IQ Test: Tsunami vs. Iraq

[UncleVinny]

Well spoken, TNR, and I respect your analysis.

Truth is the system is in trouble but not really 'broken."
They expect it will be solvent until around 2050. The hard truth is the president has only a few options. Cut benefits, raise payroll taxes, or obscure the issue. I think the privatizine is just obscuring the issue, and would be very costly.

The White House is now planning a major media campaign to try to convince the American public that we NEED to switch Social Security to private firms. A move that the AARP strongly opposes, but Wall Street loves.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39791-2004Dec31.html

I find it a little troubling that the president has to rely on advertising (propaganda?) and distortions to sell his radical ideas to the public. This is the same fellow who brought you weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, an Iraq-Al Queda connection, and a “Mission Accomplished” banner. All distortions, if not outright lies and deception.

Can we trust him to fix SS?

[TNRighty]

Correct. To keep SS afloat you can either cut benefits, raise taxes, or increase the retirement age, or some combination of all three. I think we all agree on that, so lets move on.

Where we differ is that I believe the cicumstances outlined above in no way characterize a system that works just fine and dandy.

Let me make an analogy. Lets say you have a bucket in your backyard that has a hole in it that keeps getting bigger, and you want to keep that bucket full of water. One option is to just set it under the water spout and continually increase the flow of the water to equal the rate of water leaking out the hole at the bottom. Option two is to just go get a new bucket. What would you do?

Now, I know that was a pretty simple comparison, but common sense doesn't have to be complicated. Social security works about as efficiently as that bucket with a hole in it.

And by the way, George Bush isn't the first president to recognize that social security is in serious trouble. He's just the first one who has ever decided to do anything about it.

[Rica]

Correct me if I'm wrong but in a privatizine system wouldn't the government just takes it's fair share out of the private accounts?

[TNRighty]

No.

Any money you elect to put into a private account (within the limits yet to be set) would be YOUR money and would be untouchable by the government.

The proposal doesn't change the amount of payroll tax you'd be assessed for social security, it just gives you the option to divert a portion of it into your own private account. The rest would go into the general social security fund and would be used the same way it always has been. The money you elect to put into a private account, i.e. stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc, would be yours. It would have your name on it, and you would control it 100%.

Its not a complete privatization of the system. We can't, and it would be wrong to completely privatize the system at this point. There are too many older Americans currently on and fast approaching social security. We can't leave them high and dry.

This is the first step in the phase-out of social security. Its undebatable that the private market gives you an exponentially better rate of return on your money than social security does, but you can't do it all at once. The logic and economics of it are elementary, but the complete solution will take some time. What will happen is that the amount of money you are allowed to put into a private account will gradually increase as the current social security system is gradually phased-out.

One day when we reach the goal of complete privatization, there will still probably be a payroll tax for retirement. There are too many people who don't think past tomorrow, and unless they're forced to put money into their retirement investments, they'll continue to live irresponsibly and most likely (with no small help from all too sympathetic politicians) send us into another government-run retirement system if left to their own whims. I'd like to see all retirement tax done away with all together, but at least this way we protect responsible people from those who make repeatedly poor decisions while still leaving everyone in control of their own money.

[UncleVinny]

We've gotten off subject.
The SS debate is covered elsewhere.

A memo came out this week written by KKKarl Rove and his deputy Weber , indicating that the transition to private accounts would cost "between $1 and $2 TRILLION" (with a T!).

Some analysits (Krugman, Jan. 12) see the actual cost as high as $15 TRILLION (again with a "T") That's no chump change, and it's WAY more than the cost of propping up the current system. The "cure" then is many times more costly than the disease. So, don't you smell a rat?

So answer me: Why is Am. Assn. of Retired Persons (AARP) so opposed to it?
(CLUE: because 58 million retired Americans are smarter than George)

-------------------------

Beginning to see something curious here.
There seems to be little dialogue but lots of preaching.
Makes one wonder what the purpose of it all is.
Someone who knows the truth and is completely content with it would find no strong motivation to try to convince people of his views, but would rather be content to instruct those who seek him or her out.
Those who shout the loudest, then, might just be those who are not that sure of their position, and so to make it real, have to rely on pointing out the ignorance of others. So the truly enlighten then would not even feel a need to post on a site like this. So maybe if one feels he knows better, he won't need to preach it, but would just wait for the truth to eventually dawn on the unenlightened.
So if one believes violence is the answer, then that person would need to go through the experience of seeing death and destruction, participating in war atrocities, and then the experience itself would be the preacher. Truth, you see, is much bigger than any lecture, and does not need to prove itself.
Does that mean I should just bow out? I wonder.
NOT!