----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Tarr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2004 9:41 PM Subject: Dan says SS = SSA
> At 05:51 PM 4/4/2004, you wrote: > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2004 4:12 PM > >Subject: Re: Welcome to life in George W. Bush's America > > > > > > > At 04:01 PM 4/4/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: > > > >I wouldn't really argue with the concept that, of the two parties, the > > > >Democrats have the more serious responsibility to talk straight facts > >about > > > >SS to the American people. But, I would argue it is the American people > > > >who have the most serious responsibility. One of the reasons that > > > >politicians lie to the American people is that, in many cases, the > >people > > > >want help in avoiding tough truths. > > > > > > Careful Dan, it sounds an awful lot to me like you are blaming the > >listener > > > for being lied to, and assigning the listener the most serious level of > > > responsibility. It is not really the listener's fault if they are told > >a > > > lie, and they believe - not nearly to the degree anyways, that it is the > > > liar's fault. > > > >It is when they have a choice between people who tell hard truths and > >people who tell lies that are easily determined to be lies and they > >consistently pick the liars. > > > >The moral reprehensibility of politicians who lie to get elected is higher > >than the moral reprehensibility of those who buy the easy lie before the > >hard truth. I have no problem with that. But, it is the electorate who is > >responsible for the penalty associated with telling hard truths. > > > >Let me give a extreme historical example that can be used to illuminate > >this principal. Hitler is certainly more morally reprehensible than the > >average German citizen who voted for him. But, the citizens of Germany > >bear an enormous responsibility for supporting the Nazis, even though they > >were lied to by the Nazis. > > > >Clearly, the American government's faults are very minor in comparison. > >But, if the American people chose straight shooters who disagreed with them > >on some issues over folks who mouth pleasant fictions more often, we'd have > >a better government. > > > >Dan M. > > Trying my hand at this provocative subject line stuff. > > Two things I'll disagree with Dan on. First is the pay in pay out schedule, > if he left out what I think he did. Did your example of 80,000 include what > the company pays into the system for that one worker? I explictly stated that. " (This calculation, BTW, includes both the company and the individual contributions)" So, the answer is yes. >Second, and this > helps his argument, what are the historical 30 year returns since 1935? I > was to a retirement seminar last week and the speaker was using 11% ROI, > and I think that's way too high. I thought there were some very flat years > in the 50s and 70s. People are basing the ROI on just what happened from 93 > to 99 or over even shorter terms. I looked up historical returns from, IIRC, '26 until now. This wasn't inflation adjusted...but neither is my calculation for SS. I know that I'm suppose to figure my retirement income on 6% return, but that includes allowing the nest egg to grow with inflation. So, that's the best # I could come up with, but I certainly would be happy to have someone come up with better data. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
