How to Talk to a Conservative About Social Security (If You Must)

[darrels joy]

The gulf between Gornto's numbers and those from the federal agencies results from different assumptions about rates of return, length of employee service and age of retirement--all of which can dramatically affect the monthly check any individual retiree receives.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...ck=1&cset=true

Gimpy,
I found nothing in this article that said absolutely that you are right. I found statements saying it was good and statements saying it was bad, both with calculations and details.

No login required.

I'm sure you can find a website that will backup your position entirely. Keep looking.

Joy

[reconeil]

Granted and in fairness Gimpy,...I nor anyone will ever change your and likes greatly programmed and so obvious defenses of ANYTHING that Democrat/Socialist Leftists posing as Liberals, so echoingly pontificate. Such de-programming is physically impossible.

It doesn't matter that The DNC NEVER HAVE SOLUTIONS FOR ANYTHING, other than taxing more or obstructing most everthing, and even any improvements to The Social Security System.
Only bashing everything: "Kornservative" seems The Order of The Day (or everyday).

Still, even YOU must think it quite absurd that politicians are always debatting what's best doing with The Peoples' PRIVATELY CONTRIBUTED TO RETIREMENT MONIES (re. F.I.C.A.), other than just dispensing such accordingly, as best as possible, and as promissed by trustees at retirement?

Just because President Johnson and Dem Cohorts unilaterrally diverted The Social Security TRUST FUND & PRIVATELY CONTRIBUTED TO RETIREMENT FUNDS into The General Fund with ALL TAX REVENUES,...didn't make such right.
Quite the opposite, and in The REAL World of other corporations a jailable offense. Mixing-in PRIVATELY OWNED RETIREMENT MONIES with operating expenses by ANY OTHER corporation in America,...was/is A BIG NO-NO. Apparently not so FOR RULERS.

Just because Jimmy Carter and Dem Cohorts later unilaterally decreed that much of same PRIVATELY CONTRIBUTED TO RETIREMENT FUNDS be given away to foreigners and their families, never having paid ONE THIN DIME INTO F.I.C.A.,...didn't make that fraudulent nonsense right either.
Quite the opposite here too, and also in The REAL World and/or non-political world,...another jailable offense. Here again,...apparently not so FOR RULERS.

V.P. Gore casting the deciding vote for TAXING the: "Never to be taxed (according to FDR)" Social Security System, at least was a bit understandable. After all, MORE, MORE & MORE TAXES from: "We The (Schnooks)" are all that Dems and/or Big Brother Democrats understand being the ONLY SOLUTION for most everything. Plus, "They" actually believe that MY/YOUR/OUR MONIES are actually "Theirs" to be dispensed as "THEY" SEE FIT.

Wake up People!!!
Even though Democrat Ruling Elite are Fellow Americans, such most certainly aren't your Friends, nor concerned about YOU,...unless a minority or foreigner increasing their voter base.
Such Big Brother types consider The Private Sector American Citizenry as their: "Subjects" or "Piggybanks",...more so than anything else. Nothing more, nothing less.

Neil

[Gimpy]

I don't need to find another web site to validate my charges.

You can go to the GAO's website to confirm this as the info below states!

And, the claim that the "average Social Security recipient" would benefit from the system implemented in Galveston is contradicted by a 1999 Government Accounting Office (GAO) report entitled "Social Security Reform: Experience of the Alternate Plans in Texas," which ran a simulation to compare what a worker would receive under the Galveston and current U.S. systems.


According to the report, only higher-wage earners' benefits and initial disability benefits would increase under the Galveston plan , while all other groups would receive lower benefits under the Galveston plan rather than under the current U.S. system.

From the 1999 GAO report:

In general, we found that certain features of Social Security, such as the progressive benefit formula and the allowance for spousal benefits, are important factors in providing larger benefits than the Alternate Plans for low-wage earners, single-earner couples, and individuals with dependents. ... Many median-wage earners in our simulations, while initially receiving higher benefits under the Alternate Plans, would also have received larger benefits under Social Security after between 4 and 12 years after retirement, because Social Security benefits are indexed for inflation.

The Alternate Plans provide larger benefits for higher-wage workers than Social Security would, but in most cases, such as when spousal benefits are involved, Social Security benefits could also eventually exceed those of the Alternate Plans. Even Social Security's cost-of-living adjustment feature however would not lift higher earners' benefits beyond those of the Alternate Plan participants until very late in retirement.


Survivor benefits often would be greater under Social Security than under the Alternate Plans, especially when a worker died at a relatively young age and had dependent children. With regard to disability benefits, all workers in our simulations would receive higher initial benefits under the Alternate Plans. ... Although the presence of dependents would narrow the difference somewhat between Social Security and the Alternate Plans in initial disability benefits, the Alternate Plans' initial disability benefits would still likely exceed those from Social Security because of the added value of the annuity.


And there are other major problems with the Galveston system. As Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) has noted, Galveston "contracted for a fixed-income annuity at an average annual rate of 8.6 percent. But there's no way the U.S. economy could live with interest rates that high over the long term; Galveston's example can't be generalized to the entire nation."


Further, as Brookings Institution senior fellow Henry Aaron noted in his testimony to the Senate Committee on the Budget on January 19, 1999, in addition to lowered benefits for most workers, the Galveston plan "exposes all workers to risks that no social insurance plan should countenance," while failing to provide inflation protection or guaranteed annuities for spouses and benefits for divorced spouses. Aaron also noted that the Galveston system could not feasibly be translated to America as a whole: "Those who withdraw from Social Security run away from a burden that the nation cannot escape -- specifically, the obligation to pay off the unfunded liability -- leaving that burden for those who remain under Social Security to pay."

It's obvious to anyone with an IQ higher than an armadillo from Rio Linda Land that this so-called "Galveston Plan" fits very well into the "mind-set" of most neo-con, new-wave republicans and their "help out" the RICH FOLKS agenda, and SCREW THE AVERAGE AMERICAN WORKER!

[darrels joy]

You can go to the GAO's website

Thank you. I rest my case.

Joy

[Gimpy]

the GAO report also "rests my case"..................it is enough "evidence" to substantiate the comment you made that ......"will backup your position entirely", right???

Or,........ you're NOT going to deny these "facts" like our old friend and Perjurer of the Pecos hisseff, SuperScooper has been, are you?? :cd: :cd: