Let Your Voice Against Privatisation Of SS

[Jenda]

Obscure college??? What a joke! Georgetown University is one of the most prestigious universities in the U.S.

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by curvette@Mar 4 2005, 05:53 PM

I also think it's very important that we take charge of our own retirements, and not depend on Social Security. It's a nice supplemental income, but isn't going to support us in the manner to which we've (spoiled Americans) become accustomed. :)

I agree with this statement. I have known this ever since I entered the work force that social security wouldn't be enough to support us. We are also educating our own children to taking advantage of retirement programs at work.

Does anyone know what the pros and cons are about privatization of SS and if it is really something that is being pushed through? I know that on a state level they are trying to privatize Workers Compensation and that is NOT a good thing. Without government regulation of some of these programs, privatization looses the focus of who the beneficiary is. In the case of WC, the owners and executive management become the new beneficiaries.

[john doe]

I didn't hear this in an e-mail. It was spoken on a radio program. I believe it. I think you are the gulible one.

Well, there we have it, real proof of George Bush's intentions. It HAS to be true because some guy on the radio said it. Which station or program? NPR? Air America? Who said it? Did you bother to check this guys' sources or bias before believing it?

As far as not hearing (reading?) it in an e-mail, that is where your post starts, it was SPAM (subscribed to or not) from a group backed by (dictated to?) the AFL/CIO. Go back and read your original post, it is all there. In fact it states that you should see what they are doing by directing you to the AFL/CIO website.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Jenda@Mar 7 2005, 07:48 AM

Obscure college??? What a joke! Georgetown University is one of the most prestigious universities in the U.S.

I didn't say the college was obscure, the speach at a college is obscure ~

[Amillia]

Originally posted by john doe@Mar 7 2005, 11:14 AM

I didn't hear this in an e-mail. It was spoken on a radio program. I believe it. I think you are the gulible one.

Well, there we have it, real proof of George Bush's intentions. It HAS to be true because some guy on the radio said it. Which station or program? NPR? Air America? Who said it? Did you bother to check this guys' sources or bias before believing it?

As far as not hearing (reading?) it in an e-mail, that is where your post starts, it was SPAM (subscribed to or not) from a group backed by (dictated to?) the AFL/CIO. Go back and read your original post, it is all there. In fact it states that you should see what they are doing by directing you to the AFL/CIO website.

Well it wasn't that lying son of a gun Shaun Hennedy!

[john doe]

Who's Shaun Hennedy?

[Maureen]

Originally posted by john doe@Mar 7 2005, 03:20 PM

Who's Shaun Hennedy?

Maybe she means Sean Hannity.

Sean Hannity is a media superstar!

He is host of the "Sean Hannity Show" now carried on nearly 400 ABC Radio Network stations, reaching almost 12 million people. He is also host of the highly successful FOX NEWS CHANNEL'S, "Hannity and Colmes". The gutsy talk show host always lands on the "right side" of the issues. Hannity got his start in commercial radio after drawing attention and enthusiasm from his college radio station. He placed a "JOB WANTED" ad in the R&R, billing himself as "the most talked about college radio host in America." A station in Huntsville, Alabama took a chance on the brash young voice. The world of talk radio would never be the same.

From that first station in Alabama, Hannity quickly moved to WGST in Atlanta where his strong ratings attracted the attention of WABC New York and the Fox News Channel, in the fall of 1996. Hannity moved to New York to co-host Fox News Network's, "Hannity and Colmes" show. Fox was so confident in Hannity's ability to attract viewers, it slotted the show at 9pm, opposite Geraldo on CNBC and Larry King on CNN. Today the "Hannity and Colmes" show is one of the most successful cable news shows. In addition to his "on-air" duties, Hannity is also the author of the New York Times best seller, "Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty Over Liberalism."

Hannity grew up in Franklin Square, Long Island in the shadows of Manhattan. By 1997, Hannity finally crossed the Williamsburg Bridge and joined 77WABC Radio in New York City, the nation's largest market. There he quickly became the #1 rated News and Talk show in the afternoon drive period. But that was only the beginning. The show became so successful that by September 2001, ABC Radio decided to syndicate Hannity across the country. That bold move was such a success that Talker's Magazine deemed it, "the fastest growing syndicated talk show in talk radio history." After just one year in syndication, that same publication moved Hannity up to 2nd place in the nation in their semi-annual list of nationally syndicated radio talk show hosts. He had officially become an American phenomenon.

