Author Topic: Do you guys remember Bush's promise on Social Security?  (Read 1137 times)

Offline weaselsan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1147
Do you guys remember Bush's promise on Social Security?
« Reply #30 on: January 18, 2005, 06:58:09 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by KBall
Social Security began in its own protected private account. Then Congress in its greediness voted to move SS into the general account where they could legally spend SS money for other areas.


Actually KBall, this occured during the Lyndon Johnson Administration. He needed large amounts of Capitol for his Great Society and War on Poverty. (Welfare) And at the same time funding the war in Vietnam. He would have run up huge deficits. So they simply moved the SS funds into the General funds, raided
it to their hearts content replaceing the funds with I.O.U's. It has continued to the present day. They are now stuck with millions of baby boomers ready to retire in the near future on a watermelon load of Government I.O.U's. It will be pay as you go until the burden becomes to great on those left to foot the bill. Mention SS in the hallowed halls of congress and watch them dive for cover .

Offline patrone

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 608
Do you guys remember Bush's promise on Social Security?
« Reply #31 on: January 18, 2005, 06:59:59 PM »
USa is not the first country having to free the SS money, to make parts of it free to invest.

It will benefit your country. These money are now locked up doing roughly nothing. If they are invested, they will boost economy.

Then, if you will loose or win, personaly in the end, is just left to be seen. Sure the country is a great winner, so actully so would you be.

Offline weaselsan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1147
Do you guys remember Bush's promise on Social Security?
« Reply #32 on: January 18, 2005, 07:04:03 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by patrone
USa is not the first country having to free the SS money, to make parts of it free to invest.

It will benefit your country. These money are now locked up doing roughly nothing. If they are invested, they will boost economy.

Then, if you will loose or win, personaly in the end, is just left to be seen. Sure the country is a great winner, so actully so would you be.


 You must not be an American...Our Government can do things with American taxpayers money that would confound Houdini....:lol

Offline DREDIOCK

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17775
Do you guys remember Bush's promise on Social Security?
« Reply #33 on: January 18, 2005, 07:06:44 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Raider179
Just shows bush says whatever he needs to


You ever see a politician that didnt?

Kerry turned it into an art form LMAO
Death is no easy answer
For those who wish to know
Ask those who have been before you
What fate the future holds
It ain't pretty

Offline patrone

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 608
Do you guys remember Bush's promise on Social Security?
« Reply #34 on: January 18, 2005, 07:10:02 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by weaselsan
You must not be an American...Our Government can do things with American taxpayers money that would confound Houdini....:lol


Yes, I dont doubt that. But letting people make their own choice for some of that amount surelly would just benefit economy. Or is the thought to socialistic?

Offline Raider179

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
Do you guys remember Bush's promise on Social Security?
« Reply #35 on: January 18, 2005, 08:16:08 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
You ever see a politician that didnt?

Kerry turned it into an art form LMAO


Yeah but Bush is the one who made such a big deal out of doing it. Just adds hypocrite to my list of bush adjectives.

Offline Thrawn

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6972
Do you guys remember Bush's promise on Social Security?
« Reply #36 on: January 19, 2005, 06:13:55 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Shuckins
Social Security monies SHOULD have been placed in private sector investments from the very start. A committee comprised of the nation's top businessmen could have made it a profitable and healthy program.  Give them 5% of the net from such a system and I GUARANTEE you that they would have made it work.


Then how about not stealing the money from the citizens in the first place and let them decide where they want to invest thier money.  If the citizens have faith in these business men, they will invest in their companies.   Communism by any other name...

Offline J_A_B

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3012
Do you guys remember Bush's promise on Social Security?
« Reply #37 on: January 20, 2005, 06:49:36 AM »
I don't think giving the money to corporations is the answer.   Private corporations are one of the few things I trust less than the government.



J_A_B

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Do you guys remember Bush's promise on Social Security?
« Reply #38 on: January 20, 2005, 10:58:53 AM »
Ok... on the Calpers thing...  they pay a percentage of the last HIGHEST year of your salary.    As public employees tho... that is allmost allways the last year of employment.   the policy used to be an average of the last three years but Calpers has so much money that they need to disperse more of it to members.

SS was allways under the gentle and competent hands of the government so it's demise was certain... Calpers has nothing to do with the government of the state of california.

greencloud... I was a contractor for more than a dozen years I have never seen one large project that wasn't rife with padding and extras.   Calpers is hugely profitable and has been for decades.

Calpers is what we should all have if we weren't being bilked by our government.   A reasonable return on our money instead of a socialist extortion scheme.

contrast the SS benifiet for someone age 67 who has put over 40 years into the system.... what?  $1500?   with.... a 52 year old man under Cal pers with 30 years in the system...  Both men were making $5000 a month the last year they worked... the SS guy gets $1500 and the Calpers guys gets $4500...  

One is an old man allmost 70 and the other is in his 50's  Is there any possible way to defend this abortion called SS?   even cost of living raises are based on benifeit so the SS guy gets even further behind every year...    

Some, like myself will get both.   I have paid my minimum 40 quarters and then some into SS so will get some pitance from them at age 62 (younger guys got to wait to age 67).

It's a scam... the biggest example of why socialism sucks in the U.S. today.

lazs
« Last Edit: January 20, 2005, 11:06:03 AM by lazs2 »

Offline oboe

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9805
Do you guys remember Bush's promise on Social Security?
« Reply #39 on: January 20, 2005, 12:17:41 PM »
Just a few of questions for you Laz:

1) How profitable will Calpers remain when the real estate bubble in California bursts, and bursts hard?   You mentioned earlier it invests in real estate...if its for retiremnet savings I would hope al the financial eggs aren't in one basket.

2) Assuming the program is all you say it is (I have no reason to doubt you) then why do you suppose are we not hearing more discussion about it in the media, in this time of proposals for drastic change to SS?    Seem like more people should hold it up as an example.

Seriously, if the program is that good I'd like it as an option to my 401K or something.    It wouldn't be the first time Cali has been ahead of the game.

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Do you guys remember Bush's promise on Social Security?
« Reply #40 on: January 20, 2005, 02:25:00 PM »
oboe... it is not just California, there is a very similar and interchangeable system in at least 3 near states.

you can go to their site and see what they invest in but there have been several "bubbles" for real estate in California just as in the stock market but.... it never really goes down people will allways want to live by the coast and where the weather is good.   They invest in all sorts of things and have to maintiain a certain surplus.   They have a lot more room to play with too since they have such generous plans and such early retirement dates... SS is simply increasing the minimum age to retire... they are 15 years worse off for minimum age right now and getting worse.

I have no idea what the media is saying or not saying about cal pers (I don't follow the media) but millions of people are in it and all of us are doing quite well.    My folks have been collecting for over 20 years and their benifiet has more than doubled over that time.   I don't believe you are hearing much about it because.... It simply can't exist like SS.... It won't and can't pay out to everyone no matter if they have contributed or not...  it is not a charity like SS.

lazs

Offline -MZ-

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 465
Do you guys remember Bush's promise on Social Security?
« Reply #41 on: January 20, 2005, 02:28:08 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
Calpers is what we should all have if we weren't being bilked by our government.   A reasonable return on our money instead of a socialist extortion scheme.
 


Have you been reading what Ahnold is planning to do to CALPERS?

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Do you guys remember Bush's promise on Social Security?
« Reply #42 on: January 20, 2005, 02:30:03 PM »
no.. tell me about it.   I am certain tho that if a politician or government entity has anything to do with it that it will make things worse.

lazs

Offline -MZ-

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 465
Do you guys remember Bush's promise on Social Security?
« Reply #43 on: January 20, 2005, 02:38:57 PM »
LOS ANGELES TIMES
January 6, 2005
 
STATE OF THE STATE
Governor Targets Public Retirement Plans
-Unions oppose proposal to make state pension packages more like private-sector 401(k)s.

By Evan Halper, Times Staff Writer

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Wednesday called for fundamental change in pensions for all government workers in California — schoolteachers and garbage collectors, police and policy analysts — a step that over time would reduce retirement security in the public sector, which employs one in eight California workers.

Schwarzenegger said the changes were needed to reduce costs for state and local governments. The state legislative analyst's office says California's public employee pensions are among the most generous in the nation.

Public employees unions and many Democratic lawmakers denounced Schwarzenegger's plan, saying it would cut benefits for government retirees and make government service less attractive for new workers. They said it would not produce the savings Schwarzenegger claimed.

During the late 1990s and the beginning of this decade, when the booming stock market made pension accounts fat, many cities and counties boosted pension benefits. Police, firefighters, prison guards and other public safety employees benefited.

Now, with the market lower, the bills are coming due, and in some cases, pensions are threatening to cost so much that public services are being cut to pay the bills.

Orange County and the city of San Diego are among the local governments struggling to cover huge deficits in their pension plans. In Contra Costa County, more than 12% of the general fund budget goes to pension plan payments for its workers.

The current pension system is "out of control, threatening our state," Schwarzenegger said, calling it "another train on another track headed for disaster."

Although he mentioned his proposal only briefly in Wednesday's speech, it may portend a dramatic political battle with government employees unions. In taking on that fight, his advisors hope he can tap into a voter backlash against well-financed public benefit plans.

The governor's plan would replace pension packages for all new employees with private plans similar to the 401(k) plans offered by private companies.

Instead of being guaranteed a fixed benefit when they retire, new employees, starting in 2007, would contribute money into a retirement account with a choice of funds. The state would also put money into the account. The payments retirees received would be based on how well their investments performed.

The plan, along with a companion proposal to base raises for schoolteachers on merit rather than on seniority, already is attracting intense opposition from public employees unions.

Schwarzenegger's plan also would diminish the clout of the state Public Employees Retirement System, which has used its enormous stock holdings to pressure businesses into adopting more union-friendly policies.

Under the current pension system, government employees are guaranteed an annual payment upon retirement. It can be as much as 90% of a worker's highest salary as a government employee — plus a generous health insurance package. Many law enforcement employees who have been working at their job for 30 years can begin collecting such payments at age 50.

Generous pensions have long been a part of the government pay package. Public employees and their unions have argued that the pensions make up for salaries that often are lower than those in private companies.

But at a time when many private companies have cut back or eliminated pensions, the generous pensions for government workers may strike many voters as unreasonable, some political analysts say.

"People are looking next door, seeing that their 50-year-old neighbor who is in good health and works for the government is retiring with a pension of $80,000 or $90,000 for the rest of his life," said Steve Frates, of the Rose Institute for State and Local Government at Claremont McKenna College. "That is sticking many taxpayers in the craw."

Critics of Schwarzenegger's plan say it would do nothing to reduce state and local deficits over the next few years. Even in later years, they say, the administrative costs of handling hundreds of thousands of individual accounts would make the whole system far less efficient than now.

Under the current system, the government's costs plunge when the stock market rises. During the height of the stock market boom of the late '90s, investment returns were so high that many cities and counties did not have to contribute any money to employee pensions.

When the market falls, the costs to local government can soar, as costs are doing now.

Under the governor's plan, governments would not face the higher costs in down years but would not benefit from investment returns in good years.

"It is a bad idea, and it is built on false premises," said Assemblyman Alberto Torrico (D-Newark), chairman of the Assembly Public Employees, Retirement and Social Security Committee.

Torrico said 90% of the state and local governments in the country have the kind of traditional pension plans, or defined benefit plans, that Schwarzenegger is seeking to do away with. The ones that have experimented with 401(k)-style plans found they were a failure, he said.

The governor's pension plan was originally conceived by Assemblyman Keith Richman (R-Northridge). Richman's proposal will be considered in the special session of the Legislature. Richman also has filed his proposal with the secretary of state as a ballot initiative.

Schwarzenegger's aides made clear Wednesday that the governor would campaign for that ballot measure if the Legislature failed to act.

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
Do you guys remember Bush's promise on Social Security?
« Reply #44 on: January 20, 2005, 02:44:52 PM »
Cuts have to be made. We have prisons to pay for.
sand