Cato.com: Social Security in the Red (today)

[Larry]

Larry will pick the 8 words in your 100word post and prove you wrong.

ignoring the entire rest of what you said, the context or the intent.

Good Luck.

Thiebear will insult a poster while contributing nothing whatsoever to the discussion.

[chipwhich]

The government will borrow money. (At rates which, at the time, were roughly 1% above inflation.)

The government will then loan that money to you, in the amount of 2% of your paycheck.

You're on your own, what to do with it. What the plan wants you to do with it, is to hand that money to the financial services industry, whi will immediately begin charging you fees for everything you do with it.

When you retire, the government will then take back the money they loaned you, by reducing your Social Security payments by the amount they loaned you, plus inflation, plus 3%.

If you have invested your borrowed money well enough to generate more than 3% over inflation, (and after all fees have been paid), then you came out ahead.

Come on Larry this isn't political grandstanding. You posted the stuff above and said it was accurate.

It is unequivocally inaccurate and false.

Provide a link from anywhere that says this was the plan. Thanks.

Shall I say Match Point?

I love ya Larry, but don't use politically charged talking points to make an argument. I am not doing it on my side, I am just stating what the plan was without bias. I never said I liked the plan or disliked it.

[Larry]

Come on Larry this isn't political grandstanding. You posted the stuff above and said it was accurate.

It is unequivocally inaccurate and false.

Provide a link from anywhere that says this was the plan. Thanks.

Shall I say Match Point?

I love ya Larry, but don't use politically charged talking points to make an argument. I am not doing it on my side, I am just stating what the plan was without bias. I never said I liked the plan or disliked it.

And yet, the only part you've disputed is to claim that if the plan reduces revenues (which you yourself have said, it did), and keeps spending the same (which Bush himself said it did, and which I doubt you dispute), but to claim that it won't result in increased government borrowing.

So far, you've made two claims of where I was wrong. In one of them, you yourself admitted that you were the one that was wrong. (But it's only technically wrong, and well, even if it was wrong, it doesn't matter.)

And in the other, you demanded that I prove you a link to prove that reducing revenues while holding spending constant results in increased government debt.

You've claimed I was wrong, twice.

Both times, it was you who was wrong.

So now, you're response is to claim that my entire post is somehow wrong, without even attempting to point out anything specific?

I can understand why you're reluctant to actually make a specific statement of something you disagree with, based on your existing record in this discussion.

What I don't understand is why you think that somehow I'm honor bound, or something, to defend my statements from somebody who has

1) Called me wrong, twice.

2) Been wrong, himself, both times.

3) Refuses to actually admit it, either time.

4) And has now retreated to "I don't have to point out anything specific, I just issue blanket statements of wrongness".

[chipwhich]

Larry, I won't even give the above response an answer. You obviously play games but can't defend YOUR post. Here is what YOU said which I disputed. I am not disputing what I said. I know what I said and I understand the ramifications of the plan. I never defended or opposed the plan.

But what Bush was proposing was:

The government will borrow money. (At rates which, at the time, were roughly 1% above inflation.)

False, please provide any evidence of this.

The government will then loan that money to you, in the amount of 2% of your paycheck.

So incorrect, even you should see the flaw in your post. But if you can't read that and know whats wrong with it, then PLEASE show me any link where this was part of the Bush proposal.

It's false and you can't.

You're on your own, what to do with it. What the plan wants you to do with it, is to hand that money to the financial services industry, whi will immediately begin charging you fees for everything you do with it.

ABSOLUTELY Hysterical. This must be a joke. It's HOGWASH. But again, please provide a link.

When you retire, the government will then take back the money they loaned you, by reducing your Social Security payments by the amount they loaned you, plus inflation, plus 3%.

LINKY LINK please.

If you have invested your borrowed money well enough to generate more than 3% over inflation, (and after all fees have been paid), then you came out ahead.

This is probably the only part of your post that makes any sense.

See Larry, you are playing partisan politics in your rants. I simply wont allow partisan politics into a logical discussion.

I know what plan Bush put forth, I know why privatization in any way shape or form wont go through a democrat or republican led gov, I know why. I just schooled you on that, which now you try and throw back in my face.

