+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: WP:Social Security up for Discussion

  1. #1
    Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Falls Church Va
    Age
    31
    Posts
    18,754

    Default WP:Social Security up for Discussion

    I don't think I'll ever forgive the President or Congress for doing NOTHING on SS last year, even laying the ground work for younger workers to control their retirement would have been a step. Now the pyramid scheme is up for "discussion"

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101520_pf.html

    Social Security Up for Discussion
    Treasury Chief Says 'No Preconditions'

    By Lori Montgomery
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Wednesday, November 22, 2006; D01



    With the elections over and Democrats poised to take control on Capitol Hill, the Bush administration is making a fresh push to persuade them to help rein in the rising costs of Social Security and government health-care programs by offering to open talks with "no preconditions."

    Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., the president's point man on Social Security and other entitlement programs, said in an interview yesterday that he has had "a number of . . . very, very general, very preliminary conversations" with lawmakers from both parties about the issue since Election Day, Nov. 7.

    So far, "it's too early in the aftermath of the election to know whether we're going to get traction," Paulson said, adding that he is "going to make a huge effort to persuade people to engage in a bipartisan discussion where we don't precondition our discussion."

    "No preconditions," Paulson said, means both sides get a chance to put their ideas on the table. In regard to Social Security, administration officials said that means President Bush will continue to advocate that younger workers be allowed to divert a portion of their Social Security taxes into private retirement accounts, a proposal Congress roundly rejected last year.

    It also means that the White House is willing to listen to other ideas, administration officials said, including personal savings accounts that do not involve diverting Social Security taxes, as well higher payroll taxes to help cover a projected explosion in Social Security costs after members of the baby boom generation begin to retire in 2008.

    "We're in a listening mode," said Rob Portman, director of the Office of Management and Budget, who has also been spending a lot of time since the election talking to key Democrats about entitlements. "The president wants to listen. He wants to hear what the leaders on Capitol Hill think is the best way to go. He's not wed to any particular approach."

    Political analysts said the outreach campaign is a sign that Bush may be willing to compromise to make progress on Social Security, an issue he has consistently identified as one of the top priorities for his second term. Weakened by low approval ratings, a chaotic and unpopular war in Iraq, and his party's loss of control of both houses of Congress for the first time in 12 years, Bush may see Social Security as an issue on which he could score points before leaving office in 2009, analysts said.

    Bush's former chief economic adviser, Lawrence B. Lindsey, added to that speculation on Monday, after writing in the Wall Street Journal that Bush "may be willing to raise taxes as part of a 'deal' on entitlement reform." Specifically, Lindsey wrote, the administration might agree to lift the cap that limits Social Security payroll taxes to the first $90,000 of income, thereby raising total taxes, but not tax rates, for high-income workers.

    "Bush has been on a losing streak. The question is: Is he going to attempt to save his legacy by giving the Democrats everything they want on Social Security and passing a big Social Security bill with his name on it?" said Kevin A. Hassett, director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. "It could be that's what we're looking at next year."

    While Paulson and Portman are talking about consensus, some Democrats worry that Bush is still determined to pursue the idea of private accounts. Many of them oppose such accounts on the grounds that they would weaken Social Security overall. That fear was fanned last week when Bush appointed Andrew G. Biggs, a proponent of Social Security privatization, to the agency that runs the program.

    "This nomination of Biggs is very troublesome," said Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.), who is in line to chair a House subcommittee on Social Security. "The president is sending signals that what he's really after is privatization. And that's just a non-starter."

    Other Democrats want Bush to explicitly put taxes on the table, including elimination of some of his signature tax cuts, instead of focusing exclusively on restraining the escalating costs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. The big three entitlement programs eat up 8 percent of the country's total economic output and are projected to double in cost over the next 50 years, creating a budget hole that must be shrunk by cutting benefits or filled by raising taxes.

    Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.), who is to chair the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, had lunch last week with Paulson and said he came away impressed. The secretary, he said, is "a straight shooter" who agreed to attend a retreat that could take place as early as February where Ways and Means committee members will look for common ground with the administration on fiscal issues. But entitlement reform is unlikely to be part of those discussions, Rangel said.

    "I don't know whether we're secure enough with each other to start on these very sensitive issues," he said.

    Also yesterday, the White House released its final economic forecast before submitting its budget for fiscal 2008. In a conference call with reporters, Edward Lazear, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, said Bush's top economic advisers, like many private forecasters, expect the economy to grow a bit more slowly next year, at an annual rate of 2.9 percent. That would be a bit below the average growth rate of the past three years, when the economy grew at an annual rate of about 3.2 percent.

