FOOLS!!! I'm sick of whining, union bashing don't need SS out of my check.

[Oracle]

(Please forgive my grammar...I'm just ranting and pissed-off at finger pointing...divide and conquer mentality.)

The Democrats (New Deal, the great Franklin D Roosevelt) made sure many years ago...that there would be security measures taken for people who lost their jobs, that were left with very little after a life time of working, children not having to endure slave labor, because management sure as hell didn’t give a fuck!

Democrat’s have almost always tried to make sure Social Security (SS) was adequately funded…as we saw just recently under Bill Clinton…leaving trillions of dollars in surplus.

SS is the whipping boy for people who don’t really give a fuck about others. Management will take care of me, they love me, because I work hard…HAHAHA! not as hard as cheap labor and no taxes overseas…HAHAHA!

How much is really taken out of ones check…oh boo hoo…you’ll never need SS will you? You, who plan for the future so brightly…fuck everyone else.

As we heard so often on Limbaugh and Fox…management will take care of you...RIGHT…cutting jobs, no sick pay, very little vacation pay, measly benefits…they can fire you for no reason, even if someone comes along more cheaply…they take jobs overseas, (well the labors cheaper... yes, management will take care of you…as you spit at UNION workers and curse them as being lazy…(no it’s protection, strength in numbers against the rich…who hate to have pay the workers.. pisses them off… because management will take care of you.

Then you find yourself squeezed out of a job…gone to India or China and now the corporations doesn’t even have to pay taxes…off shore account and still waving the flag…to exploit…we are just more workers to them…who charge too much…their phony patriotism is for show…so you’ll accept LESS! yes management will take care of us…we don’t need no stinkin UNIONS!

As REPUBLICANS complain so loudly about these programs…have no problems raiding the fund and giving these huge tax breaks to themselves, that use all the surplus…

And the Republicans have the gall, the fucking gall to say they are for smaller government…the Republicans put the funds so deeply in dept because when they are done stealing from the funds and there’s no more money…they say to you Hey, I’m a republican, I’m for smaller government…

Always works and so many bones fall for it back and forth…I’ve only voted DEMOCRAT my whole life…but how many moderates do you know who go back and forth in their lifetime? They have no sense or knowledge of ideology of each party…just what they see on the tube.

Keep crying…boo hoo…I want less takin out of my check…oh boo hoo these same people who not long ago were fed…you don’t need UNIONS…management will take care of you!

And the DEMOCRAT…only the DEMOCRATS have fought for UNIONS, and Social Security (the fucking Repugs want to privatize SS, yes invest your future in Enron.) Unemployment Insurance, Minimum Wage (a lot of good that’s doing under this Repukes administration) child labor laws (fuck it, we’ll use kids in China) Medicare (happened of course only under a DEMOCRAT…Lyndon Johnson)

And keep pointing the finger at those with very little…and not us multibillionaires!

It’s Ideology fools!

[SoCalDem]

1. Amen... The greedy bastards can always fall back on their flags..

they can clothe themselves with it..

they can cover up with it while sleeping under a bridge

they can stand by an off ramp with it while they beg spare for change

they can wave it proudly as the "fearless leader who hates their guts", passes by in his motorcade..

:(

[sangh0]

2. No one ever went broke

overestimating the stupidity of the public

[meegbear]

3. Say how they're gonna create jobs ...

then hire a telemarketing firm IN INDIA to make their calls.

Made with Pride in the USA my aunt Fannie.

[Droopy]

4. Good rant

I was wondering what was happening to the GD forum. Limbaugh and Hannity appear to be posting here.

[recidivist]

5. What in the blazes are you talking about?

NO ONE proposes to eliminate the federal safety net for retirees. The issue that, slowly but surely, has been coming to the fore in recent years is whether we should shift from intergenerational transfer payments to a fully funded system.

Those of us who favor a fully funded system believe that retirees would receive significantly HIGHER benefits, have significantly more flexibility about WHEN to retire, and accumulate significant nest eggs that can be passed on to their heirs.

These are important advantages. They are recognized by most people under 40, about 80% of whom would opt into an investment based system tomorrow if they could.

These advantages are also recognized by many other nations, an increasing number of whom, including (socialist) England, (socialist) Australia, and (socialist) Sweden, are now going this route. As an aside, any country that gets a generation ahead on this -- i.e., that gets over the transition funding hump -- is going to have a massive competitive advantage internationally. Just imagine a situation in which your basic income security system was a financial asset instead of a gaping fiscal black hole ....

