A simple reason why Bush's SS plan is stupid

[Kidlicious]

That spells higher taxes. It's probably the support from conservatives that you have to worry about with that. I also think it would be tough on the economy in fact. I think it's best to leave it alone for now.

[Mr. Harley]

It's what I keep saying again and again (agreeing with Oerdin and Kidicious). People don't want to pay for the government they claim to want. All of Bush's proposals for "private accounts" are already met/can be met via the various IRA accounts.

So why hybridize Social Security? Because, and this has been part of the neoconservative movement's mantra since the beginning, Social Security Insurance is bad (they have put this in writing, it's not just IMHO). The entire "ownership iety" thing. However, making the transition is going to be damn expensive, versus simply just expensive. Now they don't want to give up all those tax cuts, and corporate welfare, etc. But that's different.

As I keep repeating, one of the major things that put Argentina into it's current crisis was doing exactly that - trying to privatize their social security with IOU's. Look at the rest of the US budget deficit, the current account (trade) deficit, rising oil prices, continued costs to keeping stability in Iraq and Afghanistan (which if we quit now will make things worse then if we were ever though, so we at this point are stuck), and don't think we cannot have a financial meltdown in the US.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by pchang
$2 trillion to fix the problem once and for all or $1 trillion to limp along and pass the problem on to the next generation.

I don't care what happens in 95 years. Unless they've cured old age by then, I'll be 133, and presumably dead. If they have cured old age, well then there won't be any such thing as retirement.

[Kidlicious]

We don't really know if this is a one time problem or not. Maybe in the future each generation is about the same size.

[chequita guevara]

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.

Oh yeah, they sure did work in Chile, Argentina, and Britain.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kidicious
We don't really know if this is a one time problem or not. Maybe in the future each generation is about the same size.

Actually, after the baby boomers start dying off, the system is predicted to return to taking in more than it pays out. It's a one time crisis.

[Kidlicious]

True

[Mr. Harley]

I also have to laugh at all these projections. If we don't get lucky and avoid an avian bird flu pandemic in the next five years (some new techs are coming on line, but very slowly and Bush is cutting Center for Disease Control funding again), all of these projections will be wrong. Flu kills the very young, very old, and immune compromised. Yes the Spanish Flu pandemic killed healthy adults, but it will decimate nursing home populations. The entire problem sovled in one fell swoop.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kidicious
That spells higher taxes. It's probably the support from conservatives that you have to worry about with that. I also think it would be tough on the economy in fact. I think it's best to leave it alone for now.

I suspect conservatives would support higher taxes on themselves if a significant portion of the new taxes went into private accounts that would go to their heirs.

[Ted Striker]

Hey Ned what do you think about Britney's boobs?

[Drake Tungsten]

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

That's Bush's plan?

[Mr. Harley]

Drake - Ned, here's an honest question. Remember, Social Security was implemented in part to deal with the appalling poverty of the elderly in this country, which at the time was running 80% (yes, there was a Great Depression at the time).

They did a survey of the under 30 crowd. I'm doing this from memory, but I believe it was 70% of them expected the government to help if they got into trouble with their accounts. How much poverty, how much pain are you willing to see the elderly sustain under this new system of yours/Bush?

Also, and here is the crux. How much poverty are Americans as a group willing to tolerate before they tell the government to intervene? The reason I ask this is, unless you truly believe American are ready for a compassionless Libertarian system, and willing to live with a possibility of Dickensonian (as in Charles Dickens) results - at a time when faith-based soup kitchens, etc. could not handle the load - your system could become really expensive, i.e. Bush's 2 trillion debt plus the cost of programs to handle the new elderly poor, coming full circle.

I know that the elderly in the US are now better off than young families under the age of 30. That's another topic. I am specifically talking about the consequences of the proposed private accounts, coupled with America so far not being willing to tolerate people starving in the streets.

[Kidlicious]

Britney IS a boob.

[Ted Striker]

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

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

That's Bush's plan?

YAAY for homeless old people