> I was wondering who "Tyrone" was and where else he was mentioned or was this
> simply a reference to black people as the majority epitomised by a name?
>
> Just wondering?

That's funny, I did not realize you could determine race from a name picked out of thin air.

However, if you would like to discuss race, the Department of Justice and the FBI Uniform Crime report do break American crime stats down by race. However, I do not see how that subject would be beneficial to this thread or Boinc in general.

---

<a href="http://www.brainsmashr.com"><img src="http://www.brainsmashr.com/signature.gif"><img src="http://brainsmashr.com/boinc/counter_big.php?id=305369&amp;project=seti&amp;ctx=white&amp;cva=red&amp;cbo=white&amp;cbg=black&amp;linethickness=2"></a>

You did not back up your assertion that their dismantling it under deception and lies.

Enough said.

---

Red Bull Air Racing

Gas price by zip at Seti

I'm beginning to think it's either your reading comprehension skills or ......

Because I clearly stated that every country that has tried the same privatization scheme has severely compromised their pension plans and in some cases crippled their whole economies.

Is there something you don't understand in that statement?

Your tit for tat is the stuff of playground denizens.

Bush proposed privatization which will dismantle the system. The proof is being spoken by Gingrich, Lieberman, Grassley, and others. The presidents own commission clearly reported what the end results would be. The non-partisan Congressional Budget office has reported what the end results will be.

None of those sources report results as the President is purporting.

So, Richard.... enough said, will be when you have said anything, cited anything, which supports your assertions.

Read the reports, find a verifiable source to back up your claims that I am lying.

Someone is lying..... someone with a history of lying....

I stand behind the statements I've made. You can check for yourself, I've provided you with substantive material to support what I say.

You do little but hurl insults and demean my character by not offering me the same respect I've offered you.

---

> Because I clearly stated that every country that has tried the same
> privatization scheme has severely compromised their pension plans and in some
> cases crippled their whole economies.

It is not possible for any country to have tried the same privatization scheme because no country has social security like the US and they definitly did it differently than what is now proposed.

> Bush proposed privatization which will dismantle the system. The proof is
> being spoken by Gingrich, Lieberman, Grassley, and others. The presidents own
> commission clearly reported what the end results would be. The non-partisan
> Congressional Budget office has reported what the end results will be.

This is a link to Newt's web site with a presentation you or anybody can look at that shows how the privatization will work and it is also guaranteed to pay no less than the current law. Click the presentation at this link to the presentation.

If Newt thought it would dismantle the system why is he presenting it on his offical web site?

>
> You do little but hurl insults and demean my character by not offering me the
> same respect I've offered you.
>

It seems to me that your the only one saying that this will dismantle the SS. No one wants to end SS. Where is the deception and lies in the presentation at Newt's web site?

One of the typical democratic talking point is "the current adminisration is using deception and lies."

It's going to be easier to correct SS now than to wait. The longer the waiting the harder and costlier it will become. That is why they're saying it is urgent to do something now.

The money crunch will start in 2018, because at that time there will be a short fall of revenues coming in and payments going out. Even if SS starts to cash in it's IOU's the government does not have the money. Bonds or treasures need to be sold or taxes raised to cover the difference. This will cause interest rates and taxes to go up.

Excuse me now while I go and watch some free movies.

---

Red Bull Air Racing

Gas price by zip at Seti

>It is not possible for any country to have tried the same privatization scheme because no country has social security like the US and they definitly did it differently than what is now proposed.


mere subterfuge... privatization, such as Bush plans, is exactly what caused failure in these systems, to claim that no other system is exactly alike is not relevant. It is the removal of funds from the asset base which will phase out benefits that is the relevant point and that doesn't vary between systems.

>Newt's 'presentation'....

newt's presentation is not what Bush proposes, not what Bush purports..... that's just not relevant to the discussion and certainly has nothing to do with that which I spoke to.

Here is newt speaking to Bush's contention that there is a crisis.... Newt Gingrich "The combination of higher birth rates and more immigration makes the United States the healthiest of developed nations. This is not a crisis," says the former Speaker:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aziXgxWAuigc&refer=us

Federal Reserve Governor Edward Gramlich said. ``There could be modest changes made to the system that would eliminate the actuarial deficit,''

Gramlich is among those who say any attempt to create private savings accounts would be too risky for retirees' savings.