Voted "Talk Personality of the Year" in 2001 by the readers of R&R, Sean Hannity's energy, charisma and seasoned professionalism score high points with audiences and critics alike. Sean Hannity is the hottest commodity in talk radio.

http://www.hannity.com/story.php?content=/...=/about_hannity

M.

[john doe]

Oh, Hannity! Is that what you meant Amillia? I know who he is, I even listen to him once in a while. Although I do enjoy Phil Hendrie's show better, it's more entertaining. Sadly, Hendrie comes on after drive-time now, so I don't get to listen much anymore. I wish Glenn Beck was on a major station here in Salt Lake, I enjoy him when I'm out of town.

[Faerie]

i love hannity...especially when he gets ticked off lol!

[Guest TheProudDuck]

lying son of a gun

I notice that a lot of people say others have "lied" when they really mean they said something they disagree with.

I think the legal definition of fraud is better -- the person must have made a positive statement (not a statement of opinion) that is demonstrably false, knowing that the statement is false or making it, without knowing it is true, with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity.

Let's hear some examples of Sean Hannity (who I haven't paid much attention to) saying something that fits under those definitions.

[StrawberryFields]

Does anyone know what the pros and cons are about privatization of SS and if it is really something that is being pushed through? This is the first I have heard of it (this thread).

[srm]

Originally posted by Amillia+Mar 7 2005, 12:22 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Amillia @ Mar 7 2005, 12:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -TheProudDuck@Mar 7 2005, 01:19 AM

Originally posted by -Amillia@Mar 6 2005, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by -TheProudDuck@Mar 6 2005, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by -Amillia@Mar 4 2005, 07:44 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Snow@Mar 4 2005, 08:20 PM

I am too stupid to control my own future and my own retirement fund. I need a huge, wasteful government bureaucracy to take my money and give me a 1.2% rate of return. I am positive that if I did my very best there is no way I could invest my money to earn a whopping 1.2% return. Not only do I not want to control my own money, I want to prevent every other American from controlling their own money too.

If you are too stupid to control your own future, join with Amillia and me in preventing people from controlling their own money.

What I heard was that Bush thinks we are too stupid to tell us about the stock market needing our cash to stay afloat and that we had to be bushwacked with a blind of SS threat (that wasn't real) in order to get us to voluntarily give our cash to the faltering stock market ~ because bush doesn't want the crash of 29 rerun coming up and biting his presidency in the butt!

Don't you guys remember Bill Clinton hyping the Social Security "crisis" during his presidency? Now the Dems are saying "no crisis, never was."

I wouldn't call Social Security's upcoming insolvency a "crisis" -- there's plenty of time to fix the problem one way or another. But there is a built-in problem with the time coming in only a few years where the system will start paying out more than it takes in, and the problem will only get worse. I suspect the ultimate result will be to cut benefits, which is why I want to be able to take control of part of my own payroll tax so it can't be cut.

Basically, I figure my choice is (1) a guarantee that the government will cut my benefits; and (2) the possibility that declining investments could result in cuts in my benefits. I'll risk the possibility over the sure thing.

No I do not remember Clinton saying there was a crisis. He must not have gone on the road to campaign the change.

“So That All Of These Achievements – The Economic Achievements – Our Increasing Social Coherence And Cohesion, Our Increasing Efforts To Reduce Poverty Among Our Youngest Children – All Of Them Are Threatened By The Looming Fiscal Crisis In Social Security.” (President Bill Clinton, Remarks At Georgetown University On Social Security, Washington, DC, 2/9/98)

So he mentioned it at an obscure college speaking engagement? That can't hardly be compared to how Bush is going at it.

Exactly Amellia. Clinton used it as a scare tactic to help his political agenda...as have a number of other Dems...Now a president has the guts to actually try to fix it and them try to back peddle.

Compound interest. The longer they wait to try to fix it, the less you'll earn!

[Amillia]

Originally posted by john doe@Mar 7 2005, 04:20 PM

Who's Shaun Hennedy?

LOL....a big lying apologist for Bush and all republicans.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by srm+Mar 7 2005, 11:45 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (srm @ Mar 7 2005, 11:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Amillia@Mar 7 2005, 12:22 AM

Originally posted by -TheProudDuck@Mar 7 2005, 01:19 AM

Originally posted by -Amillia@Mar 6 2005, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by -TheProudDuck@Mar 6 2005, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by -Amillia@Mar 4 2005, 07:44 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Snow@Mar 4 2005, 08:20 PM

I am too stupid to control my own future and my own retirement fund. I need a huge, wasteful government bureaucracy to take my money and give me a 1.2% rate of return. I am positive that if I did my very best there is no way I could invest my money to earn a whopping 1.2% return. Not only do I not want to control my own money, I want to prevent every other American from controlling their own money too.

If you are too stupid to control your own future, join with Amillia and me in preventing people from controlling their own money.

What I heard was that Bush thinks we are too stupid to tell us about the stock market needing our cash to stay afloat and that we had to be bushwacked with a blind of SS threat (that wasn't real) in order to get us to voluntarily give our cash to the faltering stock market ~ because bush doesn't want the crash of 29 rerun coming up and biting his presidency in the butt!

Don't you guys remember Bill Clinton hyping the Social Security "crisis" during his presidency? Now the Dems are saying "no crisis, never was."

I wouldn't call Social Security's upcoming insolvency a "crisis" -- there's plenty of time to fix the problem one way or another. But there is a built-in problem with the time coming in only a few years where the system will start paying out more than it takes in, and the problem will only get worse. I suspect the ultimate result will be to cut benefits, which is why I want to be able to take control of part of my own payroll tax so it can't be cut.

Basically, I figure my choice is (1) a guarantee that the government will cut my benefits; and (2) the possibility that declining investments could result in cuts in my benefits. I'll risk the possibility over the sure thing.

No I do not remember Clinton saying there was a crisis. He must not have gone on the road to campaign the change.

“So That All Of These Achievements – The Economic Achievements – Our Increasing Social Coherence And Cohesion, Our Increasing Efforts To Reduce Poverty Among Our Youngest Children – All Of Them Are Threatened By The Looming Fiscal Crisis In Social Security.” (President Bill Clinton, Remarks At Georgetown University On Social Security, Washington, DC, 2/9/98)

So he mentioned it at an obscure college speaking engagement? That can't hardly be compared to how Bush is going at it.

Exactly Amellia. Clinton used it as a scare tactic to help his political agenda...as have a number of other Dems...Now a president has the guts to actually try to fix it and them try to back peddle.

Compound interest. The longer they wait to try to fix it, the less you'll earn!

GUTS? Yeah I'll give you the point for Bush being gustsy ~ he is the gutsiest! But that doesn't mean he is doing the right thing.

LEAVE MY SS ALONE!!! I have had money taken out all of my life with the promise it was going to be used for my old age.

But they have used it for everything else, now they want to claim putting it into the stock market is going to get me something? Hardly. ONly a moron would believe that.

[Faerie]

ok..seriously..name 5 things that hannity has lied about

and have you even read up on bush's plan? do you know the details? it sounds like you don't...

you REALLY think that ALL of the money you've paid out in SS is coming back to you? ROFLMAO!!

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Faerie@Mar 8 2005, 11:07 AM

ok..seriously..name 5 things that hannity has lied about

and have you even read up on bush's plan? do you know the details? it sounds like you don't...

you REALLY think that ALL of the money you've paid out in SS is coming back to you? ROFLMAO!!

I didn't say that the money would be coming back to me that I put in; I know that it has been paying my parents and your parents SS, but I was promised, as were all Americans who worked and paid for this benefit, that it would be there for us when we got old. Then a few years back there started to be rumblings amongst the polititions who had used the reserves for other things ( I hope you know about that) and now we are in real trouble? Bull-shony!

I know what the Bushy plan is, and those who are right up there at his level say it won't give us anything close to what we should have, if we are lucy.

Don't go blowing that hennedy smoke in my face girly girl ~ !

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Amillia,

You really need to read up on how Social Security works. (Especially when you start calling people "morons" who are better informed than you.)

Then a few years back there started to be rumblings amongst the polititions who had used the reserves for other things

Social Security is required to make its surpluses available to the government to be used for other things. The only instrument Social Security is allowed, by law, to invest in is U.S. Treasury securities. What that means is that one branch of the government (SS) lends money to the government's general fund.

It's basically an accounting fiction; when the same person (here, the government) is both the lender and the borrower, the "lender's" credit is really not an asset at all. There never was a "lockbox" or a big room in the Social Security Administration's office full of money or gold bars.

True, the Treasury securities held by Social Security constitute promises by the government to use the amount of those securities for Social Security. Those securities are enough to last until 2042, which means that your retirement probably won't be directly affected by their being exhausted. (My retirement is another story; more on that later.)

The problem is that by 2018 -- a lot sooner than 2042 -- Social Security starts paying out more than it takes in. While the Treasury securities in the SS trust fund are unbreakable promises that the money will be used for Social Security payments, remember they're not actual assets like money, third-party securities, gold, or property. The government has to find the money somewhere to pay itself. That means increasing taxes, cutting other spending, or borrowing.

