Re: Social Security Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
On 5/2/05, JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 09:49 PM 5/1/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: > > Reducing benefits to the neediest while > > > > > > >Can we tell them with a straight face that we are being good > >stewards by passing legislation that will reduce their benefits? > > What's your source for this? The plan the President presented last week > cut preserved benefits for the neediest, and reduced benefits for the > highest income earners. It looks like you are playing word games again. Word game analysis cut preserved benefits for the neediest The "cut" I assume was a slip where you indicated you know it cut the preserved benefits even for the neediest. Preserved benefits for the neediest is what I believe you meant. I'll ignore this for now. "Reduced benefits for the highest income earners" wow. You do know don't you that those "highest income earners" is everyone earning over $20,000 a year? > > As for privitization, I support it because I believe that if many Americans > who earn enough to save enough themselves for their retirement do so, then > they won't *need* Social Security when they retire. Somewhat agreed, and that is why companies developed pension plans and Congress created 401K plans. > This reduces > dependency on the public dole, and reduces the shocks to the federal budget > from generational shifts.In particular, if benefit cuts are needed to > make Social Security solvent in the long run, then providing younger people > the opportunity to earn high returns by investing for retirement based on a > cut in the SS taxes. The threat is not Social Security going insolvent. It never does. The threat is that right now under pessimistic economic assumptions benefits will be cut under the current regulations over 20% forty or fifty years from now. Every single plan that the GOP has proposed cuts benefits more and sooner. I will repeat that - to avoid cutting benefits decades from now EVERY plan proposed cuts benefits more sooner. All of this to supposedly prevent these smaller cuts further off. The President's privatization schemes all add additional debt very soon to supposedly avoid less debt decades later. This has an additional benefit for its proponents of weaning people away from the community based (as opposed to private accounts) Social Security system. I am using "supposedly" for good reason. One of the reality-based main reason's for these smoke and mirrors logically inconsistent plans is to produce this privatized system instead of a community based system. Bush's press conference has placed him even further away from being able to pass any plan. Do you think that Congress will pass his plan now where he admits I am saving the system by cutting benefits to all those higher-income folks who make over $20K? > > JDG -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
At 09:49 PM 5/1/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: > Reducing benefits to the neediest while > > >Can we tell them with a straight face that we are being good >stewards by passing legislation that will reduce their benefits? What's your source for this? The plan the President presented last week cut preserved benefits for the neediest, and reduced benefits for the highest income earners. It looks like you are playing word games again. As for privitization, I support it because I believe that if many Americans who earn enough to save enough themselves for their retirement do so, then they won't *need* Social Security when they retire. This reduces dependency on the public dole, and reduces the shocks to the federal budget from generational shifts.In particular, if benefit cuts are needed to make Social Security solvent in the long run, then providing younger people the opportunity to earn high returns by investing for retirement based on a cut in the SS taxes. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
At 11:24 PM 5/1/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote: >> >We have a president and Congress who are trying to make changes to Social >> >Security that would result in a decrease of benefits, by their own numbers. >> > >> >How many notes do we have to hear before we can name that tune? >> >> So, you believe that there should be no cuts in benefits for anyone >> on Social Security, ever? > >Nick said that the president's proposed changes would decrease benefits. > >You say that Nick says that there should be no cuts for anyone, ever. The quotation above from Nick was given a separate paragraph at the end of a long laundary list of criticisms of Republicans.It was clear to me from the context and the plain meaning of his words that he considered proposing benefit cuts to Social Security to be an utterly damning indictment. >> I, for one, thought that you might at least give credit where credit >> is due that at least *one* Party is *trying* to solve our Social >> Security problem. I guess that was too much to hope for though > >I believe you misstate the situation. > >*One* party is continuing its 70-year history of opposing Social Security (the >first Republican attacks on the program -- that it was socialist -- began >within a year of its inception). *Another* party points out that the sideshow >of privatization and the framing device of "ownership" don't even start to >address the 27% shortfall that SS will begin to have in roughly half a century. But we're not talking about the privitization part of the plan here. We're talking about the proposed benefit cuts, which *do* address the problem by any measure, and which Nick portrayed as a damning indictment of Republicans.On the other hand, Democrats have proposed, well, *nothing* to keep Social Security solvent for our grandchildren. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
On Mon, 02 May 2005 00:20:21 -0400, JDG wrote > At 09:11 PM 5/1/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: > >We have a president and Congress who are trying to make changes to Social > >Security that would result in a decrease of benefits, by their own numbers. > > > >How many notes do we have to hear before we can name that tune? > > So, you believe that there should be no cuts in benefits for anyone > on Social Security, ever? Nick said that the president's proposed changes would decrease benefits. You say that Nick says that there should be no cuts for anyone, ever. You really ARE angling for a job in the administration, aren't you? Anyway, you sure play their reduction-to-the-absurd game. > I, for one, thought that you might at least give credit where credit > is due that at least *one* Party is *trying* to solve our Social > Security problem. I guess that was too much to hope for though I believe you misstate the situation. *One* party is continuing its 70-year history of opposing Social Security (the first Republican attacks on the program -- that it was socialist -- began within a year of its inception). *Another* party points out that the sideshow of privatization and the framing device of "ownership" don't even start to address the 27% shortfall that SS will begin to have in roughly half a century. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
On Mon, 02 May 2005 00:20:21 -0400, JDG wrote > At 09:11 PM 5/1/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: > >We have a president and Congress who are trying to make changes to Social > >Security that would result in a decrease of benefits, by their own numbers. > > > >How many notes do we have to hear before we can name that tune? > > So, you believe that there should be no cuts in benefits for anyone > on Social Security, ever? I can't imagine ever making such a broad statement. Reducing benefits when the poverty rate is rising as the nation's economy grows for an unprecedent series of decades seems immoral. Reducing benefits to the neediest while cutting taxes to the wealthy seems immoral. What do you see as our responsibilities in this area? > I, for one, thought that you might at least give credit where credit > is due that at least *one* Party is *trying* to solve our Social > Security problem. I guess that was too much to hope for though > > JDG - Why bother when we can let our grandchildren pay, Maru? Whose problem does privatization solve, John? To whom are we being responsible by considering it? The neediest, whom Social Security is intended to benefit? Can we tell them with a straight face that we are being good stewards by passing legislation that will reduce their benefits? Can I assume that in principle you and I would join in efforts to ensure that the neediest people in this country have a secure financial safety net? Not that I see such a proposal on the table from anyone... but perhaps if you and I can agree, any two people in this country could! I'm not trying to be funny. It seems to me that we are two people of faith, so I'm assuming that we differ in matters of implementation and policy, not our core values. Can we find enough agreement that the matters on which we disagree pale by comparison? I think the answer is yes, though I can't see how we might get there. However, I suspect it starts with sharing our honest beliefs and feelings about stewardship of the poor and needy, as a foundation on which to talk later about how to do it. Perhaps I'm suggesting that we have been talking about works without first talking about faith? By way of disclosure... I want to get myself out of the "kill the other guy's argument" mode of discourse. It is not serving me well, even though it gets my endorphins going. But I don't want to do it by simply walking away. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Social Security Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
At 09:11 PM 5/1/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: >We have a president and Congress who are trying to make changes to Social >Security that would result in a decrease of benefits, by their own numbers. > >How many notes do we have to hear before we can name that tune? So, you believe that there should be no cuts in benefits for anyone on Social Security, ever? I, for one, thought that you might at least give credit where credit is due that at least *one* Party is *trying* to solve our Social Security problem. I guess that was too much to hope for though JDG - Why bother when we can let our grandchildren pay, Maru? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
