Activism Discussion: When You Call Soc Sec, You'll Hear This Pitch For Privatization:

When You Call Soc Sec, You'll Hear This Pitch For Privatization:
Posts: 15

Report Abuse

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

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)

Bookie
2005-01-14 12:18:36 EST

SOCIAL SECURITY HOTLINE: Thanks for holding. A representative will be
with you shortly. Did you know that the 76 million strong baby boom
generation will begin to retire in about 10 years? When that happens,
changes will be need to be made to Social Security, changes to make
sure there's enough money to continue paying full benefits, and most
experts agree, the sooner those changes are made, the less they are
going to cost.

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

UNBELIEVABLE!!!!

Bush is using what should be a government service run by civil
servants to propagandize the American people who are looking for help
dealing with Social Security. The union representing workers who work
in the Social Security Administration, the American Federation of
Government Employees, is protesting this. They're manipulating their
workers, forcing them to propagandize the public.

It is totally inappropriate and probably illegal.


Alan Lichtenstein
2005-01-14 12:22:45 EST
bookie wrote:

> SOCIAL SECURITY HOTLINE: Thanks for holding. A representative will be
> with you shortly. Did you know that the 76 million strong baby boom
> generation will begin to retire in about 10 years? When that happens,
> changes will be need to be made to Social Security, changes to make
> sure there's enough money to continue paying full benefits, and most
> experts agree, the sooner those changes are made, the less they are
> going to cost.
>
> ----------------------------
>
> UNBELIEVABLE!!!!
>
> Bush is using what should be a government service run by civil
> servants to propagandize the American people who are looking for help
> dealing with Social Security. The union representing workers who work
> in the Social Security Administration, the American Federation of
> Government Employees, is protesting this. They're manipulating their
> workers, forcing them to propagandize the public.
>
> It is totally inappropriate and probably illegal.

Did you give any thought before you posted? Social Security faces a
deficit in 2042, and this is a FACT. The message Social Security gives
you merely states that FACT. And it should be evident to EVERYONE that
unless something is done the fund will NOT be able to continue to pay
full benefits. Please explain HOW that is propagandizing the problem?
The message makes NO, repeat, NO pitch for privatizing the solution. It
merely says that changes need to be made. Are you aware that there a
host of potential changes being floated around NOW?

The message contains nothing that is unbelievable or otherwise,
inflammatory.

Please! Think before you post.

Alan



Libs ANGRY Bush Being Inaugurated!
2005-01-14 12:37:17 EST

"bookie" <admin_nsp@sepc.biz> wrote in message
news:6lvfu09fnn7f9k4lljirp3nnbtrlgn3c56@4ax.com...
>
> SOCIAL SECURITY HOTLINE: Thanks for holding. A representative will be
> with you shortly. Did you know that the 76 million strong baby boom
> generation will begin to retire in about 10 years? When that happens,
> changes will be need to be made to Social Security, changes to make
> sure there's enough money to continue paying full benefits, and most
> experts agree, the sooner those changes are made, the less they are
> going to cost.
>
> ----------------------------
>
> UNBELIEVABLE!!!!


Not really. The Democrat Party created that gigantic Ponzi scheme, so it
should come as no surprise to anyone that it is collapsing before our very
eyes. In fact, economists have been warning us for years and years now
(even during the Glorious Clinton Years) that that Democrat Party program
was coming unraveled, economically.



Marinus Van Der Lubbe
2005-01-14 13:35:33 EST
Alan Lichtenstein wrote:
> bookie wrote:
>
>
>>SOCIAL SECURITY HOTLINE: Thanks for holding. A representative will be
>>with you shortly. Did you know that the 76 million strong baby boom
>>generation will begin to retire in about 10 years? When that happens,
>>changes will be need to be made to Social Security, changes to make
>>sure there's enough money to continue paying full benefits, and most
>>experts agree, the sooner those changes are made, the less they are
>>going to cost.
>>
>>UNBELIEVABLE!!!!
>>
>
>
> Did you give any thought before you posted? Social Security faces a
> deficit in 2042, and this is a FACT. The message Social Security gives
> you merely states that FACT. And it should be evident to EVERYONE that
> unless something is done the fund will NOT be able to continue to pay
> full benefits. Please explain HOW that is propagandizing the problem?
> The message makes NO, repeat, NO pitch for privatizing the solution. It
> merely says that changes need to be made. Are you aware that there a
> host of potential changes being floated around NOW?

