A simple reason why Bush's SS plan is stupid

[Mr. Harley]

Lack of quality stocks is what I was referencing via commodity versus investment pricing. That produces the perfect recipe for a bubble. Right now we don't have enough quality stocks, looking at the price to earnings ratio and how it has been climbing again (until the petroleum price shocks of the last several months).

Oerdin, everything you discussed will help with health care, but there is also the problem, as one book put it, Private Choices - Public Consequences. We do not have accountability in the current system for bad personal choices, and let those who make those choices force up the price for everyone.

Look at Mickey Mantle and his liver transplant. The entire cost should have been borne by him, as his behavior caused him to need it. Plus he should have gone to the back of the list, behind all of those people needing the transplant due to factors beyond their control. There are many diseases, etc. with those characteristics. Add in that modern medicine is adding years onto our lifespans due to modern drugs and medical procedures. All of this costs money, and I still argue that US voters are spoiled brats, i.e. they want a first world health care system at bargain basement prices.

Make voters approve a tax on universal health care, with a list of procedures, etc. that will be covered at various levels. That way the voters need to make a decision, and we won't have either Republicans claiming let the private sector do it while poor children get ignored, nor will you have Democrats pushing for the benefit without paying for it - but hey, wasn't that the Repubs that did that with the new drug benefit?

[Provost Harrison]

Dammit, even Blair would be proud of a Heath-Robinson like that

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


[D]oing what Bush wants is more likely to engender a complete breakdown of the system than doing nothing, and do it sooner.

This truly is nonsense as private accounts throughtout the world and in the US, for that matter, are doing better than SS by itself. Saying this kind of thing when all the evidence is to the contrary is nothing more than propaganda.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Oerdin

If we want to encourage people to save more and invest more then there are other ways to do that. We don't need to phase out Social Security.

Phase out SS?

Such is hardly the Bush plan which entails taking only 4% and moving that into private accounts.

But, I will agree that it might represent a "first step" towards total privitization. But further progress in THAT direction will depend upon the success of the small initial step.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Dan what do you think of this idea? Currently the "Social Security Trust Fund", that amount of Social Security surplus which Congress hasn't raided (and they've raided a lot), legally must be used to buy government T-bills. What if the law was changed such that a portion of those funds could be invested by an independent investment company so that the "trust fund" could get a higher return on their existing savings. It seems that would accomplish much of what Bush wants with private accounts but would still avoid the phase out of Social security Bush is calling for.

You've said it is stupid to only invest in government bonds. I agree. So why not change the law so that Social Security is allowed to invest its funds in other assets so that they can get a better return.

I could support this.

However, I fail to understand why anyone would oppose letting people have an "ownership" interest in their accounts, or a portion thereof, so that if they don't use all of the "private" portion, that would go to their heirs.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Oerdin

Next drug companies have rigged to system to insure sky high drug prices. Every other 1st world country buys in bulk and demands bulk discounts on drugs. We don't plus it is currently illegal for medicare to comparision shop for cheaper drug prices on the open market. That's just obsurd and it is no wonder drug prices are soaring. If Walmart can comparision shop for lower prices and demand bulk discounts then the government should too.

Lastly we need patient reform. Currently drug companies can make a series of extremely minor changes (like changing dosage or binding agents) and thus continually claim to have created a new innovation deserving of yet another patient. This tact keeps drug free of compeition for 20-40 years instead of the 10-20 year intended by the law. The law needs to be changed so that any "innovations" must be substantion and ground breaking in nature or else the original patient experation date applies. Also we should allow third parties to apply for patients on different delivery methods (binding agents, buffers, etc) as this will force companies to rush out and register minor patients right away in order to keep the compeitors away instead of dragging it out for decades in hopes of prolonging hte competition free period.

These changes will still protect patient holders but it will also give consumers a fairer shack. It will result in everyone being covered but with per unit costs actualy going down and drug prices being halved almost over night. This has been adopted in Europe and the Industrialized parts of Asia and drug companies are still very profitable but they aren't obscenely, ungodly profitable like they are in the US where the system has been rigged against consumers.

Huh? The new patents don't cover the basic drug, just the new delivery system or whatever. They don't extend patent coverage, per se.

There has been patent reform that will lesson a form of abuse you did not discuss: delay in issuing patents. Until recently, patent term extended 17 years from issuance. Drug patents could be divided during prosecution a series of patent applications that might issues years apart, essentially extending the monopoly period for far longer than 17 years. The reform that took place was to make all patents expire 20 years from their filing dates. But this rule applied only to patent applications filed after a certain date. By now, most drug patent applications fall under the new rule.

