The Song Fight Bulletin Board

thereisnocrisis.com
7200 word New York Times Magazine article on the history and false crisis of SS
Princeton economist (and Democrat) Paul Krugman on Social Security (check out basically everything from mid-November on)

So basically, I'm pretty convinced that there is no impending crisis, that Social Security is good, and that it sucks that it costs 6.2% of one's income but what we should do is invest what's currently going to bonds directly into the stock/bond/mutual fund/whatever market instead of rolling like England and letting people go their own way. 20-30% of private account money goes to paying brokerage fees in England, and the rate of return is very poor.

it's as much in crisis now as it was 10 years ago.

I'd gladly give a higher percentage of my income to highten the current benifits as well.

The problem isn't whether or not it's actually in danger, and yes it obviously needs some work...even the articles concede that...the danger is WHAT that 'some work' is. Bush's current 'idea' is a very scary one in my opinion. I think we should worry more about the 'some work' and the proposals than not to worry at all. Bush has already illustrated to us that when he wants something, he goes for it. Thats what *I'm* worried about. I can go start my own 401K. Social Security has always needed a tweak...not an overhaul as Bush <font color="#E5F5F5">threats</font> suggests.

Here is an interesting article I have had bookmarked for a few years on SS.

http://www.francesperkins.org/fdr.html

I think that social security as a total means of retirement, hasn't been there for a long time, if ever. This is unfortunate because I think it could have been, we robbed Peter to pay Paul. The federal government's use of the "protected" funds and the various reforms have caused the current state of affairs.
I don't see it as being a big part of anyone's retirement plan no matter what they do. It will be there, in some form but if you are thinking it will be significant, think again.

Fried wrote:Here is an interesting article I have had bookmarked for a few years on SS.

http://www.francesperkins.org/fdr.html

I think that social security as a total means of retirement, hasn't been there for a long time, if ever. This is unfortunate because I think it could have been, we robbed Peter to pay Paul. The federal government's use of the "protected" funds and the various reforms have caused the current state of affairs.
I don't see it as being a big part of anyone's retirement plan no matter what they do. It will be there, in some form but if you are thinking it will be significant, think again.

Social Security, as my NYT link describes, was never meant to be a sole retirement fund--that is, people weren't supposed to depend on it exclusively. Also, I don't know if you understand how the government "raiding the trust fund" works. I didn't until yesterday. Okay, so when SS was first made, there was a guy who thought that its money should just go into the general fund, and a guy that thought it should be its own seperate account. Roosevelt agreed with the second guy. La la la, years pass, Reagan's elected, Social Security is in trouble and we see that we need to reform it, conservatives cry that the sky is falling and they propose an immediate reduction in benefits: fully 1/3 of what was promised to earners. He said that ss faced "'the most devastating bankruptcy in history.'' He scared retirees and near-retirees, and so the Senate voted 96-0 to distance themselves from his comments. So, Reagan was pressued into increasing SS payroll taxes, and we started accumulating a huge-ass trust fund. Instead of just letting the trust fund sit there with nobody doing fuck all with it, we decided to let the money get some interest, via investing in the most safe of all bonds and notes and funds and stocks--US Treasury bonds. So we have, you know, $1.5 trillion dollars in these bonds, which is basically Mr. Societygummint lending its money to Mr. Gummint. Mr. Gummint, though, is kind of a spendthrift, so we've spent the money we've been lent by SS--though SS still, of course, holds all these billions of dollars worth of US Treasury bonds. A bond is an IOU, right, so in 2018, or 2025, or 2080, or whenever it is we need to start cashing in these bonds, Mr. Gummint will either be able to pay us back, or Mr. Gummint will need to borrow money (via, well, issuing bonds) to pay Mr. Societygummint back. But there's absolutely no foreseeable problem with that. As the NYT link states, we've done so before with no repercussions. US Bonds are, like I said, basically the safest investment ever. Foreigners loooooove buying US Treasury bonds. And if we show up to sell our bonds but nobody comes, then we'll try to issue the bonds at a higher interest rate until they do.

So, we're golden. Naturally, though, there's nothin' like fiscal discipline, which is why I'm a little worried at the prospect of the next five or ten years: to make Bush's tax cuts permanent, it'll cost us $2 bllion in lost revenue. To do away with the minimum alternative tax (which we will do) it'll cost us $2 trillion in lost revenue. If we enact some SS privatization, which I hope we won't and which I don't think we'll be able to do, or if we do it'll be at great political cost to the Republicans, it'll cost us $2 trillion in borrowing immediately, and then another $13 or $15 trillion in the years after that.

So... that doesn't strike me as very conservative. Or wise.

mkilly wrote:

Fried wrote:Here is an interesting article I have had bookmarked for a few years on SS.

http://www.francesperkins.org/fdr.html

If we enact some SS privatization, which I hope we won't and which I don't think we'll be able to do, or if we do it'll be at great political cost to the Republicans, it'll cost us $2 trillion in borrowing immediately, and then another $13 or $15 trillion in the years after that.

So... that doesn't strike me as very conservative. Or wise.

This administration isn't known for it's 'wise' decision making. The only risk mentioned in your post that I take seriously is the 'political fallout' if it didn't work. They have a way around that though... not sure what it is...but so far it's working pretty good.

I too hope you are right... but I'm gonna keep my eye on them anyways.

The best part is that four of the actors (Torgo, Margaret, one of Master's wives, and the makeout girl) killed themselves shortly after filming was completed.

And also that the title is redundant.

john m wrote:The best part is that four of the actors (Torgo, Margaret, one of Master's wives, and the makeout girl) killed themselves shortly after filming was completed.

And also that the title is redundant.

good to see that somebody got it.

you know, that's one mst3k i haven't seen.
-bill

It's probably the toughest MST3K to make it through. Absolutely painful.

jimtyrrell wrote:It's probably the toughest MST3K to make it through. Absolutely painful.

You know Loni Anderson, Kevin Sorbo, Bob Dylan and most important MST3K were products of Minnesota.

It is not the toughest MST3K to make it through. That honor goes to Cave Dwellers.

john m wrote:It is not the toughest MST3K to make it through. That honor goes to Cave Dwellers.

I thought Cave Dwellers was tolerable to sit through. I mean, it was hilarious and terribly bad. Man, what a great mst3k cave dwellers is.

Seriously? It was so boring. It honestly pained me greatly. The father of the main girl character was the absolute most boring character of all time in any film.

here's the new Paul Krugman article on SS privatization.

Apparently if you hit up a private account, and invest in government bonds, and get more than a 3% return, you don't get to enjoy that >3% return, it's given back to the system. You're giving up that much money for your private account, so you go back to zero. If you invest in stocks and bonds and do better than 3%, you get to keep it. But if you do worse than 3% you get to suck it up and lose your cash money.

jimtyrrell wrote:It's probably the toughest MST3K to make it through.

it was pretty bad, true. but a friend of mine told me she had a "bad movie" party, and they all suffered through the manos UNCUT version. now that's sheer torture. i mean, why would you even consider doing this to yourself?

The new releases of MST3K on DVD have double-sided disks, and the flip side has the un-mst3k-ified versions... ha!
At one point I saw "Mitchell" on regular TV. Weird.
"Mitchell!"
-bill

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... 820S45.DTL

MY GOD! IT'S THE PERFECT SOLUTION TO SOCIAL SECURITY. EAT MORE!