Look at the "the sooner those changes are made" portion. That's the
ticket. Changes do not need to be made to the program, just adjustments
due to changes in the population.

The shortfall is due to a possible increase in the Americans'
lifespans--"possible increase" it is not guaranteed that it will
continue going up in a country of McJobs, no health care for workers,
and always at war with someone. It might start going down by 2042.

The solution is simple: start running out of money because of an aging
population, raise the age cut-off (it's now 63 to 70); start running out
of money because of inflation, raise the wage cut-off that's taxed (it's
now $90,000 and $70,000 for the medical portion).

Then again, what happened to that locked box that was set aside to get
us over the baby boom retirees' hump Mr. Bush?



Alan Lichtenstein
2005-01-14 14:10:45 EST
Marinus van der Lubbe wrote:

> Alan Lichtenstein wrote:
> > bookie wrote:
> >
> >
> >>SOCIAL SECURITY HOTLINE: Thanks for holding. A representative will be
> >>with you shortly. Did you know that the 76 million strong baby boom
> >>generation will begin to retire in about 10 years? When that happens,
> >>changes will be need to be made to Social Security, changes to make
> >>sure there's enough money to continue paying full benefits, and most
> >>experts agree, the sooner those changes are made, the less they are
> >>going to cost.
> >>
> >>UNBELIEVABLE!!!!
> >>
> >
> >
> > Did you give any thought before you posted? Social Security faces a
> > deficit in 2042, and this is a FACT. The message Social Security gives
> > you merely states that FACT. And it should be evident to EVERYONE that
> > unless something is done the fund will NOT be able to continue to pay
> > full benefits. Please explain HOW that is propagandizing the problem?
> > The message makes NO, repeat, NO pitch for privatizing the solution. It
> > merely says that changes need to be made. Are you aware that there a
> > host of potential changes being floated around NOW?
>
> Look at the "the sooner those changes are made" portion. That's the
> ticket. Changes do not need to be made to the program, just adjustments
> due to changes in the population.

That all depends on how you define changes. The message considers what you
call adjustments as changes. as they are different from what is current.
Let's not get involved in semantics.

>
>
> The shortfall is due to a possible increase in the Americans'
> lifespans--"possible increase" it is not guaranteed that it will
> continue going up in a country of McJobs, no health care for workers,
> and always at war with someone. It might start going down by 2042.

Actually the shortfall has resulted because Social Security paid annuity
style benefits but was never funded to generate the reserves that legitimate
annuities provide.

>
>
> The solution is simple: start running out of money because of an aging
> population, raise the age cut-off (it's now 63 to 70); start running out
> of money because of inflation, raise the wage cut-off that's taxed (it's
> now $90,000 and $70,000 for the medical portion).

Both of those solutions require either reducing benefits or increasing
taxes. There are other solutions, you know. BTW, private accounts are not
among them.

>
>
> Then again, what happened to that locked box that was set aside to get
> us over the baby boom retirees' hump Mr. Bush?

That lock box is still there. All the revenues that have been collected
through FICA taxes are there, either in the form of incoming FICA receipts,
or in the form of promissory notes on the Treasury, on which the Government
will make good.

Alan





©hri§tÇræm® <>
2005-01-15 02:37:41 EST
> > Then again, what happened to that locked box that was set aside to get
> > us over the baby boom retirees' hump Mr. Bush?
>
> That lock box is still there. All the revenues that have been collected
> through FICA taxes are there, either in the form of incoming FICA receipts,
> or in the form of promissory notes on the Treasury, on which the Government
> will make good.
>
The cash isn't there. Just IOUs. When the oil crash begins (already starting)
those IOUs will be defaulted. Bush has something else up his sleeve. I know
what it could be. Do you? Take a guess.
--
\ufffdhri\ufffdt\ufffdr\ufffdm\ufffd

Alan Lichtenstein
2005-01-15 09:02:35 EST
"©hri§tÇræm®" wrote:

> > > Then again, what happened to that locked box that was set aside to get
> > > us over the baby boom retirees' hump Mr. Bush?
> >
> > That lock box is still there. All the revenues that have been collected
> > through FICA taxes are there, either in the form of incoming FICA receipts,
> > or in the form of promissory notes on the Treasury, on which the Government
> > will make good.
> >
> The cash isn't there. Just IOUs. When the oil crash begins (already starting)
> those IOUs will be defaulted.

Hardly. those treasury obligations will no more be defaulted than any other
obligations on the Government. And for the record, those obligations are spread
over 38 years, very sufficient time to pay benefits with little impact on the
budget until that time.

> Bush has something else up his sleeve. I know
> what it could be. Do you? Take a guess.

I don't deign to read minds, as you are insinuating that you do. So I don't know
what Bush is thinking. I KNOW what he says and I can make judgments on what he
SAYS. THAT is the way rational people evaluate things. NOT on the basis of their
political beliefs. You would do well to understand that. Bush's plan has enough
in what he has said to eliminate it as a viable alternative to all but the most
dogmatic and uninformed.

Alan



Marinus Van Der Lubbe
2005-01-15 17:38:29 EST
Alan Lichtenstein wrote:
> Marinus van der Lubbe wrote:
>>Alan Lichtenstein wrote:
>>
>>>bookie wrote:

He did catch this other lie.

>>>>SOCIAL SECURITY HOTLINE: Thanks for holding. A representative will be
>>>>with you shortly.

> That all depends on how you define changes. The message considers what you
> call adjustments as changes. as they are different from what is current.
> Let's not get involved in semantics.

The adjustments were on-going starting in 1990 when they started to
raise from age 65 to 70. If everyone is living longer, then it is not a
reduction in benefits when they are changed. Bush says it will all be
kaput the distant futute, but as others have pointed out, Bush is lying;
he always lies.

>>The shortfall is due to a possible increase in the Americans'
>>lifespans--"possible increase" it is not guaranteed that it will
>>continue going up in a country of McJobs, no health care for workers,
>>and always at war with someone. It might start going down by 2042.
>
>
> Actually the shortfall has resulted because Social Security paid annuity
> style benefits but was never funded to generate the reserves that legitimate
> annuities provide.

>>Then again, what happened to that locked box that was set aside to get
>>us over the baby boom retirees' hump Mr. Bush?
>
>
> That lock box is still there. All the revenues that have been collected
> through FICA taxes are there, either in the form of incoming FICA receipts,
> or in the form of promissory notes on the Treasury, on which the Government
> will make good.

Honestly, I don't know why people have problems understanding how this
works. Thirty year T-bonds aren't earning us anything. We taxpayers are
paying interest on these things. When they come due in 2035, we pay the
full principle on them then, all the while paying interest. That's not
setting money aside.

And what did we do with that money the T-bonds brought in? Iraq. That is
why each new retiree in 2035 can expect to receive a 500-lb. sack of DU
contaminated Iraqi soil and 5 Iraqi corpses, huzzah!




Werner Hetzner
2005-01-15 20:09:46 EST


Marinus van der Lubbe wrote:

> Alan Lichtenstein wrote:
>
>> ...
>
>>
>>
>> That lock box is still there. All the revenues that have been collected
>> through FICA taxes are there, either in the form of incoming FICA
>> receipts,
>> or in the form of promissory notes on the Treasury, on which the
>> Government
>> will make good.
>
>
> Honestly, I don't know why people have problems understanding how this
> works. Thirty year T-bonds aren't earning us anything. We taxpayers
> are paying interest on these things. When they come due in 2035, we
> pay the full principle on them then, all the while paying interest.
> That's not setting money aside.
>
> And what did we do with that money the T-bonds brought in? Iraq. That
> is why each new retiree in 2035 can expect to receive a 500-lb. sack
> of DU contaminated Iraqi soil and 5 Iraqi corpses, huzzah!