  2. #2
    The Role Player
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Age
    34
    Posts
    990

    Default Re: WP:Social Security up for Discussion

    As I've been watching and reading alot of Milton Friedman archives, due to his recent passing, I came across one interesting point he made about the immorality of Social Security (and other person-to-person transfers).


    He asked, "suppose you're a 25 year old man who just learned he has AIDS and only has five years to live. Isn't an immoral act on the part of the government to force you to pay 12% of your income for the retirement of some other citizen, when you could be spending it doing those things that make you happy in this life?"

    I just thought it was an interesting scenario.
    Last edited by JohnLockesGhost; November-22nd-2006 at 11:11 AM.
    Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. ~ William Pitt

    "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground" ~ Thomas Jefferson

    "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." ~ George Washington

  3. #3
    The Camp Fodder
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    silver spring MD
    Age
    32
    Posts
    136

    Default Re: WP:Social Security up for Discussion

    While i dont know enough about the subject to get too preachy i'm glad they are working on it. I was pretty pissed when some of the politicians didnt consider social security a pressing problem just because the worst of the problem is years away. May as well fix a problem when you find it, rather than waiting for the last minute when the solution will have to be much more drastic.

    Last edited by Brad_Edwards_Fan; November-22nd-2006 at 11:14 AM.

  4. #4
    The Role Player
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Age
    34
    Posts
    990

    Default Re: WP:Social Security up for Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Brad_Edwards_Fan
    While i dont know enough about the subject to get too preachy i'm glad they are working on it. I was pretty pissed when some of the politicians didnt consider social security a pressing problem just because the worst of the problem is years away. May as well fix a problem when you find it, rather than waiting for the last minute when the solution will have to be much more drastic.

    Like all pyramid schemes, it will eventually come crashing down on itself without an ever expanding base. And with population growth not what it used to be...
    Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. ~ William Pitt

    "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground" ~ Thomas Jefferson

    "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." ~ George Washington

  5. #5
    The Camp Fodder
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    silver spring MD
    Age
    32
    Posts
    136

    Default Re: WP:Social Security up for Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnLockesGhost
    As I've been watching and reading alot of Milton Friedman archives, due to his recent passing, I came across one interesting point he made about the immorality of Social Security (and other person-to-person transfers).


    He asked, "suppose you're a 25 year old man who just learned he has AIDS and only has five years to live. Isn't an immoral act on the part of the government to force you to pay 12% of your income for the retirement of some other citizen, when you could be spending it doing those things that make you happy in this life?"

    I just thought it was an interesting scenario.


    Or even a 26 year old man that doesnt figure to get back from the system as it currently exists


  6. #6
    The Camp Fodder
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    silver spring MD
    Age
    32
    Posts
    136

    Default Re: WP:Social Security up for Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnLockesGhost
    Like all pyramid schemes, it will eventually come crashing down on itself without an ever expanding base. And with population growth not what it used to be...

    JLG...you are always pretty good about explaing govt money issues...why is this a pyramid scheme, who represents the top of the pyramid? Would that be the older workers with my generation being the people at the bottom who arent getting anyone below to buy in?


  7. #7
    The Special Teams Ace
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Posts
    382

    Default Re: WP:Social Security up for Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnLockesGhost
    As I've been watching and reading alot of Milton Friedman archives, due to his recent passing, I came across one interesting point he made about the immorality of Social Security (and other person-to-person transfers).


    He asked, "suppose you're a 25 year old man who just learned he has AIDS and only has five years to live. Isn't an immoral act on the part of the government to force you to pay 12% of your income for the retirement of some other citizen, when you could be spending it doing those things that make you happy in this life?"

    I just thought it was an interesting scenario.

    That Friedman quote is ridiculous. Is that an example of his "genius"? Was he one of Ayn Rand's disciples?

    NOT having Social Security is immoral. Pure selfishness dressed up in fancy academic language is still selfishness. We live in a society and as such we are responsible to other members of our society. We try and usually fail to ensure that members in our society who have contributed to the society are not abandoned once they can no longer contribute monetarily to it. Social Security, for the most part, is exactly that - a payback for past contributions so you have some - wait for it - security. Sorry if a bus hits you before you can collect. But that's life.

