Activism Discussion: Bush's "Piratization" Of Social Security

Bush's "Piratization" Of Social Security
Posts: 7

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1   (First | Last)

Rraider
2005-01-11 10:19:22 EST
Why should the country add huge amounts of new debt without
reconsidering Bush's tax cuts?

Why declare a Social Security "crisis" when one does not exist - and
without dealing with a health care crisis that really does?

Is there any point, beyond ideological predilections, for changing
Social Security from an insurance program that has worked well to an
untested investment program?

------------------

It's a giant scam to benefit Wall Street.


Sugapablo
2005-01-11 10:32:32 EST
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 09:19:22 -0600, rraider wrote:

> Is there any point, beyond ideological predilections, for changing
> Social Security from an insurance program that has worked well to an
> untested investment program?

From: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39923-2004Sep21.html

"The result: Over 75 years, fees would total $940 billion, more than a
quarter of the $3.7 trillion deficit the Social Security system will run
over that time period. That would be the largest windfall in U.S.
financial history,... more than eight times the revenue loss that Wall
Street suffered during the 2000-02 stock market collapse."

"Financial and insurance industry officials have donated $20.7 million to
Republicans this campaign season"


--
[ Sugapablo ]
[ http://www.sugapablo.com <--music ]
[ http://www.sugapablo.net <--personal ]
[ sugapablo@12jabber.com <--jabber IM ]


Werner Hetzner
2005-01-12 08:29:36 EST


rraider wrote:

>Why should the country add huge amounts of new debt without
>reconsidering Bush's tax cuts?
>

Why should the country add huge amounts of taxes without considering
other alternatives?



>
>Why declare a Social Security "crisis" when one does not exist - and
>without dealing with a health care crisis that really does?
>
>

There is no money in the Trust fund. So why is there no crisis? Think
Enron. then multiply many many times.


>Is there any point, beyond ideological predilections, for changing
>Social Security from an insurance program that has worked well to an
>untested investment program?
>

In 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt promised the American people
that the new Social Security Tax would be invested at 3 per cent
interest, so that, by 1983, the tax could be ended and returns on the
investments would guarantee a retirement income for all Americans.
Ideological predilictions drive SS believers. Facts don't. The fact is
the promise was not kept. Instead of removing the tax, it has more than
doubled and been expanded to steal from more and more people.


http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/Social%20Security.shtml
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/TrustFund.shtml
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/Health%20Care.shtml
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/ExampleTOC.shtml
and more

Dollars in the common treasury are like fish in the common sea - anyone
who can will harvest to extinction. That is why socialism is
fundamentally corrupting and can not work. ----

Wasn't America supposed to be about voluntary agreement instead of
forced obedience?
Isn't it high time to join The Resistance?
http://www.ny.lp.org/choice
----
"
In crafting the Bill of Rights, the framers were careful to acknowledge
implicitly and explicitly two key truths:

The first is that government does not grant rights it acknowledges them.
They exist independently of government. They're part of who and what we
are. And, as Jefferson noted in the Declaration of Independence, the
only legitimate function of government is to secure them.

The second is that government is a servant to whom we delegate powers,
not a master who dispenses privileges. The Constitution carefully
enumerates the powers we, the people, delegate to our government and it
specifically denies that government any powers not so delegated. Our
rights lie beyond the pale of that delegation. They are sacrosanct. Any
government which infringes upon them is engaged in an intolerable
usurpation.
"
www.badnarik.org



>
>------------------
>
>It's a giant scam to benefit Wall Street.
>

No matter what is decreed, someone will benefit and someone else will pay.






Chuck Feney
2005-01-12 10:26:01 EST
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005, Werner Hetzner <whetzner@mac.com> wrote:

>There is no money in the Trust fund.

Typical Bushite, lying by telling the literal truth.

Of course there is no "money."
The surplus is not in cash, but in special-issue Treasury bonds.

Alan Lichtenstein
2005-01-12 10:27:04 EST
Chuck Feney wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005, Werner Hetzner <whetzner@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >There is no money in the Trust fund.
>
> Typical Bushite, lying by telling the literal truth.
>
> Of course there is no "money."
> The surplus is not in cash, but in special-issue Treasury bonds.

Regardless, The Government will make good on those bonds and Social
Security will pay full benefits until 2042.

Alan



Werner Hetzner
2005-01-12 20:09:44 EST


Chuck Feney wrote:

>On Wed, 12 Jan 2005, Werner Hetzner <whetzner@mac.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>There is no money in the Trust fund.
>>
>>
>
>Typical Bushite, lying by telling the literal truth.
>
>Of course there is no "money."
>The surplus is not in cash, but in special-issue Treasury bonds.
>
>

The foreign debt is in Treasury bonds. The US can only pay by borrowing,
taxing more or printing more money. It seems printing is in vouge. That
is why the dollar is losing value. It is why everyone will be paying
higher prices. That includes you.

http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/index.html


Marinus Van Der Lubbe
2005-01-21 14:37:49 EST
Alan Lichtenstein wrote:

> Chuck Feney wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005, Werner Hetzner <whetzner@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> >There is no money in the Trust fund.
>>
>> Typical Bushite, lying by telling the literal truth.
>>
>> Of course there is no "money."
>> The surplus is not in cash, but in special-issue Treasury bonds.
>
> Regardless, The Government will make good on those bonds and Social
> Security will pay full benefits until 2042.
>

I will agree with Hetzner on this, even if he is some sort of bizarre
libertarian, that those T-Bonds are not savings. They have been spent. We
will have to buy them back in the future plus pay interest along way.

Pay-as-you is the solution they are switching to in the UK and Chile who
both tried out the investment accounts path to its final desolation.
Page: 1   (First | Last)


2021 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron