislike W's plan even more. Clinton's plan kept the current system intact while making adjustments. W's plan fundamentally pulls the funding sources out of the current system by diverting money away from the general SS fund. What Clinton said about SS is irrelevant. We all know we need to do something about SS. The question is what. W's proposed plan is not good for Americans. It will only benefit Wallstreet.
i agree. but it doesn't sound like that's the response. instead, the response is to pretend that there's nothing to worry about and that it doesn't need attention at this point. the point of all my posts is this is soooo typical of politicians. they trumpet an issue...and when the other side steps up to it, they don't debate the issue meaningfully...instead they use new language to try to counter the notion they ever once thought it was a problem to begin with. both sides have used SS as a scare tactic. lockbox. it's just funny to me to hear dems now say, "hey...what crisis? there's no crisis," when they used that exact freaking language to build up the case for their own political aims, namely stopping a tax cut.
Yeah, that is something of which you should be very proud. I only hope that one day my behavior will be poor enough to require Clutch to write a rule against it. Then I will really be cool and get all the chicks.
He is saying that it is in trouble. That is different than saying crisis. Crisis means emergency, and urgetn attention needed. We also know that Clinton was wrong concerning what he said about S.S. A third thing that is very important here, is that Bush's proposal doesn't do a thing to help fix the future solvency of S.S.
Actually, this is more than just very important, it is the most important thing in this whole discussion, one that is indisputable to the point where the administration itsel acknowledges it is true.
oh, you mean like this? Bill Clinton February 9, 1998 -- "every one of you know that the Social Security system is not sound for the long-term, so that all of these achievements ... are threatened by the looming fiscal crisis in Social Security." Bill Clinton March 12, 1999 -- "Now, if we do what I'm suggesting, not only can we deal with the financial crisis in Social Security and Medicare..." I think there is legitimate debate over whether Bush's proposal is a good idea or not. I'm open to that because I don't have a well-formed opinion on the matter. What I'm hearing instead from the Dems are semantics about whether or not it's even an issue worth addressing right now. After we were told a tax cut would be irresponsible because we had to save social security. Lockbox.
which is it? did he not say it?? or did he say it?? and how do we know he was wrong, again? because the same people who 6 years ago said he was right, now say he's wrong? because the democratic party's line in response to the State of the Union has been, "eh, no big deal." that smells like a rat to me. smells like politics.
