Sooooo long social security.

 

 

Baghdad Bob avaliable for comment:

 

 

"Your money is not being stolen for a second time. Your retirement is perfectly safe in the hands of Wall Street."

 

His word is as strong as oak to me. :mischief

 

The Herald's nemisis

Sooooo long social security.

 

 

Baghdad Bob avaliable for comment:

 

 

"Your money is not being stolen for a second time. Your retirement is perfectly safe in the hands of Wall Street."

 

His word is as strong as oak to me. :mischief

 

The Herald's nemisis

648146[/snapback]

The bait and switch president strikes again. Amazing how they have the audacity to call others flip floppers but cant defend the backtracking. Only defend the switch action.

The bait and switch president strikes again. Amazing how they have the audacity to call others flip floppers but cant defend the backtracking. Only defend the switch action.

648373[/snapback]

Amen to that. It makes me sad when I think of how many people actually believed his lies. You can't solve the Social Security problem without increasing the burden on taxpayers, or cutting government programs in order to cover the new SS funding increases.

The article is basically saying Bush is doing what he said he would do.

 

Personally, I wouldn't care if social security died, its welfare for the elderly and all the benefits go to people who never paid it.

all the new money and more will be needed to pay full promised benefits. As planned, the trust funds will then start redeeming those bonds to cover the difference.

 

What's the implication when the federal govt "redeems" its own paper and the treasury piggy bank is empty because the real trust fund cash was looted many decades ago by rapacious congressmen always looking to make it appear budget deficits were lower than reality?

648709[/snapback]

 

1. Assume this is true(thought it is not). If it is non existent because the actions of Greenspan and Regean in the 80s actually didnt happen, then what you and other privatizers are arguing is that SS has effectivley become part of the general budget right? So then how can there be a crisis in 2018 as the privatizers also claim if we cannot accuratley gauge benefits expended minus SS taxes recieved (payroll tax)? Isnt that just a crisis in the general fund and not the SS fund? Yep. Ive heard this argument before and its has thoroughly been debunked. You cant have it both ways. If we are to assume that the SS taxes(payroll tax) recieved part has become part of the general budget outlay as you argue, then we cannot argue that the SS taxes recieved(payroll tax) will be less than benefits given in 2018 since SS taxes recieved combines with general taxes recieved?

 

Here is what the two sided argument is. There is no trust fund because the payroll tax funds have become part of the general budget NOW and hence cannot be existent NOW as a surplus for 2018 but in 2018 they magically revert back to their old form of being seperate at which point voila, they are less than the budget outlay for SS. If they argue that they exist seperate now, then there is no crisis and the privatizers like tonyi cant undermine the confidence of social security. If they argue that they exist together with the general taxes receipts, then there is still no crisis because tax increases can take care of it and it becomes a non-social security crisis but rather a general fund crisis. SS becomes no different than military spending if this is true. But that is not good for privatizers like tonyi either. Gotta have your cake and eat it too eh?

 

2. Having debunked them if they are correct about the situation now, lets address their argument that the trust fund is fluff.

 

The trust fund increased because of interest cia its investments in government bonds right? Why should we assume Congress won't honor the bonds held by social security? Social security has actually increased its trust fund by investing in government bonds and moving the date of taxes equaling benefits back many years as numerous economists have pointed out. Ok so the money is taken from the other parts of the budget but how is that distinct from the looming fiscal crisis? How is that different from military spending? Bush gets his tax cuts causing budget deficits and undermining the ability of Congress to pay its bills and social security has to be affected? What a bunch of crap. Bush created the problem. Not social security.

 

Let me ask you this, since you will probably point to the private stock gains as being a solution to the problem. What assurances are there that the market will sustain a 7% rate of return? How do we know there won't be a market correction since many economists argue that stocks were underpriced and this is evidenced by the increase in price earning ratio? Long term rates of return are clearly going down. Add in costs and such that the rate of return isnt much higher than what SS has now in its investments but with the heavily addes risks.

The article is basically saying Bush is doing what he said he would do.?

 

Personally, I wouldn't care if social security died, its welfare for the elderly and all the benefits go to people who never paid it.

648715[/snapback]

You still believe that Bush is saying what he said he would in light of the memo by Rove basically saying SS needs to be gone? You can deceive the average idiot but you need to do better here.