So why do you fear reform? No one is going to be left out. Participation in an income security scheme would still be mandatory. There would still be a federal guaranteed minimum benefit. In the various proposals that have been raised recently in the USA, people who fear the change could stay in traditional Social Security if they wished -- although the assumption on all sides has been that everyone who is (1) under 40 and (2) brighter than a cabbage will switch.

Yes, this has traditionally been a minority position in the Democratic Party. In recent years, however, Democrats like Pat Moynihan and Bob Kerry have been leading proponents of reform. Joe Lieberman was also for it before he apostatized to get right with Gore. I think Democrats are making a profound strategic mistake to concede this issue to the Republicans.

This reform needs to happen, and it sooner or later it will. We need to be on the leading edge of reform, or we will be left in the dust by the overwhelming majority of younger voters who, perfectly correctly, want this reform. Had the late stock market bubble not popped so spectacularly, this would be the top issue for 2004. It ain't going away.

Near as I can tell, the opposition around here to S.S. reform is pure party-lining intransigence. My prediction is that within the decade, a serious Democratic presidential contender will endorse investment options in Social Security, and most folks here will be claiming they were in favor of it all along.:)

[retread]

6. "So why do you fear reform?" Maybe because reform has become

a euphemism for elimination?

[recidivist]

9. This is positively Orwellian.

I am arguing for full funding of Social Security, which in turn allows for several other good things to happen, significantly higher benefits to retirees being at the top of the list.

You cavalierly ignore the fact that the existing S.S. system is now underfunded by roughly 30% and faces massive benefit cuts, tax increases, or both in the near future -- this in a system in which anyone making the median income or better is already losing money.

And rather than deal with realities, you blandly assert that full funding is tantamount to elimination.

Are we speaking the same language? There is a train wreck coming, I propose a way to avoid it on a win-win basis, and you call this a euphemism for elimination. I am driven to conclude that your opposition to reform has an other-than-rational basis.

[haymaker]

16. Sounds like Wall Street lingo for

prop up my portfolio until I take profits. I do NOT believe your figures for the 80% under 40 either.

Most people who have a 401K don't know shit about it, put their money in it and let it ride, much to their demise. Many of those company plans aren't "managed" by folks who don't necessarily want your money going anywhere BUT the stock market. I was involved in one just like that. Well connected investors and wisely managed wealth will take profits and leave their sorry asses dangling in the wind on a regular basis. Please don't try to hand me that "if you leave your money in for the long term" bullshit, because a post WW2 model isn't all that long of a period of time to suggest it is FACT. Especially since before WW2 was the DEPRESSION.

This "fully funded" Bushspeak is nothing more than that, bullshit. The reason that SS isn't fully funded now is because of defecit spending, and it is so far out of control it is probably too late. That alone will have have a huge adverse effects on economies and markets.

Your trust in the market and those that manipulate it is where your idea falters. The market is already OVERVALUED. What do you think will happen with an influx of what was once SS money?

The answer is simple, pay back SS what is owed to it and never raid it again. Then maybe let the whole pie be managed ala Calpers or other large retirement funds, DIVERSIFIED into ALL different types of investments, real estate included. If the money hadn't been taken from it, SS would be solvent today. Right now as we speak, SS runs a surplus.

There are no guarantees in life, especially in the market. The social security of the citizens of the United States should be in the hands of the government and protected by LAW, not gambled with by inexperienced individuals and theiving, money grabbing Wall Streeters.

Blindly trust the market, I dare you.

[recidivist]

18. You miss the point.

It is clear that you fear and distrust the stock market. Fine. That's your prerogative. Nothing about full funding of S.S. says you have to put a plug nickel into the stock market. Put it into a CD at the bank. Or put it into government bonds. You'll still do better than S.S., and have something to leave to your heirs.

You also labor under the misimpression that S.S. would be solvent if the monies borrowed from it were repaid. This is not true.

The monies borrowed from S.S. are still counted in the mythical S.S. Trust Fund. Since the S.S. System is still currently running annual surpluses, this balance is still growing.

Unfortunately, the S.S. System will begin running annual deficits something around 2016 (the exact year floats a bit depending on this week's economic projections). At this point, the Trust Fund will come into play.

