- Original Message -
From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion"
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 10:30 PM
Subject: Re: What Social Security (and Its "Reform") Say About America
substantially inferior system.
>
> First of a
JDG wrote:
And that's an important point, retirement should be planned-for today by
choosing to forego a certain amount of consumption and investing that
capital to build a stockpile for funding one's retirement annuity.The
current system of just hoping that future generations will vote for the
JDG wrote:
Actually, that's part of my point.
The people don't believe that a set amount of *contributions* exist, they
believe that a set amount of *benefits* exist.That is, regardless of
how much money the government claims to be in the "Trust Fund", the
future liabailities of the government
At 03:26 PM 2/19/2005 -0800, Doug Pensinger wrote:
>If people want private accounts
>there are plenty of ways for them to do that without Uncle Sam's help.
I think our difference is that I would like to see an increase in personal
responsibility for retirement.
For example, it is essentially a g
At 02:56 PM 2/19/2005 -0800, Doug Pensinger wrote:
>On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 05:07:58 -0500, JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> At 09:19 PM 2/18/2005 -0800, Doug wrote:
You mean, presuming that the next election installs a government that
restores the benefits?
>>>
>>> If Congress raised the
I will throw out here this example of a privatized retirement system.
Sure, many countries of the world have privatized and not one of them
is working well but people say those were not American plans. Here in
Texas several counties opted out of Social Security decades ago when
they were given th
- Original Message -
From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion"
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2005 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: What Social Security (and Its "Reform") Say About America
>
> Anybody else want to offer reasons w
Erik Reuter wrote:
* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I guess I'll give you a chance to discuss this reasonably again
Will you really?
Already did.
Anybody else want to offer reasons why the current level of Social Security is
the right one?
Nick
_
* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I guess I'll give you a chance to discuss this reasonably again
Will you really? Go suck an egg, Nick.
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Erik Reuter wrote:
We REALLY have to stop raising the payroll tax, even if it does feel
good to stick it to the rich. We can't keep paying more and more to SS,
as we have been doing for the past 70 years. It has got to stop, and
now is the time to stop it.
I guess I'll give you a chance to discuss
* William T Goodall ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I don't know much about economics but I'm pretty sure that there is no
> way the government can 'invest' in anything.
Actually, it would be pretty easy. The government could contract out to
a mutual-fund like group, the Treasury could send that gro
* Doug Pensinger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 18:02:14 -0500, Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >* Doug Pensinger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >
> >>But you see, part of your argument is that because the money isn't
> >>hidden away in a vault somwhere, it doesn't ex
On 19 Feb 2005, at 11:26 pm, Doug Pensinger wrote:
I think that the money should be invested in some way shape or form,
but the "personal accounts" thing where you have some control of the
money but the government restricts you seems to me to be an odd
combination of personal control and governm
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 18:02:14 -0500, Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
* Doug Pensinger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
But you see, part of your argument is that because the money isn't
hidden away in a vault somwhere, it doesn't exist when in fact a super
majority of the people in this country a
* Doug Pensinger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> But you see, part of your argument is that because the money isn't
> hidden away in a vault somwhere, it doesn't exist when in fact a super
> majority of the people in this country are of the opinion that it
> better damned well exist.
Are you really
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 05:07:58 -0500, JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 09:19 PM 2/18/2005 -0800, Doug wrote:
You mean, presuming that the next election installs a government that
restores the benefits?
If Congress raised the SS retirement age to 80, I'll flat out garuantee
you they'll get throw out
At 09:19 PM 2/18/2005 -0800, Doug wrote:
>> You mean, presuming that the next election installs a government that
>> restores the benefits?
>
>If Congress raised the SS retirement age to 80, I'll flat out garuantee
>you they'll get throw out on their collective ear. They don't even have
>the bal
JDG wrote:
You mean, presuming that the next election installs a government that
restores the benefits?
If Congress raised the SS retirement age to 80, I'll flat out garuantee
you they'll get throw out on their collective ear. They don't even have
the balls to make some of the minor changes we'
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 20:26:06 -0500, JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 11:45 AM 2/17/2005 -0600, Gary Denton wrote:
> >> Social Security cannot accumulate any excess revenues, be they assets,
> >> investments, etc. All current revenues that Social Security cannot spend
> >> on current benefits
At 05:47 PM 2/17/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>JDG wrote:
>
>> Nick, it is not just that the Social Security Administration is required by
>> law to give its surpluses to the Federal Government to spend, it is also
>> the reverse side of the coin - the fact that Social Security's obligations
>> are backe
At 09:56 PM 2/17/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>JDG wrote:
>
>> Sure, the Social Security Administration has government bonds, but if
>> Congress were to pass a law establishing the Social Security Retirement
>> Age as 80, then a good portion of those bonds wouldn't be a darned
>> thing.
>
>Until the ne
* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Dan Minette wrote:
>
> >It's that SS payments are tied to an index that has gone up faster
> >than the cost of living for 70 years...
>
> Except that that's not true.
Except that, if you have an intelligent point at all, you are quibling
on a minor detai
Dan Minette wrote:
It's that SS
payments are tied to an index that has gone up faster than the cost of
living for 70 years...
Except that that's not true.
Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
JDG wrote:
Sure, the Social Security Administration has government bonds, but if
Congress were to pass a law establishing the Social Security Retirement
Age as 80, then a good portion of those bonds wouldn't be a darned
thing.
Until the next election cycle, that is.
--
Doug
__
- Original Message -
From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion"
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 7:07 PM
Subject: Re: What Social Security (and Its "Reform") Say About America
> Dan Minette wrote:
>
> > I think
JDG wrote:
Nick, it is not just that the Social Security Administration is required by
law to give its surpluses to the Federal Government to spend, it is also
the reverse side of the coin - the fact that Social Security's obligations
are backed by the Federal Government as well... all of which is
At 12:34 PM 2/17/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>Gary Denton wrote:
>
>> This goes beyond being wrong. The "trust fund" is separate
>> bookkeeping in the SS administration showing how much they take in and
>> where they have invested their income.
>
>Exactly. The asset change per year is simple -- reve
At 11:45 AM 2/17/2005 -0600, Gary Denton wrote:
>> Social Security cannot accumulate any excess revenues, be they assets,
>> investments, etc. All current revenues that Social Security cannot spend
>> on current benefits are mandated by federal law to be spent by the federal
>> government.
>Mali
* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Dan Minette wrote:
>
> >I think he got that from:
> >
> >
> >
> >>If so, why do we need to continue increasing the cost cost of future
> >>social security payments faster than cost of living increases?
> >
> >
> >Who says we do? We haven't in the past.
>
Dan Minette wrote:
I think he got that from:
If so, why do we need to continue increasing the cost cost of future
social security payments faster than cost of living increases?
Who says we do? We haven't in the past.
Perhaps I don't know what Erik meant in that sentence above. Here's how I read
- Original Message -
From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion"
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 6:10 PM
Subject: Re: What Social Security (and Its "Reform") Say About America
> Erik Reuter wrote:
>
> > y
Erik Reuter wrote:
your
proclamation that future social security payments do not increase
faster than cost of living).
Where do you come up with this stuff?
Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Exactly. The asset change per year is simple -- revenue in minus
> costs and benefits out. The fact that the federal government has some
> siphons attached to the cash flow spigot doesn't change the fact that
> this number has been increasing. The latt
Gary Denton wrote:
This goes beyond being wrong. The "trust fund" is separate
bookkeeping in the SS administration showing how much they take in and
where they have invested their income.
Exactly. The asset change per year is simple -- revenue in minus costs and benefits out. The fact
that th
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 23:45:52 -0500, JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 07:48 AM 2/15/2005 -0800, Nick Arnett wrote:
> >Lest anyone be confused, Social Security's net assets have *increased*
> every year since 1982 and the
> > longer-term trend certainly has been so (see
> http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/
At 07:48 AM 2/15/2005 -0800, Nick Arnett wrote:
>Lest anyone be confused, Social Security's net assets have *increased*
every year since 1982 and the
> longer-term trend certainly has been so (see
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4a3.html). This
>doesn't mean we can close our eyes to the futu
JDG wrote:
.
Dave,
I think that you completely missed my point.
You say that Social Security reflects a view where Americans were willing
to sacrifice a little to ensure that seniors did not "suffer privations" or
"go hungry."My point, however, is that if those were really the values
that S
On Feb 16, 2005, at 6:35 AM, JDG wrote:
You say that Social Security reflects a view where Americans were
willing
to sacrifice a little to ensure that seniors did not "suffer
privations" or
"go hungry."My point, however, is that if those were really the
values
that Social Security were refle
At 11:34 PM 2/14/2005 -0800, Dave Land wrote:
>> >Social Security reflects a certain view of America: a place where
>> >people are willing to sacrifice a little to ensure that seniors
>> >wouldn't have to suffer the privations that the depression wrought on
>> >so many of their fellow citizens.
>
On 15 Feb 2005, at 5:34 pm, Erik Reuter wrote:
[Rest of rambling deleted]
Which doesn't answer the question. It is amazing how you avoid the
practical questions, Nick.
On 15 Feb 2005, at 10:23 pm, Nick Arnett wrote:
He traded in the Mooney on a twin, a Baron. And the Baron on a boat.
I see a pat
Horn, John wrote:
This might not be the best analogy. If I'm on that plane, I'd much
rather it make an emergency landing when the first engine fails.
Maybe it's just me...
I would, too, if there were a nice runway under me... but I suspect you meant what pilots call a
"precautionary landing."
I
Horn, John wrote:
Behalf Of Nick Arnett
There's an old joke about a four-engine airplane that loses
three engines, one by one. Each time,
the pilot reassures the passengers that the plane is
perfectly capable of flying on the remaining
engines, but it'll arrive an hour later. When the third
> Behalf Of Nick Arnett
> There's an old joke about a four-engine airplane that loses
> three engines, one by one. Each time,
> the pilot reassures the passengers that the plane is
> perfectly capable of flying on the remaining
> engines, but it'll arrive an hour later. When the third one
>
* Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> And you accuse me of living in a fantasy land?
