Friday, June 03, 2005

Today's Social Security Debate- This got downright ugly!

Author Michael A. Hiltzik stopped by The PC Show this morning to plug his book
The Plot Against Social Security : How the Bush Plan Is Endangering Our Financial Future. This guy should be the Disinformation Secretary in some Third World Country. He's heavily into denying reality. He claims Social Security is not a Ponzi Scheme despite evidence to the contrary in his own book. He claims the trust fund is solvent, despite the fact that there is no cash in it. A bunch of meaningless IOU's- backed up by the good faith and credit of the US Gov. he says. When I pointed to the success of privatization in Galveston, Texas he conveniently didn't know anything about it, go figure? We even argued over the definition of Socialism- the redistribution of wealth. Thank God I had plenty of Duct Tape in studio to prevent my head from exploding!

Social Security- could you do better under the Bush Plan? Plug in the numbers HERE.


At 11:36 AM, Blogger ElexTech said...

This whole ss revision foo-fa-rah is about the old tension between tax-and-spend liberals and those who would like to cut off the liberals from unguarded stashes of cash.

I'm sure Bush would like congress to simply enact a law to make the ss fund un-raidable, but any such law would be easily overturned by a future, liberal-controlled congress, so he must go about it in an indirect way. As a general rule, every new program initiated by Washington becomes almost unkillable. Bush is attempting to take advantage of this general rule by initiating the private-accounts program. Liberals are fighting it, because they want unfettered access to ss funds when the wheel turns, and they come back into power. Once this program is started, it will take on a life of its own which would make it difficult to impossible for future, liberal-dominated congresses to kill it.

Do we really need private accounts? No, we already have IRA's.

Would private accounts be safe? Yes, if they were restricted to safe investments. As things stand now, people of my generation (I'm 54 years old) will not, on average, receive as much as they've put into the program. If I had been putting a portion of that money into a passbook savings account for the past thirty years at one percent interest per year, I'd be receiving a better return than ss would give me. That's very safe, and it's better than the return from the ss system.

Will this program endanger old folks who are now on ss? No, it would all be voluntary, and mostly young folks are inclined to get into this program.

Would George W's proposal cut benefits in the future? No, the benefits will still increase regularly, though they will not increase as much nor as fast as currently projected.

At 1:03 PM, Blogger Nicole Weeks said...

I shouldn't have to pay, as a young worker, for someone else's retirement because they lacked the better judgement and forethought to secure their own future investments and retirement.

Social Security is socialism, hence the name SOCIAL seccurity.

Survival of the fittest. If you're lazy, you whither and die.

At 1:36 PM, Blogger Mithrandir said...

Two things.
Automatic Stabilizers
Human Rights.

If people don't have enough money to buy products, aggregate demand goes down the tubes.
I don't think people are deserving of where they are and would like to change.
Lets promote job opportunities for everyone and make it easier for people to get a job.
If people are starving because of a flawed system...

At 2:56 PM, Blogger Sick Boy said...

Social Security is a name, delightfully pallatible, for robbing Peter to pay Paul. Paul will always favor robbing Peter. What "human right" is being violated by giving a stipend for living in the U.S.? Are you saying if one does not get what they WANT that their "human rights" are being taken? Keep drinking Kool Aid. "Conservative" Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Democrats ran the plantations. Now, Don't feel bad when PERSONAL responsibility comes around asking for payment. Next, who is "starving"? At nearly 5.5% unemployment in the nation, I ask how many of those are "unemployable"? How many DON'T WANT TO WORK? Sitting on the stoop, whining how the "man" is keeping one down doesn't sound like a hard life; living off others WHO WORK. Are these the same people complaining about out sourcing? Plenty of fruit, cotton, veggies need to be picked. Plenty of lawns need mowing. Hell, start a business. Was there "social security" at the turn of the 20th Century? No. We worked for our keep. Granted, some people need assistance. Granted, some children need assistance. Is it better to create a "needy" society, or create a "self sufficient" society? With all the Job Centers around the nation, how come there are people still whining? Sounds to me like there should be a "No whiner left behind" program. Left behind on the bus to pick fruit, mow the lawns, clean the pools etc. Something to be proud of: I accomplished nothing in my life except ROBBING PETER TO PAY PAUL. Waste. Fraud. ABUSE. P.S. Please pass the Grey Poupon. But of course.

At 9:09 AM, Blogger alex said...

Found a lot of useful info on your site about start a business - thank you. Haven't finished reading it yet but have bookmarked it so I don't lose it. I've just started a start a business blog myself if you'd like to stop by


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home