There was another rule imposed by the out-of-control courts that Congress and even the president said he would address. This rule prevented generic drug companies from seeking FDA approval of their drugs until after the patent expired. Since the FDA approval can take a lot of time, this essentially added a court created patent term extension to drug patents.

[Ned]

It seems that Democrats, or at least some of them, would like to add private accounts on top of the current SS system.

Would anyone here favor THAT?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ned
It seems that Democrats, or at least some of them, would like to add private accounts on top of the current SS system.

Would anyone here favor THAT?

BTW, that would seem to be just a modified form of IRA.

[Mr. Harley]

Absolutely - as long as the AMT stays as is. However, unfunded partial dismantling of the system, i.e. private accounts sucking money out of the current system, I do not support. I also support eliminating the salary cap on Social Security.

However, and to make it clear, ownership of personal accounts has nothing to do with Social Security. That is a backdoor attempt to destroy credibility in the system. It is an insurance system, self-funded, and it has been from the start. What I would support is genuine, business level accounting by the US Government, a genuine balanced budget except when an Act of War has been declared, or when a recession as defined by the Federal Reserve has occurred? Yes, with a 2/3 supermajority subject to Pesidential veto necessary to override.

I said Ned makes good posts when you stay away from certain topics.

[Ned]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Absolutely - as long as the AMT stays as is. However, unfunded partial dismantling of the system, i.e. private accounts sucking money out of the current system, I do not support. I also support eliminating the salary cap on Social Security.

However, and to make it clear, ownership of personal accounts has nothing to do with Social Security. That is a backdoor attempt to destroy credibility in the system. It is an insurance system, self-funded, and it has been from the start. What I would support is genuine, business level accounting by the US Government, a genuine balanced budget except when an Act of War has been declared, or when a recession as defined by the Federal Reserve has occurred? Yes, with a 2/3 supermajority subject to Pesidential veto necessary to override.

I said Ned makes good posts when you stay away from certain topics.

Well, as far as I know, what Bush is proposing is what Democrats say they would accept, adding private accounts to the current system.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ned
This truly is nonsense as private accounts throughtout the world and in the US, for that matter, are doing better than SS by itself. Saying this kind of thing when all the evidence is to the contrary is nothing more than propaganda.

You're right Ned. The CBO, most major financial news magazines, and most major newspapers in America are nothing but Democratic mouth pieces!

Could it be that they seriously looked at Bush's planned phase out, and since his goal is to take all of the younger people out of the Social Security system so it is a phase out, and decided it is a terrible idea? The system is solvent for the next half century without any changes but to hear Bush's lies it will collapse any day now! I've already repeatedly gone over the minor changes the CBO says will extend the life of Social Security as far as we can project yet Bush continues to claim the whole system must be destroyed in order to save it. Filthy lies!

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ned
I could support this.

However, I fail to understand why anyone would oppose letting people have an "ownership" interest in their accounts, or a portion thereof, so that if they don't use all of the "private" portion, that would go to their heirs.

Social Security isn't an investment it is old age insurance. It's a monthly sublimental check given to seniors to prevent the 80% poverty rate seniors experienced before Social Security was introduced. Creating private accounts will bankruupt the Social Security Administration and lead to seniors losing the one thing they could alwys truly count on no matter what.

Also many people just don't earn that much and/or will make bad investment decisions leaving them with nothing. Sure, Bush says only five index funds will be allowed but already the financial services industry is lobbying for that list to be expanded so people will have "the freedom of choice" to choice high cost funds with fat profit margins for brokerages. If you read the article I quoted earlier the average return in such a case will only be a percentage pont or two higher but the risk to seniors will be much, much higher.

Our country saves to little so we do need to find a way to encourage people to save more but we can do that without phasing out Social Security. We should have some for of forced savings program but it should be unrelated to Social Security. A dedicated payroll tax or something.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Let's talk about the evolution of Britney Spears boobs.

First they got big. Now they are smaller again.

What gives???

You never dated a women and when she took her bra off you noticed that her boobs went quit as big as you remember them? It's called stuffing.

[Kidlicious]

I'm very much against excluding people from health care even if it's their own fault that they need it.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ned
It seems that Democrats, or at least some of them, would like to add private accounts on top of the current SS system.

Would anyone here favor THAT?

Private forced savings accounts which don't take resources away from the SSA would be welcomed. the big fear currently is that by redirecting funds away from SSA they will just further weaken the system. Most people would support allow SSA to invest its cash into more then just T-Bills and most people agree some vehicle should be created to force people to save more but not at the expense of Social Security.