Posted on 02/03/2005 7:14:21 PM PST by kcvl
Corrections and errata are BS. The MSM publishes things they know are false (i.e., lies) and that few if any will ever read the fine print in a later issue.
I agree. Investing in stocks is a great idea... if you have any money. If you don't have any money, a responsible financial advisor will tell you to save the money and then invest it, not buy stocks on margin. But, as usual, the government has it backwards. Instead of proposing a little pain to achieve a bigger gain, they are proposing immediate gain with the pain to be postponed or wished away. Bush has already told everyone 55 or older that they will not have to make even the tiniest sacrifice. Sure, anyone who is already retired cannot be expected to go back to work (though the wealthy retired might contribute in some way). But anyone who is ten years away from retirement can adjust to a minor change, say indexing initial benefits to inflation instead of wages.
Pete Peterson, in his recent book "Running on Empty" has it in the right order. He first proposes that we index new benefits to prices instead of wages. Following is an excerpt from this book:
Index New Benefits to Prices, Instead of Wages.
Under this reform, the average new benefit calculated each year for people reaching age sixty-two would be adjusted upward by the increase in the consumer price index rather than by an index of average wages. As a result, all future retirees - by birth year or by generation - would receive the same average benefit, adjusted for inflation, that new retirees receive today. Under current law, higher real-benefit levels will account for about 30 percent of total Social Security benefit outlays by the year 2050. By saving that extra 30 percent, we would just about bring the system back into balance by then. Social Security's cash deficits, while still rising in the 2020s, would start declining again by the 2030s and would eventually disappear. President Bush's own Commission to Strengthen Social Security projected that indexing new benefits to prices would more than eliminate Social Security's long-term deficit. And this would be true if if we "grandfathered" under the old rule everyone currently over age fifty-five.
Source: Running on Empty by Peter G. Peterson, page 200
Peterson then goes on to make proposals to 1) mandate saving in Personal Retirement Accounts and 2) fortify Social Security's Safety Net. But, to my understanding, these are proposals to be funded by the surplus created from the first proposal but only when and if that surplus actually materializes.
Bush did make reference to difficult choices in the following excerpt from his State of the Union:
Fixing Social Security permanently will require an open, candid review of the options. Some have suggested limiting benefits for wealthy retirees. Former Congressman Tim Penny has raised the possibility of indexing benefits to prices rather than wages. During the 1990s, my predecessor, President Clinton, spoke of increasing the retirement age. Former Senator John Breaux suggested discouraging early collection of Social Security benefits. The late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan recommended changing the way benefits are calculated. All these ideas are on the table.
Notice anything about the people making those proposals? That's right, they're all Democrats. Pete Peterson is a Republican but Bush chose instead to mention Tim Penny, a former Democratic Congressman. I hope that other Democrats will likewise join in a serious discussion of these difficult choices. However, I also hope that the Republicans in government will step up to the plate on this issue. Otherwise, this will turn into just another government giveaway where some will benefit but Social Security, as a whole, will end up worse off and/or future generations will find themselves even deeper in debt.
"E.D. on Fox and Friends this morning interviewed John Corizine, and he specifically stated that people will have to "pay back" the treasury, and mentioned this "claw back." "
I saw this, too. Since there isn't a firm plan yet, the dems are disseminating lies to quash the effort to reform.
Those in the media who would question the validity of the statements aren't well informed enough to do so.
I can't see it going away, although I could be wrong:
Money will still have to go in to pay current benefits. If all the young people take out their money and put it into personal accounts, where will the government get the money to pay for the baby boomers, most of whom are going to be too old to get much benefit from the personal retirement accounts?
Money is going to have to continue going into the system from somewhere.
It appears that money will have to come from your paycheck either for traditional SS or a personal account, and it's unclear [at least to me] whether you'd be able to access a personal account for certain things as you can a 401K.