"Simply indexing the Social Security retirement age to life expectancy would erase much of the future shortfall," said Gramlich, "that would entail little more than raising the age about a year every decade, he said."

Regardless of whatever Newt has proposed in the past, you have to look to what he says today that is directly addressed to Bush plan, not some plan Newt talked of in the past that is not being proposed by Bush.

>You want to compare the veracity of talking points?

"I want you to think about a Social Security system that will be flat bust, bankrupt" Bush January 11th, 2005.

That statement is so egregiously a lie that not one study can back it up. As I said, even the presidents own advisors, which he appointed, have advised him that's not true.

>It's going to be easier to correct SS now than to wait.

I'm in complete agreement with this statement as is anyone who thinks about it. Never denied it, but Bush is not proposing to strengthen Social Security or to correct any of the minor problems that Social Security does have.

"It's a badly, badly flawed plan," Robert Rubin, the former secretary of the treasury and current Citigroup director.

"From a fiscal point of view it's horrendous. It adds to deficits and federal debt in very large numbers until 2060." He calculates that the transition costs of Bush's plan for the first 10 years will be at least $2 trillion, and $4.5 trillion for the second 10 years. The exploding deficit would have an "adverse effect on interest rates, an adverse effect on consumption and housing prices, reduce productivity and growth, and crowd out debt capital to the private sector. Markets could begin to lose confidence in fiscal policy. The soundness of social security will be worse".

Rubin adds that the stock market is hardly a sure bet. "You are not making social security more secure by subjecting people's retirement to equity risk."

>The money crunch .....


the crunch you refer to has already been debunked, beyond that, the treasury deficits, the falling dollar and the trade deficits are not dependant on what we do to Social Security. As explained above, privatization such as Bush is proposing, would in fact, have a deliterious effect on our ability to address the same.

Might I suggest some non-fiction movies, and after the popcorn, come back and prove what you assert. With links and verifiable sources. You've yet to do that.

---

Ok... I'm game for this...

> Federal Reserve Governor Edward Gramlich said. ``There could be modest changes
> made to the system that would eliminate the actuarial deficit,''

> Gramlich is among those who say any attempt to create private savings accounts
> would be too risky for retirees' savings.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2000/20000313.htm
-----------------
Conclusion
Social security has been a huge success in the twentieth century, arguably the largest and most popular social program the government has ever adopted. Its reach is now nearly universal, it has pulled millions of aged individuals out of poverty, and it forms a retirement safety net for virtually all Americans.

The history of social security in the twentieth century has been one of program growth--of tax rates, benefit levels, and coverage levels. But times are changing. At this point the system is nearing maturity and is confronted with a new problem--the massive aging of the U.S. population. We could respond to this population aging, and attendant rise in payroll tax rates necessary to pay for future benefits, by further increases in payroll tax rates, as was the case throughout most of the twentieth century. Or we could try some new approaches, such as add-on individual accounts, general revenue transfers, or various mechanisms for investing in equities. All of these can, in principle, pay for the presently scheduled level of future benefits and preserve the actuarial soundness of the social security trust fund. But only some of them imply new national saving, the high rates of return on this new saving, and new investments in American productivity. Our hardest job now is to find reform measures that really generate this new saving.
------------------

Looks like he agrees with at least the possibility of some sort of privitization. Earlier in that speech, he mentions:

------------------
In the set of recommendations accompanying the report of the 1994-96 Advisory Council, I tried to come up with an alternative way to raise national saving. Instead of raising payroll tax rates, I suggested what I thought might be a more popular approach of mandatory individual accounts held on top of social security. Since individuals would own these accounts, they might not think of them as tax increases. Moreover, individuals would be free to invest these funds in a constrained set of stock and bond index funds, much as happens today in employer-controlled defined-contribution private pension accounts. Even if the investments were confined to bonds, their return would be much higher than present payroll contributions to the pay-as-you-go system.

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

Personally, I happen to think that this is a very good idea, indeed. Of course, you, no doubt, will find SOMETHING to discredit this source... But that will do you little good: since you have cited him as well it will weaken your own argument.

>> It is not possible for any country to have tried the same privatization
>> scheme because no country has social security like the US and they definitly
>> did it differently than what is now proposed.


> mere subterfuge... privatization, such as Bush plans, is exactly what caused
> failure in these systems, to claim that no other system is exactly alike is
> not relevant. It is the removal of funds from the asset base which will phase
> out benefits that is the relevant point and that doesn't vary between systems.


Not quite true, and Very relevant. Why don't you provide a list of countries where 'privitization' 'ruined' their social security equivalents? You, yourself, have demanded 'links and verifiable sources' from us... Sauce for the goose.. Sauce for the gander.

> Here is newt speaking to Bush's contention that there is a crisis.... Newt
> Gingrich "The combination of higher birth rates and more immigration makes the
> United States the healthiest of developed nations. This is not a crisis," says
> the former Speaker

What you left out was:

-----------------
Even Newt Gingrich, the Republican former speaker of the House of Representatives and a supporter of private accounts, says,
------------------

Note: supporter of private accounts... At least partial prvitization is, in my opinion, a good idea. Even if its just manditory purchasing of govt. paper non-redeemable until retirement, its a good idea. I've supported this idea for almost as long as I have paid social security withholdings (I started in 1973, by the way).

Furthermore, to address his statement about 'higher birth rates and more immigration' (for sources, see the links in previous posts from the 2004 SS Trustee's report, and the CDC link on life expectancy), the higher birth rates are in large part due to the immigration. Worldwide, many countries have restricted immigration. Many in this country (rightly or wrongly) are angry about high levels of immigration as well. It won't take much to force the issue in congress, and the possibility DOES exist that some sort of restrictions would be enacted (Congress-critters DO wanna be reelected, ya know). If immigration is curtailed, our high birth-rate will start dropping as well. And the high birth rate plus high rate of immigration are the primary fuels behind your sacred 'low-cost' prediction of the SS Trustees. Do you really wanna risk ALL the Social Security eggs in just one basket?

> "I want you to think about a Social Security system that will be flat bust,
> bankrupt" Bush January 11th, 2005.

> That statement is so egregiously a lie that not one study can back it up. As I
> said, even the presidents own advisors, which he appointed, have advised him
> that's not true.

Just how is the statement you quoted an egregious lie? Looking at it, Bush is just asking people to think about it... Nowhere in what you quoted does Bush SAY that Social Security IS GOING to become insolvent. There is no true/false content *IN* it. Be more careful in your quotes.

> the crunch you refer to has already been debunked, beyond that, the treasury
> deficits, the falling dollar and the trade deficits are not dependant on what
> we do to Social Security. As explained above, privatization such as Bush is
> proposing, would in fact, have a deliterious effect on our ability to address
> the same.

On the one hand, you disregard the 'doomsday' predictions of the Trustee's Report of 2004 in favor of one (of several) economic models in the report that you just happen to agree with. On the other, you state that the president's 'advisors' and appointees are against him trying to do something about it. Let us examine this situtation further. Who are the president's principle advisors? His cabinet. And who are the majority of the trustees? Thats right, members of his cabinet and other political apointees.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/trustees.html

------------------
The Board of Trustees currently consists of 6 members, 4 of whom automatically serve by virtue of their positions in the Federal Government. These 4 are the

* Secretary of the Treasury (the Managing Trustee),
* Secretary of Labor,
* Secretary of Health and Human Services, and
* Commissioner of Social Security

The other 2 members are appointed by the President, and confirmed by the Senate, as required by the "Social Security Amendments of 1983." These 2 members serve 4-year terms.
----------------

The same 6 members of Bush the Younger's administration that would be QUALIFIED to give an opinion on the health of the Social Security system are the SAME 6 that signed that report (with its conclusions that you so soundly appear to detest). If they, as you claim, do not support his plans, why then did they sign the report that gives him all the evidence he needs to have a good chance of getting them passed into law? Either the report is accurate in its conclusions, or they submitted a bogus report against their OWN best interests. You can't have it both ways.

So this report has NOT been debunked, at least not sufficiently to persuade very many other people than you. Furthermore, treasury deficits, the falling dollar, and trade deficits ARE linked to the health of the SS system. If SS goes down the drain, General Revenue will have to be tapped to pay out the benefits. I think it unlikely that the public at that time would like losing roughly 1/4 of their 'promised benefits'. This will add many billions to the budget deficits each yearunless taxes are raised. Furthermore, if the falling dollar and the trade deficits manage to put our economy into a tailspin, this will wang the heck out of the health of the SS system. So yes, they ARE all interrelated.

It seems to me that you prefer that status quo in the SS system, leaving everything just as it is (and feverently invoking the deity of your personal choice, or lack thereof that the 'optimistic, low-cost' prediction comes to pass. Just for the sake of argument, let us assume that the 'low-cost' prediction become ruled out, and insolvency of the SS system as it exists now becomes certain. How would YOU consider fixing the problem then?

So far, I have proposed a combination of remedies... Increasing the salary cap, increasing the retirement age, getting rid of 'early retirement at age 62.5', and partial privitization (I especially like mandatory individual accounts).. What would you propose?

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

kong,

first, when you say you are 'game for this', I get the idea that you think it's your time to put me in my place. I may be misunderstood but that's not the atmosphere in which the information I'm presenting is being offered.

Let's stick to finding the factual parts of this issue and leave off with misrepresenting my views, making assuptions about my political bent, or suspecting that I push another's agenda.

I've tried to touch on all your points, I'm more than willing to expand on any of them or discuss something which I may have missed. Let's take them in manageable bites and sort them out.......

>Looks like he ( Federal Reserve Governor Edward Gramlich), agrees with at least the possibility of some sort of privitization.

Except that he specifically notes 'add-on' individual accounts. That infers not redirecting income. Not what Bush proposed.

His ,(again, Gramlich), idea of creating individual accounts is, as he says, over and above, or regardless of SS.

Rather than suggesting that I will attempt to discredit this man, perhaps you could reread what he says. I agree with his ideas, but he is also careful to say none of those things addresses the problem of protecting SS or strengthening it. It's a seperate program he speaks of.

I spoke of Brazil, Venezuela, England, and maybe more. It should be very easy to check if I am not speaking the truth..... be that as it may, I will dig up some links to ease your research efforts.

(here, I'm assuming you will read the links after I go to the trouble to present them to you)

>On the one hand, you disregard the 'doomsday' predictions of the Trustee's Report of 2004 in favor of one (of several) economic models in the report that you just happen to agree with.

You misrepresent what I clearly stated. The trustees project three results each year. What I reported and linked to their own site was the empirical evidence that history shows one projection tracks historical results. That's their conclusion, its 'not something I choose to disagree with.'

That's twice now, that you've misrepresented what I have said, to what end is this?

> "I want you to think about a Social Security system that will be flat bust,
bankrupt" Bush January 11th, 2005.

'system that will be flat bust'. When the memos out of the White House speak of creating a climate of fear, comparing this new campaign directly to their pr campaign to 'sell' the war with Iraq, flat bust is every bit as egregiously untrue as imminent mushroom clouds or chemical laden drones within 40 minutes of striking distance.

Maybe you would prefer to call it making exception to evidentiary reality. It's still a lie.

While the makeup of today's trustees can be studied for suitability to hold the post, you know as well as I that those figurehead cabinet members are not doing the grunt work of the research.

Since you wish to appear to be on top of this issue, I'm hoping you have scrutinized Bush's advisory panel to Social Security whose report refutes Bush's claims.

I don't disagree, on the face of things, with some of the remedial steps to strengthen or protect Social Security. I've stated as much in this thread numerous times.

What this issue boils down to most importantly is not what we should do. But what we should not do. And most especially what we should not do, while we are thinking we are doing something quite differently from what we are doing.

I realize all sides play games with the public. What I am trying to do is pick through all the rhetoric and find what basis we need to make intelligent decisions.

Privatization is not personal accounts. Personal accounts have a place in any discussion of fiscal plans.

Privatization is the redirecting of revenues in the Social Security program that will remove assets from the base. It most definitely does put the health of the whole program at risk. The trillions of dollars privatization will require that we borrow and add to the deficit is not in our best interests.

What I propose is that we understand the facts, we use that knowledge to accomplish our shared goals and stop argueing apples and oranges to try to prove partisan driven points. To that end I have done much studying because this issue really could be one of the most important decisions to be made during this administration's time.

I'm hoping we all realize that if we continue to repeat fables of either side, what we will end up serving is only the interests of those pushing agendas that are not dependant on our needs, but theirs.