While you could argue that if the government had used previous Social Security surpluses to reduce the national debt so as to make borrowing to pay for future Social Security deficits easier, the problem is that the anticipated deficits are open-ended. That is, no matter how much you'd paid down the national debt in the 1990s (and even with the surpluses generated by the capital-gains revenues from the late-90s dot-com bubble, the national debt was reduced by only a trivial amount), ultimately, that financial cushion would be a drop in the bucket compared to the future Social Security deficits.

The bottom line is that the future deficits are unsustainable. The demographics dictate reality: people are living longer and having fewer children, so the ratio of payroll-tax paying workers to retirees keeps shrinking. As a practical matter, this is going to mean that benefits are going to be cut, either by raising the retirement age or changing the cost-of-living index formula.

I mentioned earlier that the Treasury bonds in the Social Security trust fund are unbreakable promises from the government to Social Security. That's true -- the face amounts of those bonds must be used for Social Security -- but there's no promise that Social Security must use those bonds to pay benefits at their current levels. The Social Security benefits formula can be changed by the government at any time, and as the trust fund starts emptying out after 2018, it almost certainly will be.

but I was promised, as were all Americans who worked and paid for this benefit, that it would be there for us when we got old.

No you weren't, actually. Social Security doesn't have to pay you anything; like any other act of government, it can be changed at any time. You have no binding contract with the government or vested property right in your future Social Security benefits. If the government were to alter the benefits formula so as to give you a negative return on what you'd paid in -- essentially taking part of what you think you were "promised" away from you -- you'd just have to lump it.

I know what the Bushy plan is, and those who are right up there at his level say it won't give us anything close to what we should have, if we are lucy.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Who are the "those who are right up there at his level" you're talking about, and what is "what we should have"?

LEAVE MY SS ALONE!!! I have had money taken out all of my life with the promise it was going to be used for my old age.

But they have used it for everything else, now they want to claim putting it into the stock market is going to get me something? Hardly. ONly a moron would believe that.

Your Social Security will be left alone. If you don't want to participate in a personal account, don't. You'll go on collecting the benefits you think you were "promised;" there probably won't be benefit cuts in your lifetime. After you're safely dead, though, I am almost certain to have my benefits cut -- probably resulting in my getting a negative rate of post-inflation return on my payroll tax payments. I at that point am going to be quite peeved at you for having prevented me from making arrangements to ensure a vested right in my retirement, when it wasn't going to affect you one way or another.

Let me reiterate: Personal accounts won't affect you. They will affect me. Let me be the judge of whether the risk is greater of losing the money I invest (minute, if I invest conservatively) or of losing my payroll tax payments to a future government decision to reduce benefits (almost a sure thing). I repeat that if you're not planning to particpate in personal accounts, whether I do or not is really none of your business.

And back to Sean Hannity -- to my anachronistic mentality, calling a man a liar without something to back it up is ungentlemanly (and ought to result in a demand for satisfaction). Please tell me you're not one of those lazy ones who throws around charges of "liar" when it really just means you disagree with someone. Those who impugn others' integrity too lightly are revealed as esteeming integrity too lightly themselves. If you think an accusation is a serious one, you won't make it without seriously backing it up.

[Faerie]

yeah what PD said..ROFL!!

again..5 things Hannity has lied about..I'm not blowing smoke in your face, I'm asking you to back up a claim!

[Amillia]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Mar 8 2005, 01:03 PM

Amillia,

You really need to read up on how Social Security works.  (Especially when you start calling people "morons" who are better informed than you.)

I have read up on the SS. But I haven't listened to the propaganda from Bush's camp.

I have listened to several Congressmen on this subject as well. I don't think I am uninformed ~ I'm just not bushbrainwashed.

[Amillia]

March 07, 2005

Print this

E-mail this

PRIVATIZATION LOSES GROUND—More and more Americans disapprove of President George W. Bush’s Social Security privatization scheme, according to recent polls. A new USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll released Feb. 28 showed in late February, 56 percent of those surveyed disapproved of Bush’s privatization plan, up from a 48 percent disapproval in early February. An Associated Press poll showed just 39 percent support for Bush’s plan, which cuts guaranteed benefits and drives up the federal deficit. Meanwhile, some 200 protestors greeted Bush in Westfield, N.J., March 4 when he held another in a series of his closed-door, “town-hall” meetings with a handpicked audience to discuss his plans to privatize Social Security. Working families and their allies are circulating petitions urging members of Congress to oppose Social Security privatization. Download the petition at www.aflcio.org/socialsecurity.