    I think there should be premiums charged if you want to opt for family or spousal benefits. Maybe 25% more or whatever makes sense. Probably most would opt for that with most workers assuming they would need those benefits in the future. Single people get screwed in Social Security benefits and married people with only one working spouse make out like bandits (way more cash benefits) and potentially double the health care benefits.

    The Republicans hate Social Security. They hate Medicare. They fought it tooth and nail labeling it communism. The doctors especially fought Medicare until they realized how much money they could make off it. Nothing the Republicans propose for Social Security is about saving it - it's about undermining it and eventually destroying it.
    Last edited by DCRunner; November-22nd-2006 at 11:55 AM.

  8. #8
    The Role Player
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Age
    34
    Posts
    990

    Default Re: WP:Social Security up for Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Brad_Edwards_Fan
    JLG...you are always pretty good about explaing govt money issues...why is this a pyramid scheme, who represents the top of the pyramid? Would that be the older workers with my generation being the people at the bottom who arent getting anyone below to buy in?

    You got it. The winners in a pyramid scheme are the people who get in first. These would be the people during the Great Depression who essentially got alot of other people's money without contributing anything. The losers are the people who contribute their entire lives, but collect nothing or less than they should. These could be people who die early (e.g. the 25 year old AIDS victim) or those who outlive the ability of the system to sustain itself (i.e. the people who don't have sufficient numbers younger to contribute for them).

    The 25 year old AIDS victim is a very exceptional example meant to point out the cold immorality of the whole scheme, but there are many more mundane examples that point out the exact same immorality, maybe even more poignantly. How about a black man who works hard his entire life contributing to SS only to die the day before his retirement? Maybe his hard labor was a contributing factor to his premature death. But, he'll never be able to use those thousands upon thousands of dollars to better his position in life or the position of his family. He couldn't use those funds to send his kids to a better school or go see a chiropractor a couple times a year. Maybe his kids are doomed to the same lifestyle because the government believes it has found the solution to some social disease they wanted to cure. Well, I don't believe we work all our lives so politicians and bureaucrats can go home at night feeling better about themselves for having stolen from one segment of society only to give to another.
    Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. ~ William Pitt

    "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground" ~ Thomas Jefferson

    "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." ~ George Washington

  9. #9
    The Dirtbags
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Northridge, CA
    Age
    32
    Posts
    1,694

    Default Re: WP:Social Security up for Discussion

    BEF,
    In short, yes. There's a few different issues.

    1) Everyone knows that those under 35 are most likely not to see a dime in social security.
    2) Social Security money is often misappropriated by the US Treasury. If we are paying into Social Security, and there is a surplus in the budget, that money is used up on things other than Social Security.
    3) I'm sure people who get Social Security don't think it is enough to live buy, and they are probably right.
    4) Social Security was only intended to go to the really needy, not everyone.
    5) There is no way to kill Social Security, as it is free money to the old, and they will die before us young'ins are able to take it away.
    6) It seems like companies pay so much in SS tax that they have to cut back pension plans, more beneficial to workers (this is my theory, but it seems like it would be true).
    7) Not to mention the morality issue. Why should I pay for the retirement of someone who didn't plan for their own retirement?

    I'm all for killing Social Security, except for the 5% of population that actually NEEDS it (one of these groups is definatly families whose breadwinner dies).

  10. #10
    The Role Player
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Age
    34
    Posts
    990

    Default Re: WP:Social Security up for Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by DCRunner
    That Friedman quote is ridiculous. Is that an example of his "genius"? Was he one of Ayn Rand's disciples?

    NOT having Social Security is immoral. Pure selfishness dressed up in fancy academic language is still selfishness. We live in a society and as such we are responsible to other members of our society.
    I'm confused as to how his argument is "ridiculous."

    Secondly, I really like your Orwellian logic. Theft isn't immoral, the absense of theft, THAT'S immoral. Because the government isn't really stealing, it's asking nicely and only the "selfish" people want to keep what they earn. Those greedy bastards.

    Quote Originally Posted by DCRunner
    We try and usually fail to ensure that members in our society who have contributed to the society are not abandoned once they can no longer contribute monetarily to it. Social Security, for the most part, is exactly that - a payback for past contributions so you have some - wait for it - security. Sorry if a bus hits you before you can collect. But that's life.
    Sorry if a bus hits you before you can collect? Well, how about "Sorry you're old and worthless, Grandma, that's life." Or maybe, "Sorry, you can't pay for your medicine, Pops, that's life."
    Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. ~ William Pitt

    "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground" ~ Thomas Jefferson

    "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." ~ George Washington

  11. #11
    The Dirtbags
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Northridge, CA
    Age
    32
    Posts
    1,694

    Default Re: WP:Social Security up for Discussion

    NOT having Social Security is immoral. Pure selfishness dressed up in fancy academic language is still selfishness. We live in a society and as such we are responsible to other members of our society. We try and usually fail to ensure that members in our society who have contributed to the society are not abandoned once they can no longer contribute monetarily to it. Social Security, for the most part, is exactly that - a payback for past contributions so you have some - wait for it - security. Sorry if a bus hits you before you can collect. But that's life.
    Who is responsible for me? My parents.
    Who am I responsible for? My family... as extended or as contract as I decide.

    We are responsible for some degree which is why public schools are tolerated, as well as military and other government programs. I don't think this responsibility should extend as far as it does in our society.

    Anyone with a HS level education should see it would be wise to invest in some type of Death Insurance or otherwise for their familly. Right now I can't pay for a good life insurance plan because so much of my money is taken away for social security. I'm sure that money would give a nice benefit to my wife if something were to happen to me.

    Yes, it's selfish, but NO ONE HAS RESPONSIBILITY FOR ME OUTSIDE OF MY FAMILY. Not once did the goverment come in and make sure I was going the "right things" and be on the "right track" to having a productive, successful, and happy life.

  12. #12
    The Special Teams Ace
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Posts
    382

    Default Re: WP:Social Security up for Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Fergasun
    BEF,
    In short, yes. There's a few different issues.

    1) Everyone knows that those under 35 are most likely not to see a dime in social security.
    Everyone does not know this. There are ways to ensure that the Social Security program survives and does its job.


    Quote Originally Posted by Fergasun
    2) Social Security money is often misappropriated by the US Treasury. If we are paying into Social Security, and there is a surplus in the budget, that money is used up on things other than Social Security.
    Yes. And this needs to stop.


    Quote Originally Posted by Fergasun
    3) I'm sure people who get Social Security don't think it is enough to live buy, and they are probably right.
    It is supposed to be a base to ensure some minimal level of support. I'm not sure what the regs are now, but seniors should be allowed to earn wages up to a decent level. It's not so easy to get a full time job or even work full time hours as you get older. You know that, don't you? The SS benefit can help a senior or disabled person who can only work part time.


    Quote Originally Posted by Fergasun
    4) Social Security was only intended to go to the really needy, not everyone.
    Better policies on income caps can help. They should be encouraging seniors to work and contribute. And I do realize that part of the rationale behind penalizing SS recipients for working was based on the notion of getting them out of the work place and opening up jobs for younger workers. They also need to treat earned and unearned income alike for this purpose. And they probably need to take into consideration household income - and not just individual income - as well.


    Quote Originally Posted by Fergasun
    5) There is no way to kill Social Security, as it is free money to the old, and they will die before us young'ins are able to take it away.
    Whatever.


    Quote Originally Posted by Fergasun
    6) It seems like companies pay so much in SS tax that they have to cut back pension plans, more beneficial to workers (this is my theory, but it seems like it would be true).
    I am sure that if there was no Social Security tax, companies would be leaping with joy and vigor to increase worker benefits in all other areas.


    Quote Originally Posted by Fergasun
    7) Not to mention the morality issue. Why should I pay for the retirement of someone who didn't plan for their own retirement?
    I really hate to pull age rank cause I know it's obnoxious, but this is truly a 25 year old's statement. You never know what life will hold - good or bad. Your fault or not. Life - even meticulously planned - can change in the blink of an eye. And the notion that people believe Social Security to be immoral is troubling to me. I'm not sure what universe I grew up in as opposed to one where a society sharing it's collective riches is immoral. It's a rare person who truly makes it completely on their own.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fergasun
    I'm all for killing Social Security, except for the 5% of population that actually NEEDS it (one of these groups is definatly families whose breadwinner dies).
    Where are you getting this number?

  13. #13

    Default Re: WP:Social Security up for Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by DCRunner
    We live in a society and as such we are responsible to other members of our society. We try and usually fail to ensure that members in our society who have contributed to the society are not abandoned once they can no longer contribute monetarily to it.
    I agree with all of this, yet I oppose social security. I just don't believe that the best means of helping others is through the state, but rather through the private sector.
    Why We Fight

    " Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. "

    --George Orwell

+ Reply to Thread

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts