Portions of FDR's MESSAGE TO CONGRESS ON SOCIAL SECURITY--JANUARY 17,1935

<a href='http://www.ssa.gov/history/fdrstmts.html#message2' target='_blank'>FDR's Statements on Social Security</a>

At this time, I recommend the following types of legislation looking to economic security:

1. Unemployment compensation.

2. Old-age benefits, including compulsory and Voluntary annuities....

In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, non-contributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps thirty years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.


Seems most on the left these days disagree with this.

I understand that Chile has a similar SS setup that is quite successful.

<a href='http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/pr-ja-jp.html' target='_blank'>THE SUCCESS OF CHILE'S PRIVATIZED SOCIAL SECURITY</a>

jw

tigerjoe Wrote:I understand that Chile has a similar SS setup that is quite successful.

<a href='http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/pr-ja-jp.html' target='_blank'>THE SUCCESS OF CHILE'S PRIVATIZED SOCIAL SECURITY</a>

jw

And the United Kingdom has one that's a bloody awful mess.

<a href='http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/01/14/opinion/edkrug.html' target='_blank'>http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/01/14/opi...ion/edkrug.html</a>

The bottom line: Bush's scheme will deliver $1 trillion to $2 trillion in new debt and benefit cuts. Americans, meanwhile, will assume the risk that they might not be able to invest their way to what current law gives beneficiaries right now.

Schadenfreude Wrote:

tigerjoe Wrote:I understand that Chile has a similar SS setup that is quite successful.

<a href='http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/pr-ja-jp.html' target='_blank'>THE SUCCESS OF CHILE'S PRIVATIZED SOCIAL SECURITY</a>

jw

And the United Kingdom has one that's a bloody awful mess.

<a href='http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/01/14/opinion/edkrug.html' target='_blank'>http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/01/14/opi...ion/edkrug.html</a>

The bottom line: Bush's scheme will deliver $1 trillion to $2 trillion in new debt and benefit cuts. Americans, meanwhile, will assume the risk that they might not be able to invest their way to what current law gives beneficiaries right now.

Good deal then. I, as most sensible Americans will agree, don't believe the government can effectively grow OUR retirement like we would like. You're selling lies Schad. I also MUST ask, show me WHERE A) social security was a promise in the Constitution and B) Where it, or any OTHER document, states that SS is guaranteed.


You cannot refute Chile OR Galveston, Texas. Bush NAILED them on it when he "put'em on front street" about their "thrift-savings" plan.

RebelKev Wrote:

Schadenfreude Wrote:

tigerjoe Wrote:I understand that Chile has a similar SS setup that is quite successful.

<a href='http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/pr-ja-jp.html' target='_blank'>THE SUCCESS OF CHILE'S PRIVATIZED SOCIAL SECURITY</a>

jw

And the United Kingdom has one that's a bloody awful mess.

<a href='http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/01/14/opinion/edkrug.html' target='_blank'>http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/01/14/opi...ion/edkrug.html</a>

The bottom line: Bush's scheme will deliver $1 trillion to $2 trillion in new debt and benefit cuts. Americans, meanwhile, will assume the risk that they might not be able to invest their way to what current law gives beneficiaries right now.

Good deal then. I, as most sensible Americans will agree, don't believe the government can effectively grow OUR retirement like we would like. You're selling lies Schad. I also MUST ask, show me WHERE A) social security was a promise in the Constitution and B) Where it, or any OTHER document, states that SS is guaranteed.


You cannot refute Chile OR Galveston, Texas. Bush NAILED them on it when he "put'em on front street" about their "thrift-savings" plan.

I did glance at a hyped up essay on Galveston, Texas that someone posted previously.

It doesn't strike me as particularly innovative.

Lots of state and local governments have opted out the Social Security system over the years. Detroit police officers were long outside of the system. Ohio public employees are outside of the system.

Ohio's alternative, the Public Employees Retirement System, uses a combination of employee contributions, employer matches and investments to create a more generous benefit than Social Security is generally able to offer.

But Ohio's PERS also *guarantees* these benefits. It invests on behalf of everyone in hopes of generating a good return and reducing taxpayers' commitment to the system. It generally does *not* focus the risks on individuals.

Democrats do not object to the idea of harnessing the power of markets to make Social Security more secure. President Clinton once proposed investing some of the Social Security's surplus into higher-powered investments in hopes of shoring up the system for the long term.

The major concern of Democrats is Bush's seemingly pathological need to insist that individuals bear so much of the risk on their own.

Once again, his plan is a shell game. He proposes cutting benefits and requiring individuals to invest on their own in the hopes of catching up to the benefits they are now promised right now.

Some will pull it off. Some may even do better. But some won't do as well.

That's the risk Bush wants the elderly to assume -- and he wants to sock us with $1 trillion to $2 trillion in new debt as he does it.

It's a scheme. It will make investment bankers happy, but it does nothing for the rest of us.

I know this isn't going to get through to you, but would you rather A) have an insurance policy through your company or B) have your own personal insurance policy? The difference is you own your own. This is the entire issue at hand. There is no guarantee to SS, nothing, nada, not one word states the government has to give you back a dime. This country was founded on freedom.....as individuals, our retirement should be left up to us...it shouldn't be forced onto us in the form of some vote-buying scandalous program that WILL go broke. I also ask, if these plans are good enough for congress, it doesn't strike you as kind of hypocritical that they don't offer the same to Americans? Hell, just look at my words....they and offer...this country has slid backwards when it comes to freedom. I am now talking about elected officials "offering" to allow me to use my own money to fund my own retirement.

RebelKev Wrote:I know this isn't going to get through to you,

You are right.

The UK's plan was the worst conceived plan in the history of government. (that may be a stretch....:) But regardless, it did not include the checks and balances needed to protect against greed and corruption. The investment firms and insurance companies overcharged and invested poorly.

What bothers me most about whatever they come up with is that it won't be a solution based upon what is best for us - the contributors - but what will be best politically for the politions - which is a crock...

President Bush made a fantastic comparison to what he is proposing:

Quote: Personal retirement accounts should be familiar to federal employees, because you already have something similar, called the Thrift Savings Plan, which lets workers deposit a portion of their paychecks into any of five different broadly-based investment funds. It's time to extend the same security, and choice, and ownership to young Americans.

Agreed - if its good and SAFE enough for them - its good enough for me.

jw

tigerjoe Wrote:

Quote: Personal retirement accounts should be familiar to federal employees, because you already have something similar, called the Thrift Savings Plan, which lets workers deposit a portion of their paychecks into any of five different broadly-based investment funds. It's time to extend the same security, and choice, and ownership to young Americans.

Agreed - if its good and SAFE enough for them - its good enough for me.

jw

That was what I call the "puttin' em on front street" episode.

Schadenfreude Wrote:It's a scheme. It will make investment bankers happy, but it does nothing for the rest of us.

Here's a thought SF, take responsibility for yourself, save your money and provide for your future. Don't look for the government tit to feed you for the rest of your life.

Novel concept I know but look into it.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Schadenfreude Wrote:It's a scheme. It will make investment bankers happy, but it does nothing for the rest of us.

Here's a thought SF, take responsibility for yourself, save your money and provide for your future. Don't look for the government tit to feed you for the rest of your life.

Novel concept I know but look into it.

When I saw that, the only thought I could conjure up was "just damn".

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Schadenfreude Wrote:It's a scheme. It will make investment bankers happy, but it does nothing for the rest of us.

Here's a thought SF, take responsibility for yourself, save your money and provide for your future. Don't look for the government tit to feed you for the rest of your life.

Novel concept I know but look into it.

What do we do with seniors that made minimum wage all their life and have "no" retirement? Should we put them all in a government sponsored nursing home? These are real questions that I have yet to see answered. However, I will hear out the president's plan once he presents more detail.

JTiger Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Schadenfreude Wrote:It's a scheme. It will make investment bankers happy, but it does nothing for the rest of us.