Wall street and the lobbyists of K street are lined up and spending millions in order to convince us to redirect funds from a successful program to them. They promise to treat us well and make us all rich. Bush is doing his best to convince the public that there is a crisis so great, that we ought to blindly follow some amorphous plan that is patent suicide for the program itself.

I can live with the american people making decisions, I'm opposed to those decisions being made for them based on deceptions. Wouldn't you be?

---

"Social Security will be in the red in 13 years, and will go bankrupt by 2042"
- Pres. G. W. Bush in press conference 2005/Jan/26 10:19 EST

It's going broke. Slowly, but it is.

---

na,

Claims have been being made for decades that SS is 'going broke'.

The empirical evidence has not proven this to be true.

The trustees' projections are based on pessimistic assumptions. Real growth is expected to fall to between 1.7% and 1.8% over the long-run according to these pessimistic assumptions, but that has never been the case for an extended period of time during the post-war years. Similarly, the trustees assume that in the long-run the economy will settle on an average productivity growth rate of 1.6%, which is again too low by historical standards. Higher productivity and consequently faster real wage growth -- which have both historically been about 2.0%—would be more realistic and improve Social Security's finances.


For decades now, the 'date of bankruptcy' has been 'adjusted' farther and farther into the future. And that's attributable to the 'pessimistic' assumptions not being historically realistic.... We've outperformed the projections every time. And unless some major catastrophe independant of SS occurs, it's likely we will outperform the 'doomsayers' again.

That's not to say there are not things we should be looking at to 'improve' SS, but a 'crisis' that dictates Bush's plan is just so much falderoll.

Please investigate the issue, and don't fall for repeating unfounded rumor.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR03/II_project.html


Since I don't know how to 'insert' graphs and such, or even make the link 'active', I can only offer the address and ask that you pay special notice to the historical evidence and compare it to the 'chicken little' theorem. The graph at the bottom of this page is worth a look.

---

Granted, I trust the President about as far as I can throw Fat B, but if he's got enough functional neurons left to have listened to what Greenspan said over a year ago and come to face the problem, then he's got all of what little support I'm willing to extend to him.

I hate to break it to you, but I've lived through the failures of SS in other countries. Through that, I have seen SS's death throes here. Unless you want to live in a corrupt, mismanaged, and defaulted country, bolster the system - don't just say all's well and ignore it.

What's the worst that could happen - SS runs a surplus?

---

Again, what's wrong with plaining for your golden years so you do not have to get on old people welfare?

It's almost like you guys are looking forward to being a burden on society.

I mean, just because I pay insurance every month, that doesn't mean I'm going to wreck my car. I pay medical insurance every month, that doesn't mean i'm going to chop off my hand so I can collect. Likewise, I pay into Social Security every month, but as with the examples above, I'm going to do my best to avoid that situation as well.

What's the worst that could happen, other than you being self sufficient your entire adult life with a net to fall back on ONLY if you are unable to support yourself.
.

---

<a href="http://www.brainsmashr.com"><img src="http://www.brainsmashr.com/signature.gif"><img src="http://brainsmashr.com/boinc/counter_big.php?id=305369&amp;project=seti&amp;ctx=white&amp;cva=red&amp;cbo=white&amp;cbg=black&amp;linethickness=2"></a>

You're assuming that the economy will continue to grow without bound. Economics are cyclic - They rise, peak, they fall, and after some doldrums rise again.

From behind this keyboard, I don't see the economy rising more than 1% in the next 4 years, and no higher than 5% in the next 10. - Consider it to be the flip-side of the good karma we had in the 90s. And if I'm right (and I hope I'm not), then I am going to need SS because the economy needed for self-support will not have been established when I am establishing my retirement.

Just so I'm clear, I don't expect to rely and depend on SS alone in the December of my days, but it should be ready if the you-know-what hits the fan and I have nowhere else to turn to.

2&cent;, just like 74364

---

This subject is difficult to discuss, especially so in a series of posts.

I can only guess that some are not reading all the posts, because no where have I suggested that I think the economy can grow without bounds, nowhere have I said I'm against strengthening and protecting SS.

What I have been saying is there much disinformation surrounding Bush's latest push to 'reform' SS. What he proposes is not what most people think when they refer to reforming SS.

I want to see SS survive, for myself and for the future. I'm fully vested, as they say. In other words I've paid in for a long time. I hope not to need SS, but I want it there just the same. It's insurance.

I'm not especially bullish or optimistic about future productivity and growth, but it only takes one percentage point above the pessimistic projections to make solvency a reality.

If we face the deficit, increase personal savings, stop the slide of the dollar, we may be able to pull it off. If not, if we can't solve those larger problems, SS will go with the rest.

If we do survive the larger budget and dollar problems, and take from the asset base of SS to fund forced accounts, we will lose a block of people to sacrifice the costs of the change. No way around it. You and me, or our kids, somebody has to bite the bullet then.

I have my doubts Congress is up to the task, an election year is coming and vote garnering will be on their minds.

I just don't want to see the public pushing for a change that they don';t understand and which won't do what they think.

---

...somebody has to bite the bullet then.
Could somebody pass the salt?

---

> Granted, I trust the President about as far as I can throw Fat B

Hey mines medical, the prez is the mental one! ;)

---

> Just so I'm clear, I don't expect to rely and depend on SS alone in the
> December of my days, but it should be ready if the you-know-what hits the fan
> and I have nowhere else to turn to.

However, it seems to me that you DO still intend to collect(I don't expect to rely and depend on SS alone) regardless of the need.

The problem is 99% of the population feel they deserve it, and intend to collect, regardless of their need. heck, I even work with a guy who started collecting at 62.....and he's even still got a JOB!!!

It's legalized abuse, plain and simple, and that's why the program is going down the tubes.

As far as economic trends, if you live according to a budget, then the inflection of the economy shouldn't make a differnce to you. If you planned properly in life, then you should already own a house, car, and most other high priced items essential to life in 2005. 20% of your income on groceries is still 20% even if the price of goods and services increases....you'll just have to tighten your belt much like you probably do right now when items increase in price......like gasoline for instance.

.

---

<a href="http://www.brainsmashr.com"><img src="http://www.brainsmashr.com/signature.gif"><img src="http://brainsmashr.com/boinc/counter_big.php?id=305369&amp;project=seti&amp;ctx=white&amp;cva=red&amp;cbo=white&amp;cbg=black&amp;linethickness=2"></a>

>
> The problem is 99% of the population feel they deserve it, and intend to
> collect, regardless of their need. heck, I even work with a guy who started
> collecting at 62.....and he's even still got a JOB!!!

Of course we deserve it, it’s been promised to us since WE started paying into the system.


> It's legalized abuse, plain and simple, and that's why the program is going
> down the tubes.

Abuse, No way. The program isn't going down the tubes because of itself. It's the IOU's The money was “borrowed” for other uses, that’s what causing the SS program to falter. If that money was invested at even an average return rate SS would be very solid.


>
> As far as economic trends, if you live according to a budget, then the
> inflection of the economy shouldn't make a differnce to you. If you planned
> properly in life, then you should already own a house, car, and most other
> high priced items essential to life in 2005. 20% of your income on groceries
> is still 20% even if the price of goods and services increases....you'll just
> have to tighten your belt much like you probably do right now when items
> increase in price......like gasoline for instance.

Respectfully, Brainsmasher. You must be part of society that has been very lucky in life or your making great money... You are 33yrs old You still feel invincible, Lets take your income away through no fault of your own. You think oh hell I'll just get another job, mm Right probably can at 33. Let’s take the same scenario and move your age up to 55 and you loose your job. What are you going to due? The 33yr old has taken the job your qualified for and now you have to accept an income that is far less that of what your worth....

Now you take someone like me, at 44yrs old, got the Flu! The Flu and I coughed so hard a blood clot formed and went to my heart, killing the heart muscle. If it wasn't for SSI I would be on the street or dead...

Anyway, my point is your 20% scenario doesn’t hold water the cost of living rises faster than increases in salary. Food, Clothing, Mortgages, Car Loans, only the citizens above the poverty level can afford all those things. Real life not everyone is a Brainiac! Just average.

BrainSmasher I am not ranting on you, This is my view on the SS situation...



Timmy

---

>>Just so I'm clear, I don't expect to rely and depend on SS alone in the December of my days, but it should be ready if the you-know-what hits the fan and I have nowhere else to turn to.
>However, it seems to me that you DO still intend to collect(I don't expect to rely and depend on SS alone) regardless of the need.
Maybe I didn't make myself clear: The expression "when the sh&iexcl;t hits the fan" means "peak of problems" or "times of trouble". I'm sure that one day I will need it, but I don't intend to live off of it as you suggest - Moreover, anyone who does should either be truly in a state of need or locked up.

I'm fuck&iexcl;ng sick and tired of paying the pills for the little lady down the lane.

And for the record, I don't drive, I don't have insurance, I don't own a car, and I don't even have a license.
.o0(This is New York, who needs one?)

---

> Abuse, No way. The program isn't going down the tubes because of itself. It's
> the IOU's The money was “borrowed” for other uses, that’s what causing the SS
> program to falter. If that money was invested at even an average return rate
> SS would be very solid.
>


Privatizing the Social Security System will not stop the "Powers to be" from removing money from the system. All it will do is keep the current pay in rate at 15% of your pre-tax income.

>
> >
> > As far as economic trends, if you live according to a budget, then the
> > inflection of the economy shouldn't make a differnce to you. If you
> planned
> > properly in life, then you should already own a house, car, and most
> other
> > high priced items essential to life in 2005. 20% of your income on
> groceries
> > is still 20% even if the price of goods and services increases....you'll
> just
> > have to tighten your belt much like you probably do right now when items
> > increase in price......like gasoline for instance.
>

This comes from a person who has a job that makes it possible for him to own a car, a home or even afford groceries. In the 22 years that I rode on an ambulance I have seen people who cut their budjet so much that they were eating dog food, because that is what they could afford (even with food stamps).

Both of my parents were of an age where they had to quit school to help support their families (My mother in the 6th grade and my father in the 2nd). They could not find a job that paid much above minimum wage. Try living on 50% of that.. There were times when our money did not reach to the end of the month, even with me working. My parent did not allow me to quit school, so I worked part-time and went to school full time. Plus the labor laws changed by the time I could work.

BrainSmasher I am glad you have a rosey eye on the world, but you need to really look around you. While you are sitting in your fancy office earning the money it takes to buy a house and a car there are those that have to clean that office, guard that office, water the plants in that office and take out the garbage from that office. Take a real close look at ALL the people flipping the burgers at your favorite fast food restuarant.

See the world around you and not just look.. It is not as rosey as you think.. The SS system was meant for the people you seem to have ignored.

It has already failed!!!!!

---

I'd rather speak my mind because it hurts too much to bite my tongue.

American Spirit BBQ Proudly Serving those that courageously defend freedom.

Right now with our
> people prefering to buy goods made overseas (China to be specific) US
> manufacturing is diying (sp). Less manufacturing equals less jobs equals less
> taxes equals less money available to be payed out equals more people needing
> help. Its called the "Global Economy". Meaning the rich bastitches can make
> more money out of this country while paying less to the people. No reason to
> pay a US company $12.00 for a shirt that they can sell for $18.00 when they
> can buy an equivalent shirt from China for $3.00, sell it for $15.00 and still
> tell everyone how nice they are to give them a three dollar savings. And on
> this, don't get me wrong, I mean EVERY country's citizens have a responsibilty
> to their OWN country to buy their OWN country's goods before they go somewhere
> else to save a kopec. I "Buy AMerican", and if I was French it would be "Buy
> French" or whatever country I am a citizen of. Wise up people. I would like
> to own a Saab but I buy Fords...enough of this drivel and pedagoguery (g)..p
>
You misse a LARGE part of the reason companies buy overseas and then import those products, YOU AND I!!! That's right, YOU AND I are a LARGE part of the problem! We want more money from those same companies when we invest in them, WE are driving them to be more and mroe profitable and thus return more and more of that money to us thru higher stock prices and dividends! WE are part of the problem! You CAN'T JUST buy American, Japanase, French or whatever, we MUST stop FORCING these companies to do things in the name of the almighty profit!!!
OH WAIT...the companies making a profit, helps ME! It keeps me working, it even keeps YOU working! HMMMM, quite a dilema huh?
WE want MORE but we want the companies to do it with LESS! We want the companies to stop exporting jobs and to therby stop importing other Countries products, but WE tell those same Companies that WE want higher stock prices AND dividends too!

---