 

What do you mean it goes to people who never paid into it? A 70 year old didnt pay for it in 1955 when social security was created in 1935?

 

Clearly Bush and nearly all Republicans support it. Or are they lying for the vote of the elderly? Either you are well out of the mainstream on this issue or youre admitting the bait and switch is real.

 

Arent you in high school btw? You so sure of your future earning potential being guarenteed such that you wont end up in the middle class(average american needs ss to make up for 40% of income lost due to retirment) and hence one of the welfare driven many?

Assume this is true(thought it is not). If it is non existent because the actions of Greenspan and Regean in the 80s actually didnt happen, then what you and other privatizers are arguing...blah, blah, blah.

 

 

There you go again fabricating positions for me. :plain

 

Silly me, I've forgotten who controlled congress in the 80's.

 

Perhaps you could remind me? Somewhere I heard it was congress who controlled the purse - was I misinformed?

648825[/snapback]

There you go not addressing the thrust of the post itself and only some minute point. Ok fine, the democrats created the payroll tax trust fund approved by Reagan. That doesnt change in the slightest the rest of the 99.9999 percent of my post.

 

And its not fabricating a position for you. You clearly stated in plain terms:

 

piggy bank is empty because the real trust fund cash was looted many decades ago by rapacious congressmen always looking to make it appear budget deficits were lower than reality?

 

 

Is that not you arguing that the trust fund does not exist because Congress looted it? How can Congress loot it if it isnt part of the general fund? Isnt that what you are obviously stating?

 

But I see you wont address the issues presented. Can I then assume that you are admitting to being part of this flip flopping argument?

Ted and I have been saying this all along. Next there will be a draft.

There you go not addressing the thrust of the post itself and only some minute point.

 

Only because your fabricated position for me isn't what my position in fact is - this condition renders the "thrust" of your post rather irrelevant doesn't it?

 

Perhaps you should consult with me before investing significant effort in constructing such elaborate strawmen. :plain

648996[/snapback]

 

Sorry I gave you too much credit.

 

1. What is your position then and how that is different from what you posted above?

 

2. Please explain how that renders the thrust of my post irrelevant? If Im not responding to you then I am responding to the Club for Growth who has made this argument.

 

Thats not creating a strawman. That group is out there sending talking point memos of misinformation. Karl Rove just writes a memo saying they have to engrain in the public mind that SS is heading for a crisis. It seems apparent that you repeated said talking point memo. But if you didnt, fine. Im then responding to their argument.

 

Was it not legacy who wrote this the other day:

 

Im sure many of you will agree with me that whenever somehting substantive is posted no one will reply and the post will eventually vanish.

 

And so now, because you dont want to respond to the substance of my post, you are trying to dismiss it.

 

I await your answers to the above two questions.

because the ponzi scheme's pyramid will start to invert in the coming decades.

 

 

And the payroll tax trust fund is not a solution how? Its simply the next step argument that Im addressing but one I have to now actually wait for you to address.

 

All youve done is take every cheap shot at the left possible without substantivley defending the privitzation scheme. Sounds to me like all you are saying is "I know the left is crazy and will lie and hence we cant get the citizen controlled percentage privatization that Bush wants so we have to settle with one more close to government investment." Doesnt sound like much of a defense at all of the CCP Bush plan at all. Instead of taking all the cheap shots at the left you despise so much, why not defend your own position against the left instead of saying "Im comprimising."

 

 

Since the only one who has mentioned CFG here is you, who then proceeded to flail whatever their position is, I'm unclear how that relates to me. Perhaps you can expand on this connection you're trying to make.

 

 

The title of this thread is Bush and his position on the issue. A CCP private approach which is very close to the CFG. I addressed that approach, not how can I outdebate tonyi. I know youre in love with making every thread about you what with all the moonbat and leftists rants. But last time I checked, this was about Bush and CFG.

 

 

Orisha was right. Thread conversations with you are a excercise in dealing with tunnel vision.

Just seems that if someone starts a thread pointing out that social security is being privatized by Bush you respnd by saying: Good riddance. It was a ponzi scheme from the start, you would sorta be in support of said scheme. Should of known it was another off hand comment with clear implications but one that cant be used against you because you didnt actually type it. Sounds like flipflopping to me.

 

What good is a trust fund full of IOU's? Its just a shell game

 

So all those people holding government bonds on the current US debt have worthless debts?