Here's a thought SF, take responsibility for yourself, save your money and provide for your future. Don't look for the government tit to feed you for the rest of your life.

Novel concept I know but look into it.

What do we do with seniors that made minimum wage all their life and have "no" retirement? Should we put them all in a government sponsored nursing home? These are real questions that I have yet to see answered. However, I will hear out the president's plan once he presents more detail.

No one is saying that we are cutting their SS. Well, no one but Democrats using scare tactics to garner votes. Don't believe everything you hear J. There is not one conservative or SS Reform proponant that is calling for cancelling SS for seniors. Bush even stated that people 55 and older will still have everything. This is something that must be done incrementally. I.e. I can use 2%, my kids 15%, theirs 50% and so on, but that depends on how our economy grows. I also feel that this is the best time to work on a NRST to replace the IRS and income tax. .....which is something you also won't hear from the Democrats. One here in Georgia stated in a campaign ad that his opponant wanted an additional tax. Now, with that said, he was either A) trying to distort the truth and should be unelectable or B) too stupid to do his research and should be unelectable.

JTiger Wrote:What do we do with seniors that made minimum wage all their life and have "no" retirement?  Should we put them all in a government sponsored nursing home?  These are real questions that I have yet to see  answered.  However, I will hear out the president's plan once he presents more detail.

Here are some concrete details around the plan. Note the biggest one which is private accounts are optional. If someone has worked for minimum wage all their life they'll get back exactly what they would get today.

Contrary to the assertions of some on this board, this is not a scheme. It's an opportunity for you to control more of your retirement. For example this lie was stated earlier:

Quote:That's the risk Bush wants the elderly to assume -- and he wants to sock us with $1 trillion to $2 trillion in new debt as he does it.

However, his is the truth:

Quote:Bush's plan would cut guaranteed retirement benefits for younger Americans but would not affect checks for people now 55 and older.

Is there risk? Absolutely. But I repeat, YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO DO IT. You can stay in the current system and earn the pitiful rate of return of around 3% if you so desire.

Here is another lie that was stated in this thread:

Quote:The bottom line: Bush's scheme will deliver $1 trillion to $2 trillion in new debt and benefit cuts. Americans, meanwhile, will assume the risk that they might not be able to invest their way to what current law gives beneficiaries right now.

There are a few lies in here, I'll address each one.

1) This plan does not cut benefits right off the bat. It only cuts what the government will pay you under the current system should you choose to invest in an OPTIONAL private account. You will still get a benefit under the current system, however it will be supplemented by what your personal account earns, which by history shows will be a lot more than 3%.
2) If you wish to stay in the current system you will receive what the current law gives beneficiaries right now.

Liberals don't like this plan because it doesn't require government hand holding. According to them you are incapable of making your own decisions and taking care of your future. You must have government to help you.:rolleyes:

Quote:THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Great Falls, Montana)

____________________________________________________________________________________ For Immediate Release February 3, 2005

SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
Participants get 100% of Their Personal Retirement Accounts, Both Principal and Interest

Myth: Jonathan Weisman's Washington Post Story today (p A13), includes the headline that "Participants would Forfeit Part of Accounts' Profits," which is flat wrong. The article says workers who opt for personal accounts "would ultimately get to keep only the investment returns that exceed the rate of return that the money would have accrued in the traditional system." This statement, unfortunately, is also flat wrong. Both the headline and this assertion are completely inaccurate. The White House is seeking a correction from the Washington Post.

Reality: Under President Bush's plan, participants would get EVERY SINGLE PENNY OF THEIR RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS -- BOTH the PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST.

Myth: The WP story suggests that President Bush's proposed personal retirement accounts actually benefits the Federal Government more than the account holder, by providing a "claw back." A "claw back" is typically a feature of a plan where the government guarantees a certain combined benefit from the traditional system and the personal account. Under such a plan, the better your account does, the less you get from the government. Therefore, the gains in the accounts are "clawed back."