Game, Set, Match.

[Larry]

Larry, I won't even give the above response an answer. You obviously play games but can't defend YOUR post. Here is what YOU said which I disputed. I am not disputing what I said. I know what I said and I understand the ramifications of the plan. I never defended or opposed the plan.

False, please provide any evidence of this.

True. And you've already said so.

The plan allowed for employees to set aside 2% of their paycheck into an individual account. I wont get into detailed explanation of how social security is withheld from a paycheck, I assume you know. Simplisticly, I pay 7.5% and my employer pays 7.5% of my pay. The 2% Bush proposed was a portion of this money. Hence it reduced monies the federal government receives for budget purposes. It reduced the social security surplus at the time.

The statement that Bush handing out 2% of people's paychecks would reduce revenues has been agreed upon by both of us.

If you want to play "I hereby wave my wand and declare that every single word you've said is wrong, because I say so", then it's too late.

Which of the following statements do you disagree with:

1) The plan Bush was proposing would have reduced federal revenues (in the short term).

2) The plan Bush was proposing would not have reduced Social Security payments (in the short term).

3) At the time, the federal government was running a deficit.

4) If you reduce revenues, and hold spending constant, (and the government isn't running a surplus), then the difference must be borrowed.

I know what plan Bush put forth

Obviously, not only do you not know it, but you will deny reality to try to turn it into something magical.

I know why privatization in any way shape or form wont go through a democrat or republican led gov, I know why.

Please provide me a link to the place where you've been certified telepathic.

You and I both have theories as to why. It's even possible that one of us (or both of us. We might agree.) are right.

But it's absolutely guaranteed that neither of us knows.

I just schooled you on that. . .

You have never even attempted to offer a statement on that subject. (Why a mythical Democrat would vote against destroying Social Security.)

And you are incapable of "schooling" me on it.

And it has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject we're discussing.

And no, I'm not going to spend the next three pages with you pronouncing that everything I say is a lie, without any support whatsoever other than things that aren't true, while you announce that the sky isn't blue unless I can prove it to you.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Can we just let the 35 and under crowd opt out and call it a day?

[Hubbs]

Can we just let the 35 and under crowd opt out and call it a day?

No no, this is somewhat entertaining. Just imagine that an MC is yelling things like "OH SNIZ-AP!" and "YOU BETTER BE ABLE TO AFFORD A TIP, BECAUSE YOU JUST GOT SERVED!" after every post.

[chipwhich]

True. And you've already said so.

First you have to understand the point that SS payments are a tax and SS is the US Government. Not some mythical entity.

Then you have to understand that SS surplus are used by our congressman to supplant budget shortfalls.

Then you have to understand the idea behind privatization. Basically the idea being a portion of social security will no longer be used as an an entitlement but something individuals "own".

In a perfect world SS would not be an entitlement, but a forced savings plan which citizens get to draw from upon retirement. In it's current form it is an entitlement, but that's not the hand we were played.

So some in the mix (including myself) would choose to slowly migrate this from an entitlement aspect to a form of ownership. But you have to understand what that means as well.

The Bush plan was promoting this idea. It however fell short of ownership of the money, as it was not truly a "lockbox" as the government could choose to tap into the money. But the idea was not to hope social security will be there, but slowly promise some portion will be there.

At any rate, your posts in this thread don't deal with the facts, they come from someone politically biased.

I am not saying the plan was a good or bad plan, but I won't allow you to just use emotional posts to state a point with no real backing.

The statement that Bush handing out 2% of people's paychecks would reduce revenues has been agreed upon by both of us.

Well no I disagree. He wasn't "handing out 2% of peoples paychecks" he was suggesting 2% of the payroll which is ALREADY being contributed be privatized.

You implied people could do anything they wanted with that money, which was totally untrue.

If you want to play "I hereby wave my wand and declare that every single word you've said is wrong, because I say so", then it's too late.

I never said that. I simply asked you to back up any of our posts. I will back up any of mine. You have backed up none. You just attack mine. I am free to give my opinion on anything I have posted. I will stand behind all of my opinions. If something I posted was a flat out lie please tell me.

Which of the following statements do you disagree with:

I will play your game, even though you aren't willing to back up any of your comments with facts.

1) The plan Bush was proposing would have reduced federal revenues (in the short term).

Short term AND long term. I said that, as I have implicated the SS is a tax so his plan was essentially a tax cut.

2) The plan Bush was proposing would not have reduced Social Security payments (in the short term).

Agree.

3) At the time, the federal government was running a deficit.

Well this is neither here nor there in discussion of SS.

4) If you reduce revenues, and hold spending constant, (and the government isn't running a surplus), then the difference must be borrowed.

Again, once we agree SS is a tax and an entitlement. And if you understand in the long term migrating to a privatized plan is a good thing for everyone then we can have an honest discussion.

Obviously, not only do you not know it, but you will deny reality to try to turn it into something magical.

No, I know it because fiscally it makes sense in the long term. This isn't some idiot idea. I would rather manage my own retirement, not rely on the federal government to support me. How about YOU?

Please provide me a link to the place where you've been certified telepathic.

Now you are being condescending. It's simple. Less money to use for the budget equals less money you have to borrow.

You and I both have theories as to why. It's even possible that one of us (or both of us. We might agree.) are right.

We might agree on a lot of things. But making blanking statements with political bias as the basis is not one.

But it's absolutely guaranteed that neither of us knows.

I do, read above.

You have never even attempted to offer a statement on that subject. (Why a mythical Democrat would vote against destroying Social Security.)

For me it's not dems -vs- repubs. I only care about fiscal responsibility in my life at this point. I am not offering talking points, or my side -vs- your side. Bush was never attempting to "destroy" SS. Where do you come up with this stuff?

I like to deal with simple facts.

And you are incapable of "schooling" me on it.

That's obvious.

And it has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject we're discussing.

And no, I'm not going to spend the next three pages with you pronouncing that everything I say is a lie, without any support whatsoever other than things that aren't true, while you announce that the sky isn't blue unless I can prove it to you.

I don't want you too. All I want is an honest defense to what you post instead of spewing the things without any backing. You haven't defended anything you posted.

I am not "defending" the Bush solution, albeit a start in the right direction. But if you think I have failed to back any of my points. Let me know. I can provide backing to anything I state.

I am not a dem or a repub. I am a fiscal conservative.

[chipwhich]

No no, this is somewhat entertaining. Just imagine that an MC is yelling things like "OH SNIZ-AP!" and "YOU BETTER BE ABLE TO AFFORD A TIP, BECAUSE YOU JUST GOT SERVED!" after every post.

How about just stating facts, and be willing to back them up without BS.

[chipwhich]

Can we just let the 35 and under crowd opt out and call it a day?

Well when 15% of your potential salary goes to SS and Medicare you should care. :pfft:

[Larry]

First you have to understand the point that SS payments are a tax and SS is the US Government. Not some mythical entity.

Then you have to understand that SS surplus are used by our congressman to supplant budget shortfalls.

Then you have to understand the idea behind privatization. Basically the idea being a portion of social security will no longer be used as an an entitlement but something individuals "own".

In a perfect world SS would not be an entitlement, but a forced savings plan which citizens get to draw from upon retirement. In it's current form it is an entitlement, but that's not the hand we were played.

So some in the mix (including myself) would choose to slowly migrate this from an entitlement aspect to a form of ownership. But you have to understand what that means as well.

The Bush plan was promoting this idea. It however fell short of ownership of the money, as it was not truly a "lockbox" as the government could choose to tap into the money. But the idea was not to hope social security will be there, but slowly promise some portion will be there.

At any rate, your posts in this thread don't deal with the facts, they come from someone politically biased.

I am not saying the plan was a good or bad plan, but I won't allow you to just use emotional posts to state a point with no real backing.

Which is all nice and cutesy sounding, but completely avoids the statement which you and I have agreed on:

The Bush plan would have reduced SS revenues.

Well no I disagree. He wasn't "handing out 2% of peoples paychecks" he was suggesting 2% of the payroll which is ALREADY being contributed be privatized.

And the factual difference between those two statements is, exactly . . . ?

