Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Wharton Student)   Next time someone tries to tell you something about what will happen to your social security... Show them the real numbers..   ( heritage.org) divider line
    More: PSA  
•       •       •

39222 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 May 2005 at 9:36 PM (12 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



643 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2005-05-30 06:06:56 PM  
It is a government program. You will spend too much. You will get too few benefits.

DEAL.
 
2005-05-30 06:18:24 PM  
offers1999: Word.
 
2005-05-30 06:28:12 PM  
'Cause the Heritage Foundation is such an unbiased source.
 
2005-05-30 06:29:53 PM  
Hmmm.. maybe all the gay bashing and loss of freedoms will be profitable!
 
2005-05-30 06:31:18 PM  
here's the only number i need to know...
odds of this post reaching infinity?
1:1.
 
2005-05-30 06:34:26 PM  
I've been working in the office of a US Congressman (Democrat). There are charts all over the office. Basically, they've projected that SS will be able to pay off 100% of projected benefits until 2042. Beyond that, the system should be able to pay off about 80% of projected benefits until at least the turn of the 22nd century.

I'll admit there are problems with the system, but the problems aren't worth adding a few trillion dollars to the national debt.
 
2005-05-30 06:40:46 PM  
In 2025, the Democratic Congress will move to make all IRA funds subject to a 50% "one-time" tax to provide "equitable" social security for all those who didn't sock money away in 401(k) plans.

Just watch.

/HIHF
 
2005-05-30 06:49:52 PM  
dsmo:
I'll admit there are problems with the system, but the problems aren't worth adding a few trillion dollars to the national debt.

An American guy I met on Friday (he was a Republican from Arkansas) straight-up told me that the Republican goal is to deficit spend until it's impossible to pay back all the SS money that's been spent, thus eliminating the program.

I dunno if he was full of it or what, but it was scary because he told me like it was an acceptable thing to do.
 
2005-05-30 06:53:02 PM  
How about just abolishing Social Security altogether? The problem with Social Security isn't the numbers. The problem is that the scheme exists *at all*.
 
2005-05-30 06:53:48 PM  
DarthBrooks

In 2025, the Democratic Congress will move to make all IRA funds subject to a 50% "one-time" tax to provide "equitable" social security for all those who didn't sock money away in 401(k) plans.

Just watch.


Because Democrats don't use IRA accounts.

I don't know if you're trolling or if you honestly believe what you just said.
 
2005-05-30 06:58:58 PM  
yup. this will reach infinity.

i'll just say that you can twist facts and numbers to say just about anything you want them to say. change one assumption and it's all irrelevant.

fark this thread.

/ciao
 
2005-05-30 07:00:05 PM  
I plugged in my information and it says "Screw retirement, you won't make it past 2008 when we nuke ourselves to oblivion"
 
2005-05-30 07:01:33 PM  
OMG, Heratige Foundation is a Conservative think tank. One of my economics professors does research for them and he is a very vocal supporter of neo-conservativism. If you want to read about social security, find the NPR debates on social security and read the transcripts or just listen to them. The people who stand up for the plan always say that their predictions are optimistic and growth would need to achieve higher than historical levels for major returns worth the 11 trillion debt by 2015.

sites with good information:
PK Archive (click "columns")
J. Bradford Delong's web log

If anyone wants to trash those two, just look at their credentials. Krugman is a definite future Nobel prize winner and Delong has a prominent voice in American Economics
 
2005-05-30 07:02:15 PM  
damn lost that link
PK Archive
 
2005-05-30 07:06:37 PM  
Best Social Security quote ever, I transcribed it from an NPR interview so its 98% correct, punctuation and emphasis mine:

"As of 2042 the system no longer has the trust fund, but its still taking in revenue. Its taking in revenue enough to pay 73% of promised benefits. But look, the rest of the US government, the government outside the social security system, right now is only taking in 68 cents for every dollar of spending. So when were talking about Social Security being in trouble, not being able to pay promised benefits. Were saying that 40 years from now social security will be in a financial position that is almost as bad as that of the US Government as a whole outside of Social Security today. Thats a pretty modest problem to talk about. The idea that this is some desperate problem thats going to mean that nothing is going to be there to pay benefits is wrong." -Paul Krugman (Princeton Professor)
 
