Ideas/Counter Arguments/ Debunks against * SS private accounts?

[Up2Late]

I'd like to start an ideas list of that are Counter Arguments and that Debunk * stupid SS Spin.

Feel free to list anything that fits this idea, but try to keep them short and concise. Also, try not to repeat what is posted before yours.

Now remember, the target Repukes, have a very poor grip of reality, and they tend to be selfish, "me first" and paranoid that the poor and the Brown people are out to get them, so these idea DO NOT have to be logical, just something that a selfish, paranoid, person MIGHT think is something to worry about.

This is one I heard back when *'s bill to "Repeal" the "death Tax" was being debated:

The Spin: The Inheritance Tax will decrease from now until 2012, at which point, it will have been completely fazed out.

The Reality: The year after that, it will revert to the FULL Tax amount

The Paranoid Reality: Will this give family the motivation to bump off Grandma before the Tax reverts in 2013?

Here one I just thought of:

The Spin: You can pass on the money in the SS accounts to your kids.

The Paranoid Reality: What if you anger your family, by your selfish behavior, might they want to speed up your death, withhold medical treatment or cause you to have an "Accident" so as to have some money to pass on?

[papau]

1. DU's Social Security forum and DU's Seniors Forum have good data

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=305

[Up2Late]

2. That forum is a Ghost Town...

...looks like less that a dozen people ever go there. :boring:

I'm looking for creative "Counter Spin":crazy:

Stuff that might shake up the RWers.

[papau]

3. Solid facts are posted - but I agree few slogans or spin- that's more a FR

thing that a DU thing.

But the Dem party forum may find a few that want to discuss slogans.

[priller]

4. How about this--

Bush's plan (or is that his non-plan) would have people convert their private accounts to an annuity when they retire. What's wrong with that?

-- What if the stock market is down the year you retire? If this plan was already in place and you retired in 2001 or 2002, you would have been seriously screwed, because the Dow had lost around 40% of its value. You have no choice in the matter, you have to pull the money out at retirement age.

-- And with the annuity, from what I understand, if you die early in the annuity, the insurance or finance company you made the annuity with keeps the money. It doesn't get passed to your children like * says.

[Up2Late]

8. Not to mention people like me, in the 40-54 age range...

... people like me are going to get Totally Screwed by this scam:evilfrown:

[priller]

5. Here's another -- fees will eat you alive

In England and Chile, to give two examples, fees and management costs from the finance companies have eaten away significantly at most workers accounts.

You KNOW that will happen here also. Maybe not at first; maybe there will be protection against that written into the law. But you just know Wall Street will whine and whine about how expensive it is to manage all these accounts, and lobby and lobby to change the fee structure. And the GOP will be more than willing to do it. Then, like in Chile, they will push for ever more confusing and convoluted ways to charge the fees, so that many people will not realize how badly they're getting fleeced.

[Up2Late]

9. Isn't it amazing how * is pushing this scam, based on the mixed...

...results from England and Chile, that were set up by two very different types of Government, A Socialist Monarchy and one Genocidal Dictatorship.

I just hope that's not what we have to look forward to.:evilfrown:

[radfringe]

6. first off

private accounts, personal accounts -- whatever you want to call them -- it still ain't YOUR money

You have to "invest" in pre-approved plans -- guess who approves the plans?

You can pass the money on to your family -- yeah, some of it but only if you die BEFORE you retire -- die after you retire and guess who gets the money -- it ain't your family

If the pre-approved plans make money - you make money, if they lose money you lose money -- but those who are managing the plans still make money either way

and watch out for an amendment to pop-up -- back in 2000 when smirk-boy was stumping about this, there was an amendment being prepared. Sorry I don't have the link nor remember who the person was -- just that he was an outgoing legislator. Anyways - this amendment said that the GOVERNMENT could still grab money from "YOUR" account -- much in the same manner as they do now when they raid Social Security

[Up2Late]

7. Are you sure about the part where you said...

..."...die after you retire and guess who gets the money -- it ain't your family..."? That would be important to stress.

I'll do some research and see if I can find the amendment you're talking about to, Thanks for the input:hippie:

[radfringe]

10. can't pass along the annuity....

CNN Fact Check: Bush on Social Security
Friday, March 4, 2005 Posted: 7:02 PM EST (0002 GMT)
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/04/social.security.factcheck/

INHERITING FUNDS

Claim: "You can pass that money to whomever you want."

CNN Fact Check: That is only partially true. The president does not mention that only part of the money in a private retirement account can be passed on to others as an inheritance.

Under Bush's proposal, a portion of the funds in a private account may be set aside by the government and paid back to the retiree in the form of an annuity.

Any remaining funds in the private account, if any, can be spent by the retiree or passed on as an inheritance, but the annuity itself cannot be inherited. In a briefing February 2, a senior administration official said, "We specifically say that the money that is not annuitized can be left as an inheritance ... The annuity part would not come back, but the rest could be inherited."

=============

ABC news - Q&A on social security
http://abcnews.go.com/International/CSM/story?id=546001

Q: Could workers withdraw private account money before retirement?


A: No. Under the White House plan, participants would not be allowed preretirement access to their money - nor would they be permitted to make loans to themselves through the accounts, or borrow against them.

There would be at least one important restriction on how the money can be used after participants reach retirement, as well. According to the White House, individuals would not be permitted to withdraw money from their personal account if it would plunge them below the poverty line.

If a worker's payment from traditional Social Security was not by itself large enough to keep them out of poverty, the government would require them to use some portion of their personal account money to buy an annuity - an investment with a fixed monthly payout for life.

You can't pass most annuities along to your heirs, so to some extent this would reduce the amount of freedom that lower-income workers would have in terms of personal account distribution.

With this exception, retirees would be free to use the cash in their personal accounts as they saw fit. They could leave it alone, so it would continue to appreciate. They could withdraw it as a lump sum to meet some pressing need. Or they could pass it along to heirs as an inheritance.

===========

Four big lies about Social Security
B Y F A R N U M B R O W N
http://indyweek.com/durham/current/business.html

Lie No. 4: It's your money.

By referring to the Social Security taxes Americans pay as "your money," the president shrewdly casts Social Security as a kind of savings plan. You pay a certain amount in; you get a certain amount back at retirement. If this were the whole story, one might well ask rhetorically, as the president does, why the government should be handling "your money" that you've saved for retirement.

But Social Security wasn't devised as a savings plan. It was designed as an insurance plan to protect the elderly in our society from poverty. The Social Security taxes you pay are thus better thought of as insurance premiums than savings deposits.

And there's a big difference. Indeed, it's the absolute crux of the matter.

Insurance plans reduce the cost of any one person dealing with a potential misfortune--whether car wrecks or cancer--by sharing the risk and cost of that misfortune with others. To work, an insurance plan has to have members who'll turn out not to need it. Their premiums go to pay the claims made by others who do. This is how Social Security works. A poor person who lives long can draw more in benefits than he ever paid in Social Security taxes while a rich person who dies young doesn't get any benefits for the taxes he paid.

===================

Pension plan is some 'inheritance'
BY ANN WALKER
Mar 11, 2005
http://sun.yumasun.com/artman/publish/articles/story_15320.php

Oh, and about that whole inheritance thing — don't count on it too much. See, to make sure that retirees don't blow their private accounts at the casino on Day 1, the Bush plan would require average folks to buy an annuity before otherwise tapping into their personal accounts.

An annuity, kids, is a financial contract in which a company, in exchange for a lump sum today, promises to pay out a fixed amount monthly for life. The government would require that you buy one large enough that the payment, along with your reduced Social Security benefit, will keep you at the poverty line — and that's good livin’! — until you die.

The good part about this is that it protects you from outliving your private account.
The bad part is that when you die, the annuity ends — poof!

A good bet if you live many years after retiring, not so much if a bus hits you the day after you retire. Because all your heirs get then is what's left in your account after paying for the annuity — but none of the benefits.

[Up2Late]

12. Thanks

I'll keep that info handy:hippie:

[KoKo]

11. Here's CAP's list of Red Herrings about SS:

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klL...

SOCIAL SECURITY
Misinformation Mania

With White House privatization plans seemingly locked in a tailspin, conservatives are winding up their mighty howitzer of misinformation with one goal in mind: confusing Americans about the fundamental choices regarding retirement security. Some of their claims are so outlandish that a rebuttal seems unnecessary – take the new study blaming Social Security for hastening the decline of marriage, or President Bush's claim yesterday that private accounts would "provide a safety net for future retirees." Others have the potential to seriously mislead Americans about the president's plans. Below are five seriously specious claims to watch out for:

RED HERRING ALERT – THE "ADD-ON" MYTH: Last Friday, President Bush blurted "out something that sounded an awful lot like news" when he described his version of private accounts as "an add-on to that which the government is going to pay you." The truth: the "add-on" model of private accounts – creating an additional program completely apart from Social Security – is the polar opposite of the president's risky "carve-out" privatization scheme, which funds private accounts by raiding current Social Security payroll taxes. To see what a real add-on program looks like, see this report by American Progress fellow Gene Sperling.

RED HERRING ALERT – "BUT IT'S NOT PRIVATIZATION!": In his latest weekly e-mail, privatization pusher Rep. Allen Boyd (D-FL) claimed that "Many who oppose reforming the Social Security program have falsely claimed that personal accounts would lead to the privatization of Social Security." Sorry, but that line shouldn't fool anyone. "Personal" accounts carved out of Social Security are precisely what economists, analysts, and politicians – including President Bush – have always meant by privatization.

RED HERRING ALERT – CONSERVATIVE "COMPROMISE": Last week, two allies of President Bush offered up so-called "compromise" plans, attempting to corral pro-Social Security progressives who are actually interested in seriously addressing retirement security. A closer look reveals the plans are merely "Tangerine and Strawberry phase-out to be added to the plum version the president has already put on the table." Like the president's plan, both include massive, budget-busting transition costs, cuts to traditional Social Security benefits, and risky private accounts (One plan even raises the normal retirement age to 72 years old!).

RED HERRING ALERT – "ALL OPTIONS ARE ON THE TABLE": President Bush is firmly dedicated to pushing privatization. He continues to repeat the mantra that "all options are on the table," suggesting yesterday that he was the first president in history to take such an approach. The truth: The only option now on the table is the phase-out of Social Security through private accounts. Just this week, top White House economic adviser Allan Hubbard "rejected as 'absolutely a non-starter' bipartisan proposals that the administration put aside its drive" to create private accounts in favor of "add-on" versions.

RED HERRING ALERT – "IT'S ABOUT THE SOLVENCY": Hubbard also claimed on Monday that "President Bush's No. 1 goal is passing legislation that permanently solves the solvency problem." Looks like Hubbard spoke too soon. Earlier this week, Government Accountability Office chief David Walker testified before the House Ways and Means Committee that the president's private accounts "wouldn't shore up the system" and would actually "'exacerbate' the system's problems and accelerate the date for when it would start spending more on pension benefits than it receives in annual revenue."