Move On PAC's Social Security Flash Contest Winner.

[GreenEarthAl]

http://www.bushin30years.org/view/ad.html?flash_id=87

Pretty good.

[EN[i]GMA]

Some errors:

The loan it talks about will actually save money in the long run because without going the private route, an even larger loan will be necessary to keep the system afloat.

It says that money going to Wall Street is beter than going to Washington. I'm not so certain about this. If I want money to accrue, I would send it to Wall Street before Washington.

The ad makes the plan seem risky, but since Bush has never layed out how the investment/mutual funds (I would assume) will even work, they have NO way of knowing how risky it is. If, for instance, they invest in safe bonds, there is almost no risk.

It says Wall Street would own your money. THat isn't true, you would own it, as opposed to today, where it's owned and controlled by the Federal Government.

There will likely be no 'jack pots' as a plan being floated is take returns over a certain percentage and redivert them into the general fund, meaning if I earn well over the average, I would only keep a certain percentage of that earning, though this is likely impossible since the growth will be harshly limited by the funds and options presented.

How would increasing the $90,000 dollars help? Your income from SS is proportional to what you pay in.

Futhermore, they say getting rid of the cap creates 100 billion dollars, enough to 'save' the system. This just isn't true. The shortfall will continue to grow (Though it will be quite a few years off). It will prolong the system, but hardly save it.

And finally, the most important aspect of all, you own the money. It's yours. Would you rather have your own money or have Uncle Sam safeguard it for you?

[EN[i]GMA]

GEA: "I summon MoveOn PAC for 8 pts of damage!"

ENiGMA: "I counter with the Cato Institute!"

http://www.socialsecurity.org/

[Qdrop]

fuck social security as a whole ideal.

you should put money aside during your life to plan for your non-working years, ect.

personal responsibility.

i, for one, am not even counting on it....nor do i expect it to be there.

[EN[i]GMA]

fuck social security as a whole ideal.

you should put money aside during your life to plan for your non-working years, ect.

personal responsibility.

i, for one, am not even counting on it....nor do i expect it to be there.

This is true. SS was NEVER meant to be the only means of life for all seniors, only a safety net. It's not a crutch.

[STANKY808]

Oh, and let's just see what the great and wonderful World Bank has to say about "personal accounts" which they foisted on Chile (and other latin american countries)...

"...noting some of the World Bank’s central points in its own words:


- The World Bank should change its focus from improving government finances to another goal: protecting old people from poverty. “Whereas a primary (though not exclusive) objective of prior [World Bank] efforts has been to improve the public pension system’s fiscal health or help governments better administer and regulate the systems, the principal objective of this inquiry is to try to determine whether participants (not just the administrators or providers) in pension systems are better or worse off … .”

- Viewed in this light, the reforms are not complete. “[W]e look back and ask whether the decade or so of reform has been as success. The answer is that in many respects, it has. But if the new structures are viewed as a final design, the effort may well be assessed harshly. … The greatest dangers to all that the reforms have achieved lie … in countries where large mandated saving is viewed as a solution for the ages.” “[T]he poverty prevention pillar should get a lot more attention than it has in Latin America during the last decade.”

- After reforms, coverage has remained low, and workers are opting out of the system, leaving them impoverished in old age. “[C]overage ratios have stalled at levels of about half the labor force in those countries where workers’ participation is highest. [M]any workers cease to contribute to the pension system after completing the minimum contribution requirement … revealing a preference for government schemes for pooling resources to insure against old age poverty.”

- Moreover, the operating costs of private pension funds have been unacceptably high. “In Chile and a few other countries, commission rates are slowly coming down to reasonable levels (less than 20% of contributions or 1 percent of assets) … [but] the fee structure in Chile and elsewhere also results in inter-generation inequity as poorer workers end up paying a larger share of their contributions as commissions. … But most worrisome are findings that point to difficulties in regulating the firms that manage mandatory pension funds.”

Most damningly, the Wold Bank questions the whole rationale for replacing guaranteed pension benefits with mandatory private accounts. “If mandatory schemes are needed because of shortsighted workers, how can these same workers be counted on to make wise investment decisions?”

And if workers interests need to be carefully protected through regulation of investment funds, why not simply have government operate the funds? “If government regulates and guarantees the plans, won’t it eventually end up controlling these funds? That is, does it really make a difference whether the funds are privately or publicly managed?”

http://publications.worldbank.org/ecommerce/catalog/product?item_id=3544556

[EN[i]GMA]

Oh, and let's just see what the great and wonderful World Bank has to say about "personal accounts" which they foisted on Chile (and other latin american countries)...

The World Bank foisted them on Chile? I thought Pinochet, the Chicago Boys and more specifically, Jose Pina did that?



- Viewed in this light, the reforms are not complete. “[W]e look back and ask whether the decade or so of reform has been as success. The answer is that in many respects, it has. But if the new structures are viewed as a final design, the effort may well be assessed harshly. … The greatest dangers to all that the reforms have achieved lie … in countries where large mandated saving is viewed as a solution for the ages.” “[T]he poverty prevention pillar should get a lot more attention than it has in Latin America during the last decade.”

They say that in many respects it HAS been a success.


- After reforms, coverage has remained low, and workers are opting out of the system, leaving them impoverished in old age. “[C]overage ratios have stalled at levels of about half the labor force in those countries where workers’ participation is highest. [M]any workers cease to contribute to the pension system after completing the minimum contribution requirement … revealing a preference for government schemes for pooling resources to insure against old age poverty.”

So the workers themselves are choosing not to participate? It's their money, their decision.

And why are they leaving? Because the private system isn't private at all: "government schemes for pooling resources to insure against old age poverty"

They're leaving because the government is meddling with the system.


- Moreover, the operating costs of private pension funds have been unacceptably high. “In Chile and a few other countries, commission rates are slowly coming down to reasonable levels (less than 20% of contributions or 1 percent of assets) … [but] the fee structure in Chile and elsewhere also results in inter-generation inequity as poorer workers end up paying a larger share of their contributions as commissions. … But most worrisome are findings that point to difficulties in regulating the firms that manage mandatory pension funds.”

So a problem is operational cost? Surely the system implemented here couldn't be more unweildy than the current one.

Another problem is regulating the firms? With the SEC breathing down their necks, and of course the SSA soon to be breathing down their necks, I don't think accountability will be a problem here.


Most damningly, the Wold Bank questions the whole rationale for replacing guaranteed pension benefits with mandatory private accounts. “If mandatory schemes are needed because of shortsighted workers, how can these same workers be counted on to make wise investment decisions?”

Good question. Don't make the scheme mandatory.


And if workers interests need to be carefully protected through regulation of investment funds, why not simply have government operate the funds? “If government regulates and guarantees the plans, won’t it eventually end up controlling these funds? That is, does it really make a difference whether the funds are privately or publicly managed?”

Some countries, like Sweden, do have the government regulate the funds to a large degree.

The primary difference is the ownership of the funds. I want the money I pay in to be irrevocably MINE. As it stands now, the money payed in payroll taxes is fully the dominion of Uncle Sam. I don't trust Uncle Sam.

And who says government has to regulate anything? I place the long-term goal of privitization as a slow abolishment of SS entirely, as people become financially independent of the government and learn to manage their own finances.

[STANKY808]

GMA']
The primary difference is the ownership of the funds. I want the money I pay in to be irrevocably MINE. As it stands now, the money payed in payroll taxes is fully the dominion of Uncle Sam. I don't trust Uncle Sam.


Are they yours when the market collapses? And private company pensions have been ripped off before. Did I miss when the US government reneged on it's obligation to honour treasury bonds somewhere along the line?

[EN[i]GMA]

Are they yours when the market collapses? And private company pensions have been ripped off before. Did I miss when the US government reneged on it's obligation to honour treasury bonds somewhere along the line?

When the market collapses, the entire economy collapses, so it hardly matters where your money is.

And keeping your money in treasury bonds will likely be an option.

[STANKY808]

Maybe I missed it, but the last collapse of the market in the late 80's meant many many people lost EVERYTHING yet, and correct me if I'm wrong, the US government continued to pay out SS benefits. If money is tied up in the market, it could all be gone in a day. And as for treasury bonds my point was that they are what guarantees the SS fund. Or at least that's my understanding.

[EN[i]GMA]

Maybe I missed it, but the last collapse of the market in the late 80's meant many many people lost EVERYTHING yet, and correct me if I'm wrong, the US government continued to pay out SS benefits. If money is tied up in the market, it could all be gone in a day. And as for treasury bonds my point was that they are what guarantees the SS fund. Or at least that's my understanding.

No, the market didn't collapse, it lost value, there is a huge difference.

And if those people who lost 'everything' (Due to keeping all their money in 1 or 2 stocks, something not possible under the President's plan), if they would have kept their money in the market it very quickly would have revalued during the market boom of the 90s, where growth rates in Wall Street were easily 6 and 7% a year, or more.

SS plodded along with no growth rate and no wealth being created.

[EN[i]GMA]

Maybe I missed it, but the last collapse of the market in the late 80's meant many many people lost EVERYTHING yet, and correct me if I'm wrong, the US government continued to pay out SS benefits. If money is tied up in the market, it could all be gone in a day. And as for treasury bonds my point was that they are what guarantees the SS fund. Or at least that's my understanding.

I believe it is treasury notes, but they don't gurantee jack shit, as they are the government's property, not yours or anyone elses.

If Uncle Sam wants to liquidate SS tommorow, they can do it.

Some 'security'.

[STANKY808]

Right, if someone "lost everything" they should keep their money in the market? And it wasn't one or two stocks that devalued (is that a better term? I guess they call it Black Monday for fun), it was pretty much across the board (S&P, NYSE and around the world).

And if someone is depending on that money to live because they are already retired, it's pretty difficult to pay rent, buy food or cover medical expense whilst the magical market rebounds.

And where is the president's plan you speak of? I understood he hasn't yet presented one. If he has, I want to see it.

You suggested treasury notes as a place to stash the cash, and those are exactly the instruments used to guarantee SS benfits, no?

And an interesting scenario you present regarding the governemt liquidating SS tomorrow. I don't think that has ever happened in the US, yet something that actually happened, Black Monday, is of no signigance to you.

(shall I just say it now? You "won" cause you're always right)

[EN[i]GMA]

Right, if someone "lost everything" they should keep their money in the market? And it wasn't one or two stocks that devalued (is that a better term? I guess they call it Black Monday for fun), it was pretty much across the board (S&P, NYSE and around the world).

And if someone is depending on that money to live because they are already retired, it's pretty difficult to pay rent, buy food or cover medical expense whilst the magical market rebounds.

And where is the president's plan you speak of? I understood he hasn't yet presented one. If he has, I want to see it.

You suggested treasury notes as a place to stash the cash, and those are exactly the instruments used to guarantee SS benfits, no?

And an interesting scenario you present regarding the governemt liquidating SS tomorrow. I don't think that has ever happened in the US, yet something that actually happened, Black Monday, is of no signigance to you.

(shall I just say it now? You "won" cause you're always right)

You very rarely 'lose everything' unless the company goes under as a result. Name for me the companies that went under because of black monday.

You just lose the value of the stock, which was very quickly regained in the coming years, and then some.

Only if the company goes under do your stocks become worthless.

And it ISN'T smart to keep all your money in stocks. Keep 20-40% in bonds or other safe investments, and once you retire, keep more in safe assets.

I really don't want to do your stock portfolio here, let's just say that if you know what you're doing, the market isn't really that dangerous at all.

The President's plan, as I refer to it, is detailed here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/social-security/index.html

In it, it says: The money would go into a conservative mix of bond and stock funds that would have the opportunity to earn a higher rate of return than anything the current system could provide.


I assume government securites are a form of bond that would be issued.


I didn't suggest anything, merely presented it as an option. I'm all about options, even the option to DO THE EXACT SAME THING as is currently done by purchasing securites.

And Block Monday is of no concern, compared with the growth the stock market has shown over the last 100 years, between 6.5 and 8%.

So yeah, you can say I'm right and forego the formalities.

[STANKY808]

GMA'] Name for me the companies that went under because of black monday.

You just lose the value of the stock, which was very quickly regained in the coming years, and then some.


And Block Monday is of no concern, compared with the growth the stock market has shown over the last 100 years, between 6.5 and 8%.

So yeah, you can say I'm right and forego the formalities.

Hold that victory dance...

I'm talking about indivuals who loose almost everything and are retired. When the landlord comes knockin' or he needs to fill a perscription is the old guy to tell them "wait til the market rebounds"?

As for the president's plan... there isn't one.
"President Bush has pledged to work with Congress to find the most effective combination of reforms. He will listen to any good idea that does not include raising payroll taxes."

Now, feel free to commence that two left footed jig you call dancing.

[yeahwho]

My hat is off to STANKY808. your doing a fine job. I'm too tired to have a go around with morons who are "forced" by the US goverment to pay into Social Security....yet don't even give a shit enough to care that 6.2% of their wages may never be seen again. I'll take their 6.2% and maybe give it back to them... :rolleyes: ...sounds real intelligent. Who cares if I ever see that cash again, I'm just donating it to the GWB administration to dream up some fucking moronic scheme on what is the only thing left for millions of millions to depend on.

And yes, STANKY808 is right, treasury notes as a place to stash the cash? Those are exactly the instruments used to guarantee SS benefits, today. Mister Bush has avoided accepting responsbility for torture, death, false intellingence, everything he touches or proposes stinks.....I want to hire this guy to fuck with my paycheck? C'mon.

[EN[i]GMA]

Hold that victory dance...

I'm talking about indivuals who loose almost everything and are retired. When the landlord comes knockin' or he needs to fill a perscription is the old guy to tell them "wait til the market rebounds"?

As for the president's plan... there isn't one.
"President Bush has pledged to work with Congress to find the most effective combination of reforms. He will listen to any good idea that does not include raising payroll taxes."

Now, feel free to commence that two left footed jig you call dancing.

If you invest your money in bonds, this cannot happen, you always have assets that can be turned into liquid cash on demand.

As you grow older, common investment wisdom dictates you move your money into safe bonds out of a more volitile market.

You're correct, it isn't wise to keep all your money invested in stocks, that's why you put some in liquid cash, bonds, securities or others.

And as for the President's plan, he seems to be very accomidating to other ideas.

[STANKY808]

GMA']If you invest your money in bonds, this cannot happen, you always have assets that can be turned into liquid cash on demand.

As you grow older, common investment wisdom dictates you move your money into safe bonds out of a more volitile market.

You're correct, it isn't wise to keep all your money invested in stocks, that's why you put some in liquid cash, bonds, securities or others.

And as for the President's plan, he seems to be very accomidating to other ideas.

You call that a victory dance?

[EN[i]GMA]

You call that a victory dance?

Fine, I'll do the Twist of I MUST.