Reality: The President's plan for personal retirement accounts does not have a "claw back." Under the President's plan, you, not the government, get all the gains in your personal retirement account. The amount you receive from the government is NOT reduced if your personal account does well. The better your account does, the better off you are.

Here are the facts:

Ø President Bush's plan allows you to make a decision to put your money in a different kind of prudent investment, with the potential for receiving higher pay-outs.

Ø For example, a worker who decides against taking a personal account might, in the future, get $15,000 annually in benefits from the traditional system, reformed to be permanently sustainable.

Ø Another young worker could choose to invest in a personal retirement account. In exchange for the right to get the account, he gives up benefits from the traditional system. For example, he might give up one-third of those future government benefits, and be entitled to receive $10,000 annually from the traditional system.

Ø A personal retirement account would belong entirely to the worker. If the account earns a 3% real rate of return - the worker would be right back where he started - at $15,000 of combined benefits per year.

Ø A worker could earn a higher return through his personal account investments. The Social Security Actuary assumes he will invest in a conservative mix of stocks, corporate bonds, and government securities that would result in a 4.6% real rate of return. In this case, the account would be large enough to provide about $7,000 per year of benefits, so he would have a combined future benefit of $17,000. His combined benefit would be $2,000 per year higher than had he not chosen the account.

Ø A worker's traditional benefit would be affected by the amount of investment in a personal account because some of his payroll taxes are flowing into the account, rather than into the traditional Social Security system. His government benefit would not, however, be affected by the investment performance of the personal account, as was suggested in today's Washington Post.

Ø Note that if he puts all of his account into safe government securities, he can expect an average 3% real rate of return (the break-even rate). In addition, the worker will own all the funds in the account. Even if the worker were only to break even financially, he would be better off because of his ownership rights:

o If he were to die before retirement age, he would have an asset to pass on to his loved ones.

o If he were to divorce, his account would be marital property.

o And if future policymakers were to change government-provided benefits, his account balance would be immune from those changes.

Remember:

Ø Personal retirement accounts help make Social Security better for younger workers. Personal retirement accounts give younger workers the chance to receive a higher rate of return from sound, long-term investing of a portion of their payroll taxes than they receive under the current system.

Ø Personal retirement accounts provide ownership and control. Personal retirement accounts give younger workers the opportunity to own an asset and watch it grow over time.

Ø Personal retirement accounts would be entirely voluntary. At any time, a worker could "opt in" by making a one-time election to put a portion of his or her payroll taxes into a personal retirement account.

o Workers would have the flexibility to choose from several different low-cost, broad-based investment funds and would have the opportunity to adjust investment allocations periodically, but would not be allowed to move back and forth between personal retirement accounts and the traditional system. If, after workers choose the account, they decide they want only the benefits the current system would give them, they can leave their money invested in government bonds like those the Social Security system invests in now.

o Those workers who do not elect to create a personal retirement account would continue to draw benefits from the traditional Social Security system, reformed to be permanently sustainable.

Im hoping that the left and the right will continue to wrangle with each other until the program goes bankrupt. Then we'll be rid of it once and for all. If it were a private fund, all the managers would have been thrown in jail long ago for fraud. :D

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Schadenfreude Wrote:It's a scheme. It will make investment bankers happy, but it does nothing for the rest of us.

Here's a thought SF, take responsibility for yourself, save your money and provide for your future. Don't look for the government tit to feed you for the rest of your life.

Novel concept I know but look into it.

You don't know me.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:Here is another lie that was stated in this thread:

I guess the best thing to do is to take it as a compilment that you would accuse me of lying.

It assumes a certain infallability on my part -- an assumption that isn't reciprocated, incidentally, which is why I'm not constantly accusing people of lying here when they make factual mistakes.

And factual mistakes appear to have been made -- on both sides.

I will concede, for now, that it looks like these private accounts may be optional for people under 55. I wasn't aware of that.