Since there is no actual money in the Trust Fund, however, this means we must either repay from general revenues or borrow to cover the Trust Fund's obligations. Either way, S.S. will essentially switch to general revenue financing at that point, but one can continue running the numbers against the hypothetical Trust Fund as an exercise in self-deception if you wish.

Even the hypothetical Trust Fund itself will be exhausted somewhere around 2034. S.S. will that point be running an annual structural deficit of several hundred billion a year.

The situation does not self-correct even if every penny ever borrowed from S.S. is repaid.

[Ernesto]

25. I'm with you, Haymaker

"Social security won't be there when you retire" is the holy grail of the repukes. Say it enough times, it must be true, right? NOT! I just retired (UNION defined contribution plan: no 401k!). Hooked up with the AARP & was impressed. Seems to me that this army of gray warriors has little to do, but watch-dog the government and to VOTE...... The baby boomers are coming so the retired ranks will soon swell. This is going to be a VERY powerfull political force. Does it make any sense for this group to shoot itself in the foot? NO. Social Security is going to be even more popular in the near future.

[retread]

19. Those in power who propose to "reform" social security have

a track record of opposing the entire concept of social security. If it is "Orwellian" to be suspicious of motives and intent, so-be-it.

I remember another "reform" from the same crowd. If you believe the current crowd in control of the three branches of government have the best interests of working people in mind and trust them to reform ANY social program, I'm not the only one who can claim an "other-than-rational-basis." This is a subject for a Democratic congress and a liberal/progressive president.

[yankeedem]

17. You know what it is about people under 40?

None of us depend on Social Security to pay for our cat food. They'll be crying a different tune if they get to 65 and their "investments" crater with bad choices and fraudulent brokers and corporations. Too late then though isn't it?

Social security as it is has never missed a payment and properly funded, it never will. Why "reform" what isn't broken? Remember, alliances with cheap labor conservatives are dangerous. Take a look at how they have "reformed" the power grid.

[Clete]

20. You believe that privatizing retirement will be better.

Fine do it, but also have SS which is proven to work. Nothing is stopping you from saving money and putting it into a future nest egg. If you are a property owner, this has been the way most people fund their retirement. You "believe" is not good enough. There is no proof, no facts, no studies except maybe Argentina that this is the only way to fund retirement. Look up what laissez-faire economies do for their citizens in the long run. Privatization is a scheme that transfers public funds into private pockets with little trickled out elsewhere.

[donco6]

7. We have a fully funded program here in CO

Called PERA - Public Employees Retirement Association. We contribute 8% of salary and the employee contributes a varying amount (currently 10.4%)

Our benefit at retirement is very good. After 30 years at age 50 (known as the "rule of 80" - 30 plus 50), you get 75% of your highest average salary each month, plus annual COL raises set at 3.5%

You can keep Social Security if you want, but our program works much better, doesn't cost any more than SS, is governed by officers elected from our own employee groups, and pays us what we put in.

[chiburb]

8. That sounds great, but...

Tell me how many people can expect to stay at the the same place of employment for THIRTY YEARS ?!?
It seems to me that those most in danger of losing their jobs are the ones closest to the magic age of retirement.

[BiggJawn]

11. It's easy when you're a Public Employee...

I have almost 11 years in, 6 at this gig and 5 at my previous gig working for a municipality.

Unless you're in a politcal patronage job, you can usually stay as long as you like. And as long as you can "work smart" and keep the Wolf of Privatization away from the door, so let's not hear any shit about "Lazy Gubbmint Workers".

[donco6]

23. It's available to any state workers.

Police, fire, teachers, highway patrol, judicial staff, all state agencies, - so it's pretty easy to stay in even if you transfer to another division.

You can use your accrued social security years to "buy" years in PERA at 17% of your current salary. So, for example, I have 9 years earned under SS, and I could buy those years in PERA, thus "catching up" on my rule of 80.

I also pay into Medicaid at 1.2% of my salary. But we don't pay into FICA at all.

I realize some feel that's unfair. Yet, why would you want to destroy our working program with good benefits in favor of a program that seems destined for bankruptcy (at least, with Repubs in charge)? I would think a better approach would be to improve everyone's program.

[Yupster]

10. I wish everyone can have a program like that

most of us are stuck in social security, having to carry an extra heavy burden for the ones who got out.

[BiggJawn]

12. Yo, Bro...

What's this "burden" crap? Somebody sell you that LIE about how government employees don't pay into Social Security?
Your "burden" is no heavier than mine. I'm in PERF (Public Employee's Retirement Fund). I also pay FICA taxes, too.
So none of that "I'm carrying those gubbmint workers who don't pay into SS" whine. That's Rush-Speak.

[Yupster]

30. Teachers around me aren't in social security

Glad you are because we need the help. It should be a universal program for all workers.

[Yupster]

28. Donco - your system works better for

some of the same reasons that private schools work better. They don't take any special ed, or otherwise expensive or hard to educate kids. They skim the cream of the students into their schools,leaving the public schools with fewer top students to lead them.

In the same way, your system doesn't help contribute for people who need social security checks because of disability. Your system doesn't help share the burden for kids whose parents died.

Your system doesn't help share the burden of sending retirement checks to people who never contributed, or who contributed almost nothing. In short, your system left those "expensive to the system people" behind as a burden you don't want to share with the rest of us.

I'm a stockbroker, and if we stockbrokers were able to pull out and create our own system, we'd be kick ass too. Our average earnings must be one of the tops of all professions.

But if we pulled out of social security, it would increase the burden on those left behind in social security massively, as a smaller group of people would have to pull the wagon for many people who can't help, or cannot help much.

Yes, if we pulled out, it would harm the system, and those left in it, just as it harms the public schools when the best kids (like mine) are skimmed off into private schools, and just like it damaged social security when many government workers and teachers were allowed to pull out.

Interestingly, none of them seem to ever say anything that makes it seem like they care, other than "Look how good we have it. Too bad for the rest of you left behind pulling the wagon."

Note -- I don't mean this as a personal criticism, just a criticism of a system that allows certain priviledged employees to not participate in a program that we are all supposed to be sharing the burden of.

[Robbien]

13. And what some people are missing

is that the rules for pension funding are being changed, in the corporation's favor. If these rules are laxed, corporations will raid the pension funds, bankrupting them. With the privatization of SS and pension funding changes, the only thing middle america will have in their golden years is their 401K.

[zoidberg]

14. Screw Social Security

I want a safety net for those in poverty as much as you. Talking about eldery dying under bridges is a red herring because nobody is suggesting we get rid of programs for those in poverty.

But I don't want a system that takes over 15% of my salary (including employer matching) and gives it to somebody who doesn't need it. Oh, but you will say, you will get that money back when you retire. It's part of an intergenerational contract and the circle of life and all that other feel good crap. Nobody ever got rich or got a comfortable retirement from Social Security. Plenty of people have worked regular jobs and gotten modestly wealthy from private savings and investment. Why is it that we want to deny the greatest vehicle of wealth creation to those who need it the most - the working class? So what if this isn't a Democrat idea? It's a good idea and if people would get rid of their mindset that government is the solution to everything and look at the proposals with open eyes, then maybe they will change their minds. There are plenty of valid objections to full funding or means testing. But you present none of them.

[Clete]

21. Well, zoidberg, I would be more willing to accept your ideas, if

you would post where you get these ideas from. I mean like post some websites, think tank addresses, books to read. You just can't come in and drop a bomb on top of a bunch of liberals, many who are retired, without backing up your facts, if you have any.

As far as 15% of your salary, well boo hoo. I am sure you don't mind the fact that your grandmother is probably getting it back, which will leave more money for your inheritance, since she won't have to go broke with that final illness that everyone gets.

[jafap]

22. try "the screwing of the average man" by Hapgood

written in the seventies or eighties when the SS tax was much lower.

[bleedingheart]

26. It is a safety net for most americans because most americans

are really crappy financial planners...its all "live for the moment" .."Go do it"..."Buy it now...pay later"...

While my husband and I are putting more than 10% of our income into 401k investments and the like most people do not.

One of my coworkers didn't even have a savings account until he hit 32. Now that is sad for a person making more than 40k a year..however that is my opinion ...at least a few hundred if not thousand would make sense..but nothing..??

The reason why you see more wealthy elderly people on social security now are because they were SAVERS... but my generation (35 or so)...are not...the are SPENDERS! They spend everything including their parent's money in some cases...

[recidivist]

29. Let's get on the same page here.

The term "privatization" has created a lot of confusion. It is really a misnomer. Switching to a fully funded S.S. system, with a range of private investment options, doesn't mean the whole system would become voluntary. Participation is most certainly NOT voluntary.

All the switch means is that people could choose to direct their S.S. taxes (the portion that funds pension benefits, not the survivors and disability components) into an investment vehicle of their own choosing. This could be a CD at the bank, government bonds, a variety of stock plans, etc. These accounts would be regulated to ensure that they were suitably diversified, and the federal government would still guarantee a minimum benefit, just as it does now.

Most "privatization" plans also would allow people to remain in the existing S.S. system if they so choose. The switch would be voluntary. Proponents offer this with a high degree of confidence that virtually everyone under 40 would switch, and I think that is correct.

You are ahead of most others your age by participating heavily in your 401k, and good for you. Moving to a fully funded S.S. system would, in effect, create a forced savings program for your peers. This would be a very good thing over the long haul.

[Yupster]

31. You could even add an idea

that many 529 Plans currently have that as you get older the investment mix of your accounts gets more conservative. For example, on your 50th birthday, 65 % of your account value automatically is transferred to a cd account, although it would really be a more gradual transfer with the percentages automatically changing year to year.

You can be against the idea or for it, but the rhetoric about "how would you like to give Enron your retirement money," is dishonest and frightening. Many 401 (k)'s don't allow investments in individual stocks. No 403 (b) allows it. The idea that the government designed program to replace social security would allow individual stock purchases is pretty far-fetched to me. I would guess there would be a CD option, a fixed account insurance company option, a government bond option, and a group of approved mutual funds as options.

Debate the idea if you want, but these politicians who scare people with Enron losing their social security stories are pretty discraceful, especially if they're talking to seniors.

[recidivist]

32. Realities vs. fantasies.

I agree with your post completely. A touchstone of the democratic faith is that truth will eventually win out in a fair exchange of ideas and, at least on this issue, I think it will. But the political costs along the way may be very high.

With the economic case clear ... with overwhelming majorities of younger voters and educated voters in support of Social Security investment options ... with much of the rest of the world moving ahead of us on this ... the Democratic Party needs to get right on this issue, and fast.

Talleyrand's famous quip -- "it was worse than a crime, it was a blunder" comes to mind.

Continuing to tell 80 year olds that they would have to become stock pickers, or telling soccer moms that they'll have to risk everything on the next Enron, or pretending that full funding somehow undermines the system (!!!) is not just untrue, it is electoral poison.

A Democrat who is willing to lead on this issue would be more than halfway home to winning the White House. In fact, I cannot think of a single greater wedge issue to use against the Republicans; it would split them right apart (and have added benefit of being good policy to boot). I used to think that Pat Moynihan or Bob Kerry would muster the nerve to get out front. They didn't. One of the great careers of this generation is there for the taking for any national Democrat with the courage to lead.

But meanwhile, we remain mired in an endless intra-party discussion with people who obviously can't be bothered to understand the basic mechanics of what is being suggested. Ah well, no one said it would be easy ....

[billfromwny]

15. But, but, but

You just don't get it....all major corporations just love their employess, and will take care of them even without SS. And there is always the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, and Santa Claus to take care of you in case your corporation doesn't!

[cap]

24. oh trust in the market...

wait patiently for it...
and it will give thee thy heart's desire...

oh trust in the market
wait patiently for it...

yeah right...

People forget that sound investment advise is that you plan your retirement as a 3 legged stool: one portion guaranteed -- Social Security -- no matter what happens at least you have that. one portion savings and one portion a pension.

You won't do as well as a few -- very few -- who turn $1 into $100 million. But you won't starve, you won't have to live with your kids and you will have something left to give them. You'll have your house paid off (100-300K for a middle class person in a major metropolitan area) and probably 100K in the bank when you die -- assuming no major longlasting illness. So 200K moderately low risk investment to give your kids not bad.

Remember most people don't beat the market.

[onecitizen]

27. Shwooooooo, I feel better now..........

I've been wanting to say that forever!!! Thanx for doing it for me!!

You know it is so sad that the ones who support this administration the most are the ones they are screwing the most and the poor things cannot see it!! The poor, poor pitiful things.

I have my doubts about the Dems too. But right now they are the less of two evils unfortunately. Therefore I will continue to support them. Whoever gets the nomination, I will support.