2005-05-30 07:06:39 PM  
Bah.. This bunk calculator was disproven a while ago:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200504140007

Washington Times chief political correspondent Donald Lambro promoted a new online Social Security benefits calculator, created by the conservative Heritage Foundation, without informing readers of a crucial flaw in the calculator's methodology. The calculator greatly underestimates the benefits that most workers are scheduled to receive under current law. This flaw allows Heritage to claim that "[w]orkers would receive a higher rate of return under President Bush's plan for personal retirement accounts than they would under the existing Social Security system,"

In other words, the calculator purports to compare scheduled benefits under current law with benefits under a hypothetical privatization plan, but it cuts 26 percent from scheduled benefits, including those for people as old as 54. But if a worker is 54 years old today and retires in 2018 at age 67, he or she would receive all currently promised benefits for 24 years before the cuts that Heritage assumes would occur in 2042.

Moreover, Heritage's claim that "the alternative to" what it calls "reform" -- that is, the creation of private accounts -- is "doing nothing at all" is specious, since the only "reform" Heritage considers is a plan based on private accounts. Such a plan is not the only alternative to "doing nothing at all"; it's just the only alternative that Heritage chose to include in its calculator.
 
2005-05-30 07:08:21 PM  
Since the world is going to end around Christmas 2012, I'm not all that worried about retirement.
 
2005-05-30 07:09:19 PM  
I still cannot figure out why democrats don't want to give people the choice to use private accounts if they want. No one has ever provided a reasonable argument. You say you will make less? Fine, don't use it. You think it will make more? OK, put some money in private accounts. Why do democrats think they can decide what to do with my money better than me?
 
2005-05-30 07:11:05 PM  
MojoFraggle:

Bah.. This bunk calculator was disproven a while ago:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200504140007


Just bears repeating.
 
2005-05-30 07:18:56 PM  
MojoFraggle:

Bah.. This bunk calculator was disproven a while ago:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200504140007


So they say the calculator is wrong for people who retire before 2042. If you will retire after 2042 (30 years old or younger) the calculator is accurate.
 
2005-05-30 07:20:06 PM  
Arnold T Pants:

I still cannot figure out why democrats don't want to give people the choice to use private accounts if they want

Because it will cost hundreds of millions of dollars to put this system into place, and will provide NO additional retirement benefit to the majority of people receiving benefits. If you want to put your money into private accounts then by all means do so, but WHY should I pay more taxes to set up a government program to do that?
 
2005-05-30 07:20:58 PM  
Why do democrats think they can decide what to do with my money better than me?

I dunno, but being that you openly endorse Pyramid Scheme A over Pyramid Scheme B, do you think you are qualified to make sound financial decisions?
 
2005-05-30 07:28:42 PM  
I still cannot figure out why democrats don't want to give people the choice to use private accounts if they want.

Anyone studying society as a whole must view society a fabric, in that individuals are interwoven with the lives of the people around them. You don't have to be responsible for the poor decisions that other people make, but you have to live with the people that make them. Social Security as it stands now prevents just that, bad decisions from burdening society. A system of private accounts will undermine that contribution made by Social Security.

AND here is a link to Kinsley's Proof That Social Security Privatization Won't Work. (pops)
 
2005-05-30 07:29:42 PM  
The following quote was found on Heritage's homepage:

"Some of the finest conservative minds in America today do their work in the Heritage Foundation." - Rush Limbaugh, November 10, 2000

Rush Limbaugh is to radio journalism what Creed is to music.
 
2005-05-30 07:31:39 PM  
astudill:

I dunno, but being that you openly endorse Pyramid Scheme A over Pyramid Scheme B, do you think you are qualified to make sound financial decisions?

I endorsed it? Where? I said if you want to use it fine, if you don't fine. Are you qualified to comment seeing you think either of the options are pyramid schemes? If I actually had the choice I wouldn't let the government anywhere near my retirement money, but private accounts are a step in the right direction.

allenmwhite:

Because it will cost hundreds of millions of dollars to put this system into place, and will provide NO additional retirement benefit to the majority of people receiving benefits. If you want to put your money into private accounts then by all means do so, but WHY should I pay more taxes to set up a government program to do that?

So you would be OK with letting people opt out of it completely, right? That wouldn't cost any money. And are you really complaining about hundreds of millions of dollars. The US gives pbs and npr $400 million a year. They lost billions in Iraq. The actual cost to get this running won't be much compared to how much money the government wastes every year.
 
2005-05-30 07:37:24 PM  
Social Security is just a dirty liberal scheme to steal your hard earned money and give it to retired welfare queens?

Sorry, I'm not up to date on my Republican talking points.
 
2005-05-30 07:37:38 PM  
johnNJ:

Anyone studying society as a whole must view society a fabric, in that individuals are interwoven with the lives of the people around them. You don't have to be responsible for the poor decisions that other people make, but you have to live with the people that make them. Social Security as it stands now prevents just that, bad decisions from burdening society. A system of private accounts will undermine that contribution made by Social Security.

The guy agrees with your view of the society. Is this supposed to prove something? Why do you have the right to control MY money?
 
2005-05-30 07:41:42 PM  
Arnold T Pants:

The actual cost to get this running won't be much compared to how much money the government wastes every year.

So, you feel that it's OK to implement a program that objective economists have proven will be completely ineffective at best? Why are you so willing to throw money away? PBS and NPR provide value, whether you perceive that value or not. Iraq wastes money and lives, but the Republicans seem to be OK with that for some reason.

It just seems really odd to me that "conservatives" are so willing to throw our tax money away for no gain.
 
2005-05-30 07:44:23 PM  
If I actually had the choice I wouldn't let the government anywhere near my retirement money, but private accounts are a step in the right direction.


What direction? You're still being told what to do with an exact percentage of your money, you're still not given the option to withdraw so that you can control your own money. It's not as though this is a step in the evolution of the program that will eventually allow us to choose what to do with our own money.

You're acting like Democrats are just dying to tell you what to do with your money, but you're happily letting Republicans tell you what to do with it anyways. So now you have a tiny handful of options instead of one. Oh, the freedom!
 
2005-05-30 07:46:05 PM  
George Bush believes there are two problems in America: the rich people don't have enough money, and the poor people have too much. So he slashed taxes for the rich and cut benefits to the poor.

But poor people still have too much money, and rich people still don't have enough. The solution? Make poor people give their retirement money to the stockbrokers.

The hand-picked cheering crowds certainly seemed to go for it.
 
2005-05-30 07:46:35 PM  
I think we should just slowly (over 10-20 years) stop giving new retirees social security and let the old ones already in the system die off w/o letting new people on. No more SS by 2050!
 
2005-05-30 07:47:13 PM  
allenmwhite:

So, you feel that it's OK to implement a program that objective economists have proven will be completely ineffective at best?

Oh, is that what all objective economists have 'proven?' Give me a break. For every 'objective' economists that says it is bad, there is one that says it is good. No one has proven anything.

It just seems really odd to me that "conservatives" are so willing to throw our tax money away for no gain.

Giving some control of their money back to taxpapers is no gain? I would much rather my tax money went to giving me more control than going to npr.
 
2005-05-30 07:49:39 PM  
Arnold T Pants

Why do you have the right to control MY money?

Social Security contributions are by no streach of the imagination YOUR money. It is your contribution to a Government program that provides retirement, death and disability benifits to other citizens. Under a system of PRA's (Private Retirement Accounts) it isn't YOUR money either! The money that fills your PRA is a government loan. Saying that the money that comes out of your paycheck for social security is your money is akin to saying that the federal taxes that you pay are solely yours. When you "cash out" your PRA when you retire, you OWE the government the finance charge on that loan (current rate around 2.1%). A better analogy would be "Why do you have the right to control MY on margin stock purchases?" It is crystal clear (and completely understandable) that under the current incarnation of privatization plan if you make less than a 2.1% return, you will owe money to the government on top of not having anything in your PRA.
 
2005-05-30 07:51:28 PM  
astudill: So now you have a tiny handful of options instead of one. Oh, the freedom!

A tiny handful of options is much better than no options at all, is it not? The real benifit is the money in the account is yours. It is not the governments who might let you have some. It is yours.
 
2005-05-30 07:58:39 PM  
Arnold T Pants:
Oh, is that what all objective economists have 'proven?' Give me a break. For every 'objective' economists that says it is bad, there is one that says it is good. No one has proven anything.

Wow, do some research. Even President Bush agrees that the privatization of Social Security does nothing to ensure its solvency. If you read any economist that is for privatization, they are for it only under the condition of future economic growth being greater than historical growth. What proof is there that there will be greater growth in the future than there was from 1930-2005 (even worse if you count from 1900)? There is none, so any economist that is for PRAs is more optimist than economist. Read Kinsley's Proof please and get back with your stale arguments. This is completely about MONEY and has to be backed up by numbers, not optimism - it is not about "I want control over my own money!" Everything I hear from you is libertarian porn but youre justifying a Republican wet dream.
 
2005-05-30 07:59:26 PM  
/gloves off
 
2005-05-30 08:01:34 PM  
Arnold T Pants
The real benifit is the money in the account is yours.

The money in your account is a loan from the government, not yours. Once again, do some research because to someone who has researched this topic extensivly you sound like a troll.
 
2005-05-30 08:15:47 PM  
johnNJ:

Wow, do some research. Even President Bush agrees that the privatization of Social Security does nothing to ensure its solvency.

I have done my research. (Are you really relying on Bush for information?) Private accounts will help the solvency of SS (would you rather pay off your credit card now or later?), but that is just an added benefit. The sole reason I am in favor of private accounts is because it gives me some control over my money. Currently I have no control over the governments money.

If you read any economist that is for privatization, they are for it only under the condition of future economic growth being greater than historical growth.

Not.At.All. Historical growth is 7%. I've never heard anyone say it needed to be greater, or even close to that. I think you just made that up.

Everything I hear from you is libertarian porn but youre justifying a Republican wet dream.

If their wet dream is right, it is right. I wouldn't care if it was a democrats wet dream.
 
2005-05-30 08:17:27 PM  
This analysis is from the Heritage Foundation, an evil EVIL rightwing, wealthy, corporate-puppet, coin-operated think tank, whose board members/leaders should be on trial for treason because of all the evil they have set loose in the world.
 
2005-05-30 08:20:32 PM  
johnNJ:

The money in your account is a loan from the government, not yours. Once again, do some research because to someone who has researched this topic extensivly you sound like a troll.

What? I think you need to do some real research, and not from your democrat websites. Not to mention you have no idea what a troll is.
 
2005-05-30 08:24:30 PM  
Arnold T Pants:
I've never heard anyone say it needed to be greater, or even close to that. I think you just made that up.

What would have to happen for Social Security PRAs to be successful:

"1. To "work," privatization must generate more money for retirees than current arrangements. This bonus is supposed to be extra money in retirees' pockets and/or it is supposed to make up for a reduction in promised benefits, thus helping to close the looming revenue gap.

2. Where does this bonus come from? There are only two possibilities-- from greater economic growth or from other people.

3. Greater economic growth requires either more capital to invest or smarter investment of the same amount of capital. Privatization will not lead to either of these."
-Michael Kinsley

Trust him? from Wikipedia:
"Michael Kinsley (born March 9, 1951 in Detroit, Michigan) is a veteran American political journalist and commentator, currently serving as Editorial and Opinion Editor at the Los Angeles Times (since April 2004). He served as the founding editor of the online journal Slate until he stepped down in 2002 and disclosed that he suffers from Parkinson's Disease.

Kinsley was previously senior editor for The New Republic, and has held editorial positions at Harper's, Washington Monthly, and The Economist, as well as serving as co-host of CNN's Crossfire. In 1999 he was named "Editor of the Year" by the Columbia Journalism Review.

Kinsley graduated from the Cranbrook Kingswood School in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, and Harvard University(AB 1972; JD 1977), and attended Oxford on a Rhodes" Scholarship."
 
2005-05-30 08:29:26 PM  
Arnold T Pants:
What? I think you need to do some real research

How about I'm a Finance major at Rutgers with 2 semesters to graduate and we ACTUALLY STUDY PRAs in class? Not just "democratic websites" like you say. Last semester I had a professor that worked for the Heratige Foundation and he didn't like Bush's plan. However, he wanted it used because it would be the destruction of Social Security.
 
2005-05-30 08:35:49 PM  
johnNJ

Yea, you posted that earlier. I saw. Kinsely says to "work" (what ever the hell he means by that) privatization must generate more money than current arrangements. By current arrangements I assume he means the current social security, which generates a little less than 2%. The market has averaged a 7% return the past 70 years. If it returned 5% private accounts would still would be better than the current system. It appears the only knowledge you have on the subject is from one LA Times(*laugh*) opinion article, and you are very hung up on his credentials. Do you want me to find quotes from noble winners in favor of privatization? Would that make you happy? Do you want me to find quotes from Bush and pass them off as the final word because he went to Harvard and Yale?
 
2005-05-30 08:39:25 PM  
johnNJ:

How about I'm a Finance major at Rutgers with 2 semesters to graduate and we ACTUALLY STUDY PRAs in class?

Whoopdedoo. I was a finance major too. Is that supposed to mean something? Oh, you studed them IN CLASS. That is much better than studing them OUT OF CLASS. You win. Bye.
 
2005-05-30 08:44:07 PM  
They won't be happy until Roosevelt's presidency gets an asterisk next to it.
 
2005-05-30 08:51:25 PM  
Arnold T Pants

So to sum up your argument, "Take your fancy education and cram it!" Very nice. One question: Are you the type that watches Nascar for the crashes?

Here are some sources to consult:
http://www.sscommonsense.org/
http://pkarchive.org/column/020405.html
http://pkarchive.org/column/031505.html
Link to video part 1 of Michael Tanner from the Cato Institute getting torn apart in a Social Security debate: http://www.freespeech.org/fsitv/fscm2/ramgen.ram?url=rtsp%3A%2F%2Freal​media.fr eespeech.org%2Fnew%2Ftv_archive%2Fsocialsecuritydebate1.rm
and part 2
http://www.freespeech.org/fsitv/fscm2/ramgen.ram?url=rtsp%3A%2F%2Freal​media.fr eespeech.org%2Fnew%2Ftv_archive%2Fsocialsecuritydebate2.rm
 
2005-05-30 08:53:12 PM  
OK, I need someone to explain something to me.

1. Social Security is running out of money. It's not going to have enough money to pay retirees at some point in the future.
2. The President's plan is to take some of the money that WOULD go to Social Security, and put it into private accounts instead.

So, if I'm understanding this, the President's plan is to take MORE money AWAY from a program that doesn't have enough coming in already? Isn't that like cutting off transfusions to someone who's bleeding to death? Won't it just make it die faster? Can someone explain how this is going to work?
 
2005-05-30 08:54:24 PM  
Nothing like relying on a partisan foundation's estimate of what the stock market will do in the next 30 years to convince you that el Busho the Second is right on the money.

I mean, they have a quote from Rush on their 'about us' page for christsake!
 
2005-05-30 08:57:35 PM  
Arnold T Pants:Not.At.All. Historical growth is 7%. I've never heard anyone say it needed to be greater, or even close to that. I think you just made that up.

Oh and look here a whole section titled: "E) Faster GDP growth: How it Affects Both Strategies"

Read that, scratch head, make another emotional argument about me.

The difference between a bullsh**er and a lier is that a lier knows the facts but ignores them but a bullsh**er isn't concerned with facts to begin with.

/Pwn3d son?
 
2005-05-30 08:58:35 PM  
Aias
Nothing like relying on a partisan foundation's estimate ... convince you that el Busho the Second is right on the money.

The partisan foundations were right about Iraq, weren't they?
 
Displayed 50 of 643 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report