Yes. You obviously have no clue of reality here, if you think there is
something clearly wrong with the statement you replied to.
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
__
- Original Message -
From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion"
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 12:01 PM
Subject: Re: What Social Security (and Its "Reform") Say About America
> Erik Reuter wrote:
>
> > If so
On Feb 15, 2005, at 10:01 AM, Dave Land wrote:
It's a gripping read:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj3n2/cj3n2-11.pdf,
and appears as part of an entire issue
(http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj3n2/cj3n2.html)
devoted to "Social Security: Continuing Crisis or Real Reform?"
Just to make it clea
Nick,
Lest anyone be confused, Social Security's net assets have *increased*
every year since 1982 and the longer-term trend certainly has been so
(see http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4a3.html). This doesn't mean
we
can close our eyes to the future population shifts, but it does mean
that any
Erik Reuter wrote:
If so, why do we need to continue increasing the cost cost of future
social security payments faster than cost of living increases?
Who says we do? We haven't in the past. Social Security's COLAs are based on the CPI, which is
based on the slowest-growing parts of the economy.
Erik,
Wouldn't that be what the President is planning to do?
No. One of Bush's guidelines is that the payroll tax not be increased.
That means not increasing the cost of SS. Also, by keeping some of the
money out of the govt's hands with partial privatization, the govt will
likely be forced towards
* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> As Social Security became accepted in this country, its reach was
> expanded to benefit people in more situations than simply retirees,
> which has required increases in the payroll tax. The benefits this
> expansion has
Erik Reuter wrote:
I would have thought it was pretty clear. What part of spending more
and more do you have trouble understanding? How high a percentage of
GDP does SS spending have to get before it can stabilize? 70 years of
increases is apparently not enough for you.
As Social Security became ac
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Before someone else noticed it and told me to "pay attention," I
> thought I'd correct an error in my last message on this thread: The
> transition costs to create private accounts won't be $2B. Of course,
> nobody knows exactly, but the number shou
* Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> Actually, yes. People are receiving their checks.
> I'm sorry, Erik, but I refuse to call a 70-year history of trying to
> destroy Social Security
They succeeded really well in destroying SS, didn't they? 70 years
of trying and it has done nothing
JDG wrote ..
> At 05:01 PM 2/14/2005 -0800, Dave Land wrote:
>
> >Social Security reflects a certain view of America: a place where
> >people are willing to sacrifice a little to ensure that seniors
> >wouldn't have to suffer the privations that the depression wrought on
> >so many of their fell
Folks,
Before someone else noticed it and told me to "pay attention," I thought I'd
correct an error in my last message on this thread: The transition costs to
create private accounts won't be $2B. Of course, nobody knows exactly, but the
number should have been $200B.
And not a penny of it in
At 05:01 PM 2/14/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>Social Security reflects a certain view of America: a place where
>people are willing to sacrifice a little to ensure that seniors
>wouldn't have to suffer the privations that the depression wrought on
>so many of their fellow citizens.
It also reflects
> From: Erik Reuter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: What Social Security (and Its "Reform") Say About America
>
>
> This was absolutely pathetic. Way to totally avoid any worthwhile
> consideration of social security. And to throw in the absurd claim
about
At 09:38 PM Monday 2/14/2005, Julia Thompson wrote:
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Feb 14, 2005, at 7:10 PM, Erik Reuter wrote:
This was absolutely pathetic. Way to totally avoid any worthwhile
consideration of social security.
[...]
Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. Way to live in fantasy land. Almost
unb
Erik,
On Feb 14, 2005, at 6:10 PM, Erik Reuter wrote:
* Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
The FDIC, SEC, FCC, TVA and Social Security were Roosevelt
administration products aimed at structurally addressing the causes of
that misery.
Has it been working in recent years (i.e, has the misery been l
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Feb 14, 2005, at 7:10 PM, Erik Reuter wrote:
This was absolutely pathetic. Way to totally avoid any worthwhile
consideration of social security.
[...]
Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. Way to live in fantasy land. Almost
unbelievable that you consider this a worthwhile artic
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Feb 14, 2005, at 7:10 PM, Erik Reuter wrote:
This was absolutely pathetic. Way to totally avoid any worthwhile
consideration of social security.
[...]
Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. Way to live in fantasy land. Almost
unbelievable that you consider this a worthwhile artic
On Feb 14, 2005, at 7:10 PM, Erik Reuter wrote:
This was absolutely pathetic. Way to totally avoid any worthwhile
consideration of social security.
[...]
Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. Way to live in fantasy land. Almost
unbelievable that you consider this a worthwhile article.
[...]
Anyone want to
* Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> The FDIC, SEC, FCC, TVA and Social Security were Roosevelt
> administration products aimed at structurally addressing the causes of
> that misery.
Has it been working in recent years (i.e, has the misery been largely
eliminated)? If so, then why does the c
Folks,
In a time of unprecedented economic upheaval in US history, the
government (the organization that we _citizens_ empower to carry out
our will as a national community, not an occupying force bent on
stealing _taxpayers'_ money and wasting it on foolish and inefficient
schemes) put systems
64 matches
Mail list logo