Try some arithmetic. Lets say the Iraq war cost $200billion. OK? Don't
like $200b pick a number.
now look at the surpluses at:
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4a1.html

You should see that lots of surpluses have been generated over the years.
Now understand there is only promises to pay by a government that has no
money and lots of debt.
If these $trillions were not spent on the Iraq war, where did they go?


Alan Lichtenstein
2005-01-15 20:37:20 EST
Marinus van der Lubbe wrote:

> Alan Lichtenstein wrote:
> > Marinus van der Lubbe wrote:
> >>Alan Lichtenstein wrote:
> >>
> >>>bookie wrote:
>
> He did catch this other lie.
>
> >>>>SOCIAL SECURITY HOTLINE: Thanks for holding. A representative will be
> >>>>with you shortly.
>
> > That all depends on how you define changes. The message considers what you
> > call adjustments as changes. as they are different from what is current.
> > Let's not get involved in semantics.
>
> The adjustments were on-going starting in 1990 when they started to
> raise from age 65 to 70. If everyone is living longer, then it is not a
> reduction in benefits when they are changed. Bush says it will all be
> kaput the distant futute, but as others have pointed out, Bush is lying;
> he always lies.

Actually, these adjustments started much earlier. Much of the time, they raised
the rates of contribution as well as raised the benefits level. Only recently
have they started to reduce benefits. And for your information, an increase in
retirement age is most certainly a reduction in benefits. Your benefits are
reduced by the additional number of years you must wait to collect them. the
longevity issue is taken care of by the annuity factor used to calculate your
benefits. Always was and always will be. Raising the retirement age is merely a
benefit reduction, and not a statistical calculation that the annuity factor
generates.

>
>
> >>The shortfall is due to a possible increase in the Americans'
> >>lifespans--"possible increase" it is not guaranteed that it will
> >>continue going up in a country of McJobs, no health care for workers,
> >>and always at war with someone. It might start going down by 2042.
> >
> >
> > Actually the shortfall has resulted because Social Security paid annuity
> > style benefits but was never funded to generate the reserves that legitimate
> > annuities provide.
>
> >>Then again, what happened to that locked box that was set aside to get
> >>us over the baby boom retirees' hump Mr. Bush?
> >
> >
> > That lock box is still there. All the revenues that have been collected
> > through FICA taxes are there, either in the form of incoming FICA receipts,
> > or in the form of promissory notes on the Treasury, on which the Government
> > will make good.
>
> Honestly, I don't know why people have problems understanding how this
> works. Thirty year T-bonds aren't earning us anything. We taxpayers are
> paying interest on these things. When they come due in 2035, we pay the
> full principle on them then, all the while paying interest. That's not
> setting money aside.

Since they are not earning anything, to use your words, then perhaps you suggest
that they be invested in the private sector so that they could earn something?
You are aware, that if the Government had done nothing they would earn NOTHING.
So perhaps the fact that the Government 'borrowed' those moneys is a good thing.

>
>
> And what did we do with that money the T-bonds brought in? Iraq. That is
> why each new retiree in 2035 can expect to receive a 500-lb. sack of DU
> contaminated Iraqi soil and 5 Iraqi corpses, huzzah!

Actually, that started with Lyndon Johnson to pay for his war and was continued
by every Administration and Congress since. Bush is only the latest to use this
gimmick, and is doing nothing different that every other President before him
since Johnson has done.

Perhaps you were unaware of that little fact before you began your political
statement which, BTW, has nothing to do with Social Security. It is so much
nicer when you stay on topic.

Alan




Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


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