Social Security yet again!

[Pekka]

Hmhh.. you guys know I'm not a big fan of socialsim and all that it comes with. HOWEVER, what ever the gov in here privatizes ends up in ****ters in record times. Everything. Has there been a single privatizing operation yet?

The problem wasn't that they privatized them per se, but that it's never simple once you do it. The problem is that they had too much crap in the first place so now they have to privatize things and they go to crappers hand in hand. My solution to this? I have no solution.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap
If this is what needs to be done- fiscally far more responsible than borrowing several Trillion dollars for a scheme that will be worse than what we have today.

If that is what needs to be done? How would you deal with the fact that baby boomers are due to balloon the cost of the program and less workers will be paying into it. Please spare me the rosey scenario crap Krugman is spewing if at all possible.

[Ming]

Originally posted by GePap
All privitization schemes I have seen limit the choice of money managers

Hmmm... with SS, there is no choice at all.

make it impossible for workers to use "their money" before they retire

Hmmm... sounds like the current system.

and might even make it impossible to take it all out at once

Still a better chance then the current system, where there is no way to get more than small monthly checks.

- YUP, that sure is giving me control over MY money.

Interesting that you should think that it doesn't, considering you have NO control over ANYTHING in the current system.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
If that is what needs to be done? How would you deal with the fact that baby boomers are due to balloon the cost of the program and less workers will be paying into it. Please spare me the rosey scenario crap Krugman is spewing if at all possible.

What are you talking about?

For about the last 20 years SS has been taking in more money than it doles out- and it will continue to do so for at least two more decades. When the Baby Boomers retire, they will be living off their own money. Then, it will not be until 2040 or so that the trust fund runs out. Only at that point, in 36 years, when most baby boomers will be in their late 70's or 80's, will SS start to use money form the general funds- and even then, given the dedicated taxfor it, the outlays will not be "budget busting".


And who says this? The CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE.

But given you were still imagining a rosy Chile based on decade old studies, who the hell knows where you get your idea of future SS budget obligations.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ming

Hmmm... with SS, there is no choice at all.

Hmmm... sounds like the current system.

Still a better chance then the current system, where there is no way to get more than small monthly checks.

Interesting that you should think that it doesn't, considering you have NO control over ANYTHING in the current system.

I don;t give a **** about having "control", the question is having enough to live on when old.

The current system can be "fixed" (its not broken) with simple, if unpopular, steps. I don't see how adding trillions in debt as a "fix" makes sense.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap


Note, of course, that this paper is less than a year old.

Lyndon Larouche



Maybe we can get him to debate the Newsmax editor.

Ohh the hilarity!!!

[PLATO]

I was of the opinion that SS would be facing insolvency. Privitazation is obviously preferable to that.

I read somewhere the other day that the deficit will only be $1.7 trillion over 30 years. This works out to about $56.7 billion a year. As of 2003 estimates there were 111,278,000 households in the US producing $4,827,350,918,000 in income. To keep SS from facing a deficit would require an average of an additional $509 per year per household going into the system. This would mean an additional tax on income of .106%. That, I think we can stand.

[Boris Godunov]

Erm, LaRouche didn't write that, Ogie, the website is just reprinting it from another source.

[Sava]

I oppose "privatization" only because the main advocates for it are Wall Street hooligans and free-marketeers. If the greediest, dirtiest, most corrupt people in our society want something, it probably isn't good.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Erm, LaRouche didn't write that, Ogie, the website is just reprinting it from another source.

Ehhem, hence my reference to Newsmax who likewise selectively chooses articles of suspicious/dubious authenticity.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe




Lyndon Larouche



Maybe we can get him to debate the Newsmax editor.

Ohh the hilarity!!!

[*] The author is a member of the board of CENDA, and External Research Coordinator (on social policy matters) for the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD).
e-mail: mriesco@cep.cl

E-mail the author if you have a problem.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Ehhem, hence my reference to Newsmax who likewise selectively chooses articles of suspicious/dubious authenticity.

Do you have any proof that the article cited is of dubious authenticity? Or any proof that EIR is engaged in similar tactics to Newsmax?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

What, I seem to have heard those same commments from every person who ever posted a Newsmax, Townhall, or conservative blog site.

Good for the liberal goose good for the conservative gander and all that jazz.

[GePap]

Originally posted by PLATO
I was of the opinion that SS would be facing insolvency. Privitazation is obviously preferable to that.

I read somewhere the other day that the deficit will only be $1.7 trillion over 30 years. This works out to about $56.7 billion a year. As of 2003 estimates there were 111,278,000 households in the US producing $4,827,350,918,000 in income. To keep SS from facing a deficit would require an average of an additional $509 per year per household going into the system. This would mean an additional tax on income of .106%. That, I think we can stand.

What deficit?

Social Security is running a surplus, and has built a massive trust fund. The problem is of course that the congress (both dem and republican) broke their pledge and began buying US bonds with that money to finance their pet projects- thought unless we imagine the US is about to negate its bond obligations willy nilly, that money is still there. Social Security itself is in no fiscal danger for decades. This does not change the fiscal chacenery up in Capitol Hill.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
What, I seem to have heard those same commments from every person who ever posted a Newsmax, Townhall, or conservative blog site.

Good for the liberal goose good for the conservative gander and all that jazz.

My bet, you did not even read the paper, which explains your pretty silly comments afterwards.

Oh, and bloggs? Yes, I do object to bloggs, because they are personal opinions News max reports (those writen by Newsmax) are laughable. And I am sure something writen by LaRouche would also be absurd.

This was writen by academics, as part of an academic discussion. That is different.

Its sort of sad to see, beyond your inability to read, that you would denigrate serious pieces with so much flippancy.