You having spent so much time announcing that your nebulous statements are facts, and all, I'm certain that you aren't now moving your position (for what, the fourth time?) to trying to claim that you think the phrasing you think sounds better is somehow more accurate.

You implied people could do anything they wanted with that money, which was totally untrue.

I disagree with "completely untrue", but I'm certainly willing to agree with you, somewhat. Please, consider this to be me me agreeing with you on that point.

Short term AND long term. I said that, as I have implicated the SS is a tax so his plan was essentially a tax cut.

Agree.

Well this is neither here nor there in discussion of SS.

Again, once we agree SS is a tax and an entitlement. And if you understand in the long term migrating to a privatized plan is a good thing for everyone then we can have an honest discussion.

Am I reading this correctly? You agree that Bush proposed cutting revenues, you agree that he promised to hold spending constant (in the short term), you agree that the government was running a deficit . . .

But somehow, when we get to the statement :

4) If you reduce revenues, and hold spending constant, (and the government isn't running a surplus), then the difference must be borrowed.

Then well, suddenly we're in the land of "well, if you call this thing this other thing, and you call this thing something else, and if you accept my completely unsupported ideological assertion that My Way is Better . . . "

That statement, that the only way you can have spending without revenues is borrowing, you have a problem with?

You must be a Republican.

Now you are being condescending.

You're darned right I am. I get that way when people announce that they possess factual knowledge of why other people do things. And claim that they have "schooled me on it".

[chipwhich]

Which is all nice and cutesy sounding, but completely avoids the statement which you and I have agreed on:

The Bush plan would have reduced SS revenues.

We haven't agreed upon that. It wouldn't reduce SS revenues. They would have stayed the same. Which you ignore. It would have reduced the borrowing of SS revenues for the Government budget which you don't quite understand.

And the factual difference between those two statements is, exactly . . . ?

He wasn't "handing out money", he was taking money which was already being taken in and putting it in different buckets. There is a huge difference.

You having spent so much time announcing that your nebulous statements are facts, and all, I'm certain that you aren't now moving your position (for what, the fourth time?) to trying to claim that you think the phrasing you think sounds better is somehow more accurate.

What position have I moved? What position have you¨defended?

I disagree with "completely untrue", but I'm certainly willing to agree with you, somewhat. Please, consider this to be me me agreeing with you on that point.

Gee thanks, but fact is your statement had ZERO basis and was totally untrue.

Am I reading this correctly? You agree that Bush proposed cutting revenues, you agree that he promised to hold spending constant (in the short term), you agree that the government was running a deficit . . .

Again, you just drop gibberish.

I never agreed Bush promised holding spending constant.

All I said was in a perfect world, privatizing SS is a good thing. But apparently you have an issue with that.

But somehow, when we get to the statement :

Then well, suddenly we're in the land of "well, if you call this thing this other thing, and you call this thing something else, and if you accept my completely unsupported ideological assertion that My Way is Better . . . "

That statement, that the only way you can have spending without revenues is borrowing, you have a problem with?

Listen, please defend any of your points instead of constant attacking. I am defending mine, without attacking.

Spending without fiscal responsibility is what I have a problem with. I run my household that way. How do you run yours? You have a responsibility? You have a budget? You have to choose what you spend for the long term to protect your retirement? Or do you have a free ride?

You must be a Republican.

You're darned right I am. I get that way when people announce that they possess factual knowledge of why other people do things. And claim that they have "schooled me on it".

[Hubbs]

I'm narrowing the audience here, but at least one in ten people on this board should get this reference:

[Larry]

We haven't agreed upon that. It wouldn't reduce SS revenues. They would have stayed the same. Which you ignore. It would have reduced the borrowing of SS revenues for the Government budget which you don't quite understand.

1) The plan Bush was proposing would have reduced federal revenues (in the short term).

Short term AND long term. I said that, as I have implicated the SS is a tax so his plan was essentially a tax cut.

I never agreed Bush promised holding spending constant.

2) The plan Bush was proposing would not have reduced Social Security payments (in the short term).

Agree.

[Larry]

I'm narrowing the audience here, but at least one in ten people on this board should get this reference:

Color me as "don't get it."

However, I think that :gus: fits, and is a lot easier to type.