$2.8 million dollars spent selling and indea that could have saved this coutry trillions over the next few decades to eliminate this generational ponzi scheme - money well spent.

Next time DV talks about passing debt onto the next generation, here is teh $600 pound gorilla.

"Lord, I was born a ramblin' man..."

President Bush tried to do something about the state of Social Security and the dems shot it down..

What's new?

Why is this issue being brought up now?

I for one would have loved to be able to put a portion of what's deducted from my pay into an account for ME.
Then when I'm gone if there was anything left in MY account it would have gone to my children for them to biuld on.

Q. What was the problem?
A. Polticians would have no control over mMY portion of MY retirement package.

There's nothing stopping people from saving above and beyond what Social Security provides for. (Savings accounts, 401Ks, IRAs, etc.)

All privitization of Social Security does is insert a for profit middle man that will simply take a piece of the action.

The fastest, easiest way to fix Social Security (which hasn't missed a payment yet) is to remove the cap on contributions.

I suspect there are peple who really want to see Social Security and other aspects of the social safety net (minimum wage, Medicare, MediCaid, etc.) done away with. If that's what you really want, just say so, so we can start having an honest debate.

There were Republican majorities in both the House and Senate. Bush failed to convince enough Republicans to enact his scheme.

The Bush supporters (on this issue) in the Congress never introduced a bill that described the plan.

It's hard to blame the Democrats for those things.

Thanks for cutting through the spin, hwhoasks.

What I want to know is how much is it costing to fly W in Air Force One to fundraisers for fellow Repubs? Is the RNC reimbursing the US for these trips?

Doug, with the baby boomers nearing retirement age expect another economy wide tranformation.
Milton Freidman said the working always support the non-working. Money has a shifting value. The lock-box approach wouldn't have worked either because idle money has a negative value.

whatnow,

Milton Friedman was wrong. before Social Security it was families and charity supporting those unable to fend for themselves.

Those who didn't have those supporters often starved to death. It's hard for a lot Americans to believe but it's true - Americans for lack of someone to look after them starved to death.

Now we've pretty much eliminated that shame.

The next shame to conquer is health care. In the richest nation on Earth we shouldn't have people suffer, go bankrupt, and die prematurely due to a lack of health care.

If comprehensive health care is good enough for the president and Congress, it's good enough for the people who elect them to office.

Criminal waste of $2.8 million. I worked for Social Security for 19 years and Bush II plan for Social Security was fatally flawed. Taking present SS taxes paid to Government to invest in young persons accounts means that present SS recipients MUST have their benefits reduced as their benefits are paid by present SS taxes on the young. Whoever is advising Bush should be arrested for wasting $2.8 million on a plan that was unworkable and impossible to put into place.

That was the first time in history (and hopefully the last) where the American people said "NO" to more money.

Unbelievable.

Doug, with economic skills like that I can see why union memebership is down.

SS Security is a losing mans proposition that has a dismal rate of return. Yes people can invest money they have after SS taxes are confiscated from their paychecks, but wouldn't it be nice for these workers, including your union memebers, to have 12.4% additional money to put into THEIR 401Ks?

That money would be theirs and their families. It could be passed on generationally. Do you understand that?

I'm sorry, the union would need to take their cut also.

't it be nice for these workers, including your union memebers, to have 12.4% additional money to put into THEIR 401Ks?

What is this 12.4% of which you speak? Interest rates? ROI? Show me 401's earning 12.4%. Show me anything earning 12.4% today, other than a 12 year averaged mutual funds. The last time anything was paying that kind of rate, Carter was in office, and we know how the wingnuts feel about him. Once again, the connies are living in delusionland.

JD, pull your head out. Shrubby's little privatization scam did nothing of the kind. All it did was to remove the guarantees already in place. Thankfully, most people are smarter than Republics, and the scam fell apart.

Alt. Caption,

'And so, ladies, that is the reason for the padding during my 'Mission Accomplished' strut.'

* * * * *

All privitization of Social Security does is insert a for profit middle man that will simply take a piece of the action.

* * * * *

Posted by: Doug Zook | September 8, 2007 10:04 AM

Doug,

We already have a middle man taking a piece of the action. Its called Congress. Every year, Congress confiscates any money left over after Social Security payments are made in order to pay for its pork, earmarks, and all that other rot. What happens is that the treasury converts any excess FICA and SECA contributions (i.e. the balance after S.S. payments) and converts it into special treasury bonds. Those treasury bonds are all that is in the trust fund. In other words, the government makes a loan to itself, and the bonds represent a “secure” IOU to the Social Security trust fund.

This practice is both unfair and despicable in the extreme. While it is true that these bonds will be paid off, they will be paid off in other taxes collected from American taxpayers. What the American public has already paid for, it will have to pay for again. As more and more people retire, there will be more demand for payroll taxes to pay off the Social Security obligations to these retirees. When that becomes insufficient, the choice will be to raise more taxes to pay off the social security debts, go further into debt and/or drastically reduce federal spending. None of these are happy choices, especially since there are now plans in the works to further increase the welfare state in the form of national health care or national health insurance. This is what people are talking about when they say the system is going to go broke. Without more taxes or debt to cover it, it will most definitely go broke.

This would not have been the case if Congress had kept its original promise to make Social Security a real trust fund where benefits would accumulate. At least, there wouldn’t be as much trouble as there is now. Instead, Social Security has been used to fund bridges to nowhere and research into mariachi music in the Southwest.

You know, if the so-called Social Security trust fund had been a private trust, all of the trustees and subordinate officers would have been sent to prison for scamming everyone on a scale only rivaled by the Enron debacle. Trustees aren’t supposed to use trust funds for their own purposes, and they aren’t supposed to mingle trust money with their own. They are, instead, supposed to act as fiduciaries, meaning that they have a heightened duty to act fairly and openly on behalf of only the beneficiaries. The feds, as trustees, have failed.

At a very minimum, one had better start now to take away control and use of Social Security funds from the federal government for use by Congress. We need to segregate it and start accumulating it now. That way the system might not fall apart in the immediate future. As for future beneficiaries, I suggest that we allow some to opt out of the social security system altogether, or to require employers to open mandatory private retirement accounts for new employees. In any event, we cannot let Congress’ continued irresponsibility kill us.

This isn't about the "social safety net," as you call it. This is about fiscal responsibility and accountability - for once.

Anon,

the 12.4% is the amount of money that the gov't confiscates from each paycheck of each worker for Soc Sec.

The last time anything earned 12.4% was when peanut boy was in office and the inflation rate almost matched that.

Some of us live in "delusionland", while the loons just live in "ignorantland".

Terry, the Loons just don't live in IgnorantLand, but Blithering IdiotLand.

Just the other day, the Queen B says no cuts in Social Security, no extension of retirement age, no cuts period. Hmmm, that leaves taxing the young folks up the wazzo to keep SS alive. Like I said, Blithering IdiotLand.

John D, Terry, Republic leadership,

Just keep talking down SocSec.

It's the only post retirement income most Americans will ever have now that defined company pensions are dead.

Your side is a loser on this one, boys. Keep trumpeting the losing tune. It' music to my ears.

Next up; Socialized Medicine