Currently, if you die with minor children, social security provides a monthly payment until they are 18 or finish high school. For most people, this isn't a factor, but for those who end up needing the benefit, it can make a big difference.
Of course, social security was originally intended as a safety net, not as a primary means of support for everyone who reached age 65.
FDR on Social Security Message to Congress on Social Security on Jan. 17, 1935:
"In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, noncontributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps 30 years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions.
Second, compulsory contributory annuities that 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."
Joe Klien was on Jon Stewart's show and said that he had read Bush's proposal all the way through and that this is what was going to happen. Now we know that he is biased but now he proves himself stupid as well.
It's what they do..
it's all they do..
and they won't stop..
EVER!
"People still read newspapers?
The 80's are OVER!"
I pick up 2 papers evey Sunday....I save the TV listings....I look at the sports and the Classifieds......The rest is fish wrapper.
The smug little "journalist" Weisman is on CSpan with Brian Lamb until 9 AM EST.
Those rotten son-of-a-benches!
They didn't screw it up. They misreported on purpose.
I liked the Onion story about being able to use your SS payroll tax to sportsbet. A lot of people think the stock market will stay in this 10K-11K range for a very long time-- if not dip below 10K. This would have been a better plan back in 1975 than 2005.
Actually, if you divorce now you can still collect the SS of your deceased ex-spouse....Go you one better. I know a guy who died two years ago at 92. He divorced his first wife in the 1960's. When he retired he was again married. His first wife got $545 a month from his SS. His new wife got $800 a month from his SS. When he died, the first wife called her son, a buddy of mine, and proudly told him she was now receiving 1300+ a month. The second wife was also bragging about the "raise" she got. How could this system be so out of whack???
Sounds like the fictional based reporting of the Compost is still going strong after they created Deep Throat.
WashPo still hasn't figured out journalistic Truth is much better than Fiction.
This bs and wet dream by the Compost is another example of why no one with a brain is listening to what the liberal elite mediot maggots are saying anymore:
Is anyone even listening to leftist elites?
Victor Davis Hanson: The Global Throng, Why the world’s elites gnash their teeth
NRO ^ | February 04, 2005 | Victor Davis Hanson
Do we even remember "all that" now? The lunacy that appeared after 9/11 that asked us to look for the "root causes" to explain why America may have "provoked" spoiled mama's boys like bin Laden and Mohammed Atta to murder Americans at work? Do we recall the successive litany of "you cannot win in Afghanistan/you cannot reconstruct such a mess/you cannot jumpstart democracy there"? And do we have memory still of "Sharon the war criminal," and "the apartheid wall," and, of course, "Jeningrad," the supposed Israeli-engineered Stalingrad — or was it really Leningrad? Or try to remember Arafat in his Ramallah bunker talking to international groupies who flew in to hear the old killer's jumbled mishmash about George Bush, the meanie who had ostracized him.
Then we were told that if we dared invade the ancient caliphate, Saddam would kill thousands and exile millions more. And when he was captured in a cesspool, the invective continued during the hard reconstruction that oil, Halliburton, the Jews, the neocons, Richard Perle, and other likely suspects had suckered us into a "quagmire" or was it now "Vietnam redux"? And recall that in response we were supposed to flee, or was it to trisect Iraq? The elections, remember, would not work — or were held too soon or too late. And give the old minotaur Senator Kennedy his due, as he lumbered out on the eve of the Iraqi voting to hector about its failure and call for withdrawal — one last hurrah that might yet rescue the cherished myth that the United States had created another Vietnam and needed his sort of deliverance.
And then there was the parade of heroes who were media upstarts of the hour — the brilliant Hans Blixes, Joe Wilsons, Anonymouses, and Richard Clarkes — who came, wrote their books, did their fawning interviews on 60 Minutes, Nightline, and Larry King, and then faded to become footnotes to our collective pessimism.
Do not dare forget our Hollywood elite. At some point since 9/11, Michael Moore, Sean Penn, Meryl Streep, Jessica Lange, Whoopi Goldberg, and a host of others have lectured the world that their America is either misled, stupid, evil, or insane, bereft of the wisdom of Hollywood's legions of college drop-outs, recovering bad boys, and self-praised autodidacts.
Remember the twisted logic of the global throng as well: Anyone who quit the CIA was a genius in his renegade prognostication; anyone who stayed was a toady who botched the war. Three- and four-star generals who went on television or ran for office were principled dissidents who "told the truth"; officers in the field who kept quiet and saved Afghanistan and Iraq were "muzzled" careerists. Families of the 9/11 victims who publicly trashed George Bush offered the nation "grassroots" cries of the heart; the far greater number who supported the war on terror were perhaps "warped" by their grief.
There were always the untold "minor" embarrassments that we were to ignore as the slight slips of the "good" people — small details like the multibillion-dollar Oil-for-Food scandal that came to light due to the reporting of a single brave maverick, Claudia Rosett, or Rathergate, disclosed by "pajama"-clad bloggers without journalism degrees from Columbia, sojourns at the Kennedy School, or internships with the Washington Post. To put it into Animal Farm speak: elite New York Times, CBS News, and PBS good; populist bloggers, talk-radio, and cable news bad.
In place of Harry Truman and JFK we got John Kerry calling the once-maimed Prime Minister Allawi a "puppet," Senator Murray praising bin Laden's social-welfare work, Senator Boxer calling Secretary of State Rice a veritable liar for agreeing with the various casus belli that Boxer's own Senate colleagues had themselves passed in October 2002. And for emotional and financial support, the Democratic insiders turned to George Soros and Michael Moore, who assured them that their president was either Hitlerian, a dunce, or a deserter.
Then there was our media's hysteria: Donald Rumsfeld should be sacked in the midst of war; Abu Ghraib was the moral equivalent of everything from Saddam's gulag to the Holocaust; the U.S. military purportedly tried to kill reporters; and always the unwillingness or inability to condemn the beheaders, fascists, and suicide murderers, who sought to destroy any shred of liberalism. Meanwhile, the isolation of a corrupt Arafat, the withdrawal of 10,000 Americans from a Wahhabi theocracy, the transformation of the world's far-right monstrosities into reformed democracies, and the pull-back of some troops from Germany and the DMZ went unnoticed.
What explains this automatic censure of the United States, Israel, and to a lesser extent the Anglo-democracies of the United Kingdom and Australia? Westernization, coupled with globalization, has created an affluent and leisured elite that now gravitates to universities, the media, bureaucracies, and world organizations, all places where wealth is not created, but analyzed, critiqued, and lavishly spent.
Thus we now expect that the New York Times, Harper's, Le Monde, U.N. functionaries who call us "stingy," French diplomats, American writers and actors will all (1) live a pretty privileged life; (2) in recompense "feel" pretty worried and guilty about it; (3) somehow connect their unease over their comfort with a pathology of the world's hyperpower, the United States; and (4) thus be willing to risk their elite status, power, or wealth by very brave acts such as writing anguished essays, giving pained interviews, issuing apologetic communiqués, braving the rails to Davos, and barking off-the-cuff furious remarks about their angst over themes (1) through (3) above. What a sad contrast they make with far better Iraqis dancing in the street to celebrate their voting.
There is something else to this shrillness of the global throng besides the obvious fact of hypocrisy — that very few of the world's Westernized cynical echelon ever move to the ghetto to tutor those they champion in the abstract, reside in central Africa to feed the poor, give up tenure to ensure employment for the exploited lecturer, or pass on the Washington or New York A-list party to eat in the lunch hall with the unwashed. Davos after all, is not quite central Bolivia or the Sudan.
First, there is a tremendous sense of impotence. Somehow sharp looks alone, clever repartee, long lists of books read and articles cited, or global travel do not automatically result in commensurate power. So what exactly is wrong with these stupid people of Nebraska who would elect a dense, Christian-like George Bush when a Gore Vidal, George Soros, Ben Affleck, Bruce Springsteen, or Ted Kennedy warned them not to?
If the American Left is furious over the loss of most of the nation's governorships and legislatures, the U.S. House, the Senate, the presidency, and soon the Supreme Court, the Europeans themselves are furious over America's power — as if Red America is to Blue America as America is to Europe itself. Thus how can a mongrel culture of Taco Bell, Bud Light, and Desperate Housewives project such military and political influence abroad when the soft, subtle triangulation of far more cultured diplomats and sophisticated intellectuals from France, Germany, and Scandinavia is ignored by thugs from Iran, North Korea, and most of the Middle East?
Why would the world listen to a stumbling George Bush when it could be mesmerized by a poet, biographer, aristocrat, and metrosexual of the caliber of a Monsieur Dominique de Villepin? Why praise brave Iraqis lining up to vote, while at the same hour the defeated John Kerry somberly intones on Tim Russert's show that he really did go into Cambodia to supply arms to the mass-murdering Khmer Rouge — a statement that either cannot be true or is almost an admission of being a party to crimes against humanity if it is.
Second, political powerlessness follows from ideological exhaustion. Communism and Marxism are dead. Stalin and Mao killed over 80 million and did not make omelets despite the broken eggs. Castro and North Korea are not classless utopias but thugocracies run by megalomaniac dictators who the world prays will die any minute. The global Left knows that the Cold War is over and was lost by the Left, and that Eastern Europeans and Central Americans probably cherish the memory of a Ronald Reagan far more than that of a Francois Mitterrand or Willy Brandt.
But it is still more disheartening than that. In the 1960s and 1970s we were told that free-market America was becoming an anachronism. Remember Japan, Inc., whose amalgam of "Asian Values" and Western capitalism presaged the decline of the United States? Europeanists still assured us that a 35-hour work week, cradle-to-grave entitlement, and secularism were to be the only workable Western paradigms — before high unemployment, low growth, stagnant worker productivity, unassimilated minorities, declining birthrates, and disarmament suggested that just maybe something is going very wrong in a continent that is not so eager for either God or children.
Perhaps the result of this frustration is that European intellectuals damn the United States for action in Iraq, but lament that they could do nothing in the Balkans. Democrats at home talk of the need for idealism abroad, but fear the dirty road of war that sometimes is part of that bargain — thus the retreat into "democracy is good, BUT..." So here we have the global throng that focuses on one purported American crime to the next, as it simmers in the luxury of its privilege, education, and sophistication — and exhibits little power, new ideas, intellectual seriousness, or relevance.
In this context, the Iraqi elections were surely poorly attended, or illegitimate, or ruined by violence, or irrelevant, or staged by America — or almost anything other than a result of a brave, very risky, and costly effort by the United States military to destroy a fascist regime and offer something better in its place.
Yet as Yeehah! Howard Dean takes over the Democratic party, as Kojo Annan's dad limps to the end of his tenure, and as a Saddam-trading Jacques Chirac talks grandly of global airfare taxes to help the poor, they should all ask themselves whether a weary public is listening any longer to the hyped and canned stories of their own courage and brilliance.
You know, there's a question that I've never seen asked by anyone regarding "the cost" of privatization...
We keep hearing over and over again about the "social security surplus," as well as hearing how privatization will cause the social security system to have to borrow money to pay for the loss of revenue...
My question is, just how much is that "cost" in relation to the "surplus" that social security is generating. Why can't the "surplus" be used to at least partially pay for the privatization?
Of course, I think that we really know the answer. The "surplus" is nothing more than a an accounting trick, and the money is spent as soon as it hits the treasury. The "surplus" is nothing more than "free money" for the pols to spend in order to buy votes. Privatization will take those $$$ out of the hands of the pols, and that means a loss of power.
Mark
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.