ralper

Actually, I think the idea originated with the Reagan or Bush 1 administration. W however is the first one to put his strength behind it.

No, I don't think it's a good idea even if put into government bonds.

And yes, I agree with Chaz. For the most part, social security is not an issue with us. Most of those of us who collect it will see up to 85% of it taxed. There really isn't much left after that. I doubt that many of us could live on what's left.


Do we really need another bomb? Sounds a lot like the 50s arms race to me. We need another one to do this, so they need another one to keep up, so we need another one to stay ahead, so they need another one to keep up. Balance of power all over again. We need to start learning some lessons from history.
As for Rummy having a plan, I think it's just a case of, "I never met a weapon I didn't like."

Chazmo

Well, Val, if the gov't invests this money privately, then it's gone for the rainy day. I guess that's all I'm trying to say.

valentine

cordycord

The government is not the one who needs the money for a rainy day. Hell, all they need to do is call the US Treasury and tell them to print out a few more bills.

We're talking about a mythical person who spends their mythical SS Savings Plan on US goverment bonds. A low yield, to be sure, but if it defaults that means so has the US government...

Rob, do you support letting senior citizens who have earned their SS Savings Plan money to keep it in the form of US bonds? If not, then I'm guessing that you subscribe to some sort of wealth redistribution plan. I do not.

I think we as Americans are known as the most giving people on earth, but I also think it is not an American trait to work your whole life, only to have the government take what you have made and give it to other people. That philosophy is the antithesis of gov't of self-rule. I will, however, not "close the door" on those who cannot support themselves in their "golden years". No true American would.

As for the new Bunker Buster--I'm all for it. As mentioned, I think that this weapon isn't being made for a theoretical threat, but one that is real and present. Further, our enemies wouldn't know about it unless we wanted them to.

ralper

The best way to create inflation is to "call the treasury and have them print more money". I really don't think you'd want to do that. That really isn't a very good answer to any problem.

I'm not sure what you mean by "wealth distribution plan". If you mean the wholesale redistribution of wealth to make everyone equal, no, I don't favor that. I'm surprized that you'd even suggest that. If you mean making sure that senior citizens don't starve or outlive their benefits, yes, I am in favor of that. I simply find that there are too many things wrong with privatizing social security. And, I don't think it is a good idea.

To those of you on the right the term privatizing carries some sort of mystical, magical connotation, as if private industry is all good, and government is all bad. Here in New Jersey, Christie Whitman tried to convince us of the same with relation to the Department of Motor Vehicles. A privatized DMV, we were told, would be much more efficient, and cheaper. It was privatized, but the only thing that changed was who got the money. It actually became more expensive, and less efficient.

I'm not saying that government should be involved in everything, but I am suggesting that privatization is not the silver bullet that many of you think it is. The problem is that by time you find this out, it's usually too late.

As for the bunker buster, we've heard it all before. Many times. The name is different, the shapes different, that's all. It's just more of the same old, same old.
The legacy of Rumsfeld, Rice and the other members of this administration is to throw money at weapons systems, whether or not we need them and whether or not they work. Like I've said before, I find it hard to put any creedence into anything Rummy says about weapons because he's never met a weapons system he didn't like.

Ulrich

And let's think about that one. Demand for bonds goes up, prices rise, interest effectively goes down. Pretty soon you're back at the 2% return that you decried just a few posts ago.

So what's the point?

Warren J. Dew

[quote name='PWRMKR' date='Feb 2 2005, 01:45 AM'] Unless the member is in a combat zone, 100% of the members' income is taxed. That's how it's always been, as far as I know.

ralper

No it isn't. It's been tried, and has always lost. Same thing with payroll taxes. This is another urban myth.

cordycord

Rob,

Welcome back! I miss your insight into these questions--and plus, I can't get away with anything when you're around!

Yes, printing money wantonly is bad. Bad joke.

As for wealth distribution, I'm glad to hear your viewpoint. I think we're on the same wavelength here.

The part that I LOVE is that a portion of the SS money gets shifted from "The Government is GIVING me this money" to "This is MY money, and something that I can give my children when I'm gone." 2% return, 10% return, it's 100% more than the alternative.

I was talking with my wife tonight about paying taxes. I just paid my quarterly taxes today, along with a few other taxes that most other people may not notice. It's surprising what a difference it makes when YOU are the one writing the check. It's too easy not to think about what the government takes when you never see it. THAT's the attitude I take with the government and taxes!

As for privatization, I think that that is the essence of "the American Way". I have the ultimate faith in the people--although some of the people posting here may think otherwise!

Warren J. Dew

For a few years I was under the government retirement system that Bush's proposals are modeled on. They have a lot of restrictions that keep one out of "risky" investments. At the time, one had to invest at least half of the funds in U.S. government bonds; the rest could be put into a narrow choice of fairly conservative equity (stock) investments.

I don't think that "private" versus "public" is the right way to look at this. I think that Social Security is suffering from the same problem as a lot of corporate pension plans - it's a "defined benefit" plan that is severely underfunded. It will go bankrupt well before our children retire. Keeping the present plan in place will burden our children and grandchildren with ever higher social security taxes, mortgaging their future for our retirement.

What's being proposed is really just moving to a "defined contribution" plan. I think we've seen over the last couple of decades that this works better, because it takes away the ability of the corporation (in the case of retirement plans) or the government (in the case of social security) to trade off bankruptcy in the far future for better numbers in the short term - where short term is before the next board election (for corporations) or general election (for the government).

The difficult part will be figuring out how to manage the transition - being fair to people near retirement who have paid all their lives under the old "defined benefit" system, while also being fair to today's children who would get stuck with paying for 11 trillion (11,000 billion, 11 million million) dollars of underfunding that the present social security plan has.