A simple reason why Bush's SS plan is stupid

[Ted Striker]

We can create makeshift cities for old people!

We'll call them "Hoovervilles."

[Dinner]

That would be sweet. YAAY for conpassionate conservativism!

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Hey Ned what do you think about Britney's boobs?

Look good. But are they plastic?

I understand that she's great in the sack.

[Ned]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
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.

I would structure SS to provide a guarantee to all regardless of the private accounts. The private accounts would be there to potentially provide higher benefits by paying out the res at higher rate than otherwise, or instead be paid out slower to provide lower benefits but potentially leaving a larger res to one's heirs.

People who did poorly with their accounts would simply have less opportunity to raise their benefits or pass money on to heirs.

[Mr. Harley]

Ned - since Social Security already does that, i.e. provide a basic need, how is these changes going to save money? People receiving SSI do NOT get rich, and with defined benefit pensions already going the way of the Dodo, you now have all the nest eggs together, i.e. into IRA-style plans.

It's like welfare reform. It actually costs MORE for several years, as in working on a decade plus, at least if you are going to do it properly. So the Republicans changed it to block grants - which Clinton signed off on at first, and which Bush has pushed hard - and now that we have this deficit, guess what gets cut - block grants.

Since I've seen you as one of the anti-tax/Laffer curve proponents, and we've had some excellent discussions on how the Laffer curve is being hideously abused to justify the tax cuts - I repeat, how is this going to save money in the long run? Especially given the premise by other posters, reference the number of investment quality stocks out there. If we don't have a surfeit of them right now, this new plan will only produce a bubble.

Add in the last factor. Bush is pushing the easy fix, relaively speaking. The huge problem is health care, and the retiring Baby Boomers. Those programs go belly up in less than two decades. Plus companies cutting medical benefits for retirees, or just declaring bankruptcy and leaving taxpayers with the bill (yes I know supposedly retirement insurance is self-sufficient, but the deficits the program is running are HUGE). Talk about hard choices! It make SSI look easy to reform.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned


Look good. But are they plastic?

I understand that she's great in the sack.

I think they are balloons that you can inflate/deflate for different occasions or just to make people talk about your boobs.

[Mr. Harley]

She is a good example of someone who can be sexy and hot without being paticularly attractive.

[Ned]

Shawn, as I said, I think there should be a guarantee of a minimum benefit and potential for upside and a res that can be distributed to one's heirs. How we structure this is not that important to me.

[Ned]

And, Shawn, just to minimize risk, I would have the private accounts invested in equal portions in equity markets, real estate and bonds, with no discretion to the public. This should make management simple and not that expensive.

[Mr. Harley]

Ned - then how are we going to save money? Are are you arguing Social Engineering (which virtually all governments do to a greater or lesser extent) i.e. having a guananteed benifit, i.e. insurance, versus having ownership but not full consequences for your actions, i.e. limited investment choices or government intervention if you are not doing well - hmm, isn't that what the current Republicans are doing for corporations and corporate farmers?

[Odin]

Bush's plan doesn't do a damn thing about the actual problem, that starting about 10 years from now there will be more money going out of the trust fund than is comming in. Bush's plan just moves the money. You conservatives and neo-liberals are so brainwashed by BS swiss cheese economics it's not even funny.

[Ned]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Ned - then how are we going to save money? Are are you arguing Social Engineering (which virtually all governments do to a greater or lesser extent) i.e. having a guananteed benifit, i.e. insurance, versus having ownership but not full consequences for your actions, i.e. limited investment choices or government intervention if you are not doing well - hmm, isn't that what the current Republicans are doing for corporations and corporate farmers?

I suspect that guaranteed benefits could be lower than now so long as the actual expected benefits including the higher growth in the private accounts keeps average benefits to the current level. Also, I said that we could raise the income limit on SS taxes provided that a significant portion of the money garnered from incomes over 100k would go into the private accounts.

But, these are details. The private accounts allow SS money to be invested in higher return investments and allow people who do not fully exhaust their private accounts, such as blacks, to leave some money to their heirs.

As well, the investment of their money into the economy would incent people to pay attention to policies that harm the economy. Today, people seem to think that money grows on trees and that we can do extreme things in terms of taxation and regulation without hurting the US economy. That lack of attention would end. But this latter effect is the very thing I think Democrats fear the most.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Ned

As well, the investment of their money into the economy would incent people to pay attention to policies that harm the economy. Today, people seem to think that money grows on trees and that we can do extreme things in terms of taxation and regulation without hurting the US economy. That lack of attention would end. But this latter effect is the very thing I think Democrats fear the most.

OMFG! It's a big Democrat conspiracy!!!

[Ned]

Originally posted by Odin


OMFG! It's a big Democrat conspiracy!!!

If the shoe fits.

[Mr. Harley]

Ned - now you're being doctrinaire. Neither the Demorats nor the Republicans are the parties they were twenty years ago. The Republicans, with faked Laffer curves (Reagan's one dollar less in taxes will generate one more dollar in revenue via increased growth - no sane economist would ever claim that, and that is in writing!) or massive tax cuts with no plan to pay off the deficit, etc. are becoming the party of irresponsible fiscal policies. You can demonize the Democrats all you want, but they have not been in control of all three branches of governmet for a very long time.

So basically this is a case of social engineering. At least you are being honest about it. The problem is that the social engineering won't work as long as asymetric data and regulations are in effect - imperial CEO's and rules that prevent shareholders from unseating boards, rules that favor large businesses and the wealthy over smaller individuals (just look at the overhaul of bankrupcy laws - only the wealthy and corporations get to shield there assets significantly) Find me a Theodore Roosevelt who will champion the small investor and businessman, and maybe your social engineering will work. In the current atmosphere it will not.