That said, we all have very few details to work with. Also, this is the same Bush administration that lied to Congress about the true costs of his Medicare plan in order to get it passed. History strongly suggests nothing Bush says in this debate should be taken at face value.

Let me point to a couple of ... um ... factual errors being made by the other side:

-- Benefit cuts. They will be cut, in two senses:

1. On its own, private accounts do nothing to address the fundamental actuarial problem with the traditional Social Security system, which is that by 2042 or so, the traditional system will only be able to afford to pay out 73 percent of promised benefits. Private accounts do *nothing* to change this.

Bush has also ruled out any sort of moderate tax increase (e.g., increase the amount of pay subject to the payroll tax, now about $90,000) to deal with this problem. This leaves... cuts, in some form, to the traditional system. Possibilities: changes to the formula by which benefits increase with inflation or increasing the retirement age, or somethnig else.

2. For those who opt for private accounts, Social Security benefits will be cut. In order for private accounts to keep up with what traditional Social Security would pay after these cuts, the accounts will have to gain 3 percent plus the rate of inflation, every year.

That won't be easy without a certain degree of financial risk. And what happens to the people who fall short and fall into poverty? "I'm not sure if I'm understanding your question," a Bush administration official said in a recent backgrounder on the issue. :roflol:

This New York Times editorial states the problems much better than I can:

<a href='http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/06/opinion/6sun1.html' target='_blank'>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/06/opinion/6sun1.html</a>

One final thought: I am under the impression that the federal Thift Savings Plan is in addition to Social Security and not a replacement for Social Security. Does anyone know for certain?

Quote:I will concede, for now, that it looks like these private accounts may be optional for people under 55. I wasn't aware of that.

That said, we all have very few details to work with.

Yet you have no problem calling the plan a "scheme" and to make assertions about it to which you have no idea if they are true. It may not make you a liar, but at best it makes you patently irresponsible and intelectually dishonest.

And rest assured, there is nothing about you I would call infallable.

Quote:History strongly suggests nothing Bush says in this debate should be taken at face value.

Pot, meet kettle.

Quote:1. On its own, private accounts do nothing to address the fundamental actuarial problem with the traditional Social Security system, which is that by 2042 or so, the traditional system will only be able to afford to pay out 73 percent of promised benefits. Private accounts do *nothing* to change this.

Wrong. Private accounts that are CHOSEN in turn mean that the person chosing them does not get their full benefit from the traditional system, opting instead to use their private account to suplement that which they aren't collecting. As a result people are taking less out of the system thus leaving that money for people who choose to stay in the standard system.

Quote:Bush has also ruled out any sort of moderate tax increase (e.g., increase the amount of pay subject to the payroll tax, now about $90,000) to deal with this problem. This leaves... cuts, in some form, to the traditional system. Possibilities: changes to the formula by which benefits increase with inflation or increasing the retirement age, or somethnig else.

Amazing the definitive statements you can make with so few details being known. :rolleyes:

Wrong again. It doesn't simply leave cuts to the traditional system. Second the retirement age should go up because people are living longer. If you're banking on the government tit in your old age you need to be willing to work a little more to make it a reality.

Quote:2. For those who opt for private accounts, Social Security benefits will be cut. In order for private accounts to keep up with what traditional Social Security would pay after these cuts, the accounts will have to gain 3 percent plus the rate of inflation, every year.

Great point SF. You know why? Because I stated the exact same thing one post earlier. By opting into a private account part of your benefits from the traditional system will be cut. That is your choice. You do remember choices right? They come with living in a free society? People who opt into a private account are opting into the cut. It's understood.

Quote:That won't be easy without a certain degree of financial risk. And what happens to the people who fall short and fall into poverty?

Oh no!!!! Not risk!!!! :eek: You don't want the risk? You don't opt for the private account. It's that simple.

It never ceases to amaze me liberal mindset that says we need government to insure our well being and financial future. At what point in time did hard work and personal responsibility give way to the nanny state? Since when is my responsibility to pay for YOUR financial security?

Quote:One final thought: I am under the impression that the federal Thift Savings Plan is in addition to Social Security and not a replacement for Social Security. Does anyone know for certain?

It's in addition to, not replacement for.

Quote:o Those workers who do not elect to create a personal retirement account would continue to draw benefits from the traditional Social Security system, reformed to be permanently sustainable.

I suggest you read the full text of the release about the plan I posted earlier. It could answer many of the questions you've posed as well as clear up the "false" statements you've made to date about this.

Quote:

Quote:1. On its own, private accounts do nothing to address the fundamental actuarial problem with the traditional Social Security system, which is that by 2042 or so, the traditional system will only be able to afford to pay out 73 percent of promised benefits. Private accounts do *nothing* to change this.

Wrong.

No, my statement is accurate.

Private accounts have nothing to do with shoring up traditional Social Security, at least not for the next forty or fifty years (when many of us here will already be receiving it, and a few of us might be dead).

Quote:Private accounts that are CHOSEN in turn mean that the person chosing them does not get their full benefit from the traditional system, opting instead to use their private account to suplement that which they aren't collecting.&nbsp; As a result people are taking less out of the system thus leaving that money for people who choose to stay in the standard system.

I'm pretty sure its one to one. If the employer/employee contribution is 12 percent, a four percent reduction would mean a reduction of a third -- in both contributions and benefits. Social Security isn't going to profit on this transaction.

All Bush is proposing, essentially, is to borrow money and give people the chance to try to invest their way past what it will cost to borrow the money, plus interest. (The rate of inflation plus three percent).

We're talking trillions of dollars in new debt. This doesn't concern you?

Quote:

Quote:Bush has also ruled out any sort of moderate tax increase (e.g., increase the amount of pay subject to the payroll tax, now about $90,000) to deal with this problem. This leaves... cuts, in some form, to the traditional system. Possibilities: changes to the formula by which benefits increase with inflation or increasing the retirement age, or somethnig else.

Amazing the definitive statements you can make with so few details being known. :rolleyes:

Wrong again. It doesn't simply leave cuts to the traditional system.

If tax hikes are off the table and private accounts do nothing to shore up the system, do you have another option?

And keep in mind, I threw in tinkering with the retirement age because it is, in one sense, a "cut."

Quote:

Quote:That won't be easy without a certain degree of financial risk. And what happens to the people who fall short and fall into poverty?

Oh no!!!! Not risk!!!! :eek: You don't want the risk? You don't opt for the private account. It's that simple.

No, seriously. What are we going to do with this new cohort of poor seniors? Tell 'em "tough?" Let them freeze to death in their unheated homes? Let 'em eat cat food?

If we create a welfare program to handle the social damage -- or if we can assume that existing programs will be drawn on to a greater extent -- that's a cost, and it needs to be considered as part of any "reform" plan.

It doesn't appear Bush is considering the possibility at all.

Quote:It never ceases to amaze me liberal mindset that says we need government to insure our well being and financial future.&nbsp; At what point in time did hard work and personal responsibility give way to the nanny state?

First of all, Social Security is entirely about work. If one doesn't work, one doesn't get Social Security. Period.

Second, Social Security is just one part of securing a financial future.

There are three elements to a well-planned retirement: Social Security, a private employer-based pension and whatever individuals are able to do on their own in terms of IRAs or other investments.

Social Security ensures a basic minimum, no matter what happens with these other two elements of a strategy. And with employers increasingly limiting their pension obligations, Social Security may grow in importance over the next few decades.

Quote:

Quote:One final thought: I am under the impression that the federal Thift Savings Plan is in addition to Social Security and not a replacement for Social Security. Does anyone know for certain?

It's in addition to, not replacement for.

Democrats have made it clear they don't oppose the concept of a Thrift Savings Plan. They just would want it as an add on to Social Security, not a replacement for it.

And since it is in addition to Social Security, wasn't Bush a bit intellectually dishonest by discussing Thrift Savings Plans in the way he did? Because it isn't like he's going to deliver it to Americans as an add on. It comes with a price: A cut in Social Security.

The fact is SF you are being blindly critical of a plan that you readily admit you know little about, primarily because much is left to be decided, simply because it's Bush who proposed it. That of course is your right but like your party you are simply the person of "anything but Bush."

Quote:No, seriously. What are we going to do with this new cohort of poor seniors? Tell 'em "tough?" Let them freeze to death in their unheated homes? Let 'em eat cat food?

:rolleyes:

That's a precious statement and while I'm sure it would get a few tearful replies at a liberal cocktail party in the realm of debate it's simply emotional hyperbole.

1) You're assuming there will be new poor seniors
2) You're assuming they are poor because of the reform to SS and not other things of their own making.
3) You are blindly assuming that reforming SS in this way won't work based on virtually no information.

The thing you don't get is that social security was NEVER, EVER, meant to be your retirement. It was there to ease the burden, not eliminate you from planning for your own future.

Quote:First of all, Social Security is entirely about work. If one doesn't work, one doesn't get Social Security. Period.

Well you can't really bash that can you SF? Afterall, people wholly dependent on government is a liberal's idea of utopia.

Quote:Second, Social Security is just one part of securing a financial future.

First reasonable thing you've said.

Quote:There are three elements to a well-planned retirement: Social Security, a private employer-based pension and whatever individuals are able to do on their own in terms of IRAs or other investments.

You got 2 out of 3. No one should "plan" for social security. If they, like many of us, build their retirement plan like social security isn't there then there won't be an issue. Where is it written that life should be easy in this country? Where is it written that people are guranteed to be without hard times and that it's the goverments responsibility to make sure it doesn't happen. THis whole debate comes down to a central philosophical difference between the way you and I see the government. You see it as the nanny state, I don't. You see it as a safety net for those who lack the discipline to take personal accountbability and provide for their future, I don't.

Quote:Social Security ensures a basic minimum, no matter what happens with these other two elements of a strategy. And with employers increasingly limiting their pension obligations, Social Security may grow in importance over the next few decades.

I'm sure and your party would love that.

Quote:Democrats have made it clear they don't oppose the concept of a Thrift Savings Plan. They just would want it as an add on to Social Security, not a replacement for it.

Which would mean raising taxes. Why would we need a government thrift savings plan in addition to social security when someone can simply do that with an IRA today? The difference is democrats want to take more money out of my pay check and put it into their hands so they can mishandle like they have for half a century. No thanks.

Quote:And since it is in addition to Social Security, wasn't Bush a bit intellectually dishonest by discussing Thrift Savings Plans in the way he did? Because it isn't like he's going to deliver it to Americans as an add on. It comes with a price: A cut in Social Security.

No, it wasn't. It's been made very clear that OPTING for a private account will inturn mean a cut in money from the traditional system.

The fact is democrats don't want SS reform, they need the issue to run on. Limit government and you limit democrats.

[QUOTE=RebelKev,Feb 4 2005, 09:52 AM] [QUOTE=tigerjoe,Feb 4 2005, 09:29 AM]

[quote] Personal retirement accounts should be familiar to federal employees, because you already have something similar, called the Thrift Savings Plan, which lets workers deposit a portion of their paychecks into any of five different broadly-based investment funds.[/quote]

What this article fails to mention is that the TSP is in addition to SS. I am a federal employee (IRS) hired in 2001, and my TSP contribution is taken on top of the deduction for SS, and is matched by the government up to a certain point. That makes it just like any other matched retirement plan offered by private employers all the time. It is not a diversion of SS funds to a private account.

Now, some older federal employees do not take part in SS, but that is not the case for everyone.

[quote] It's time to extend the same security, and choice, and ownership to young Americans.[/quote]

The TSP is a benefit provided to federal employees as part of their overall benefit package. Letting people put some of their SS contributions into a private account is not the same as the benefits provided by TSP. While possibly providing these things, it will also result in a reduction of SS benefits for that person. Comparing the benefits of this plan to those provided by the TSP is a stretch, IMO.