PRIVATIZATION DOESN’T BOOST SOLVENCY—The National Academy of Social Insurance (NASI) says Bush’s plan to privatize Social Security does nothing to improve the program’s solvency, as acknowledged by the White House. “To the extent that such plans would shift funds from scheduled Social Security taxes to personal accounts, they deplete funds that are needed to pay benefits to today’s beneficiaries and those who will become beneficiaries in the near future,” said Virginia Reno, NASI vice president of income security. The report, Options to Balance Social Security Funds Over the Next 75 Years, can be downloaded at www.nasi.org/usr_doc/SS_Brief_18.pdf.

AFRICAN AMERICANS OPPOSE PRIVATIZATION—Fully 89 percent of African Americans say Social Security should be protected as a guaranteed benefit and not privatized, according to a new poll conducted by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies with Rock the Vote and AARP. Civil rights advocates, such as the NAACP and the Congressional Black Caucus, oppose Bush’s plan to privatize Social Security, noting a 2003 Government Accountability Office report showing African Americans and Latinos, because of higher disability rates and lower lifetime earnings, tend to receive greater benefits relative to Social Security taxes than whites. For more information, visit www.research.aarp.org/econ/soc_sec_pr_acc.pdf.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Amillia,

I've said I don't like calling people liars without something to back it up, but in the case of people who refer to the reform proposals as "privatization," the description is objectively true.

When someone says "They're going to privatize Social Security," what do you understand that to mean? Without more detail, the natural meaning of that statement is that Social Security will be entirely privatized.

But that's simply not true. The reform proposals all propose that workers be allowed to invest a portion of their payroll taxes in personal accounts, subject to guidelines to steer them towards conservative investments. There will still be a guaranteed minimum benefit for the people who participate; it'll just be less than their guaranteed benefit if they stayed with their old plan. The idea is that their personal account will generate an amount equal to or greater than the diminution of their government-guaranteed benefit. (As a practical matter, I think it's pretty obvious that the guaranteed benefit is going to be reduced anyway, so it's in my interest to find a replacement that the government has no control over.)

At the most, this could be called a partial privatization. But that's not what the Democratic opponents of the proposals are calling it. They know what they're doing -- they know how people will understand the term "privatization". They're lying. There's no other way to put it.

Amillia, you consider yourself informed because you've "read up on SS" and "listened to several congressmen," but "haven't listened to the propaganda from Bush's camp." What makes you think the material you've read and listened to isn't "propaganda" from the other side? The material you've posted from the AFL/CIO sure as heck is.

You are not informed on a subject if you have not reviewed the arguments of both sides. If I tried to go into court without reading the other side's briefs, I'd get crushed. Don't worry about being "brainwashed"; if reading left-of-center propaganda hasn't "brainwashed" you, reading rebuttals to their arguments won't, either.

I've reviewed the arguments of both sides, and my conclusion is: if the Democrats had a strong argument based on the true facts, they wouldn't feel the need to misrepresent them.

[john doe]

Originally posted by Amillia+Mar 8 2005, 08:15 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Amillia @ Mar 8 2005, 08:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--john doe@Mar 7 2005, 04:20 PM

Who's Shaun Hennedy?

LOL....a big lying apologist for Bush and all republicans.

Since you are such an expert on lies and liars, can you point me to the ones Shaun Hennedy said? Please be as specific as possible.

Now, as for Sean Hannity, he is an admitted George Bush supporter, but just because someone supports republicans does not in any way make them a liar. And disagreements on your personal perception of a situation does not make something a lie.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by john doe+Mar 9 2005, 07:46 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (john doe @ Mar 9 2005, 07:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Amillia@Mar 8 2005, 08:15 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--john doe@Mar 7 2005, 04:20 PM

Who's Shaun Hennedy?

LOL....a big lying apologist for Bush and all republicans.

Since you are such an expert on lies and liars, can you point me to the ones Shaun Hennedy said? Please be as specific as possible.

Now, as for Sean Hannity, he is an admitted George Bush supporter, but just because someone supports republicans does not in any way make them a liar. And disagreements on your personal perception of a situation does not make something a lie.

He spews them endlessly. Good grief, just listen to him, any day of the week.

[Faerie]

then you should be able to easily name 5 lies that he says "endlessly"

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Amillia@Mar 9 2005, 09:41 PM

He spews them endlessly. Good grief, just listen to him, any day of the week.

You really like that word endless, don't you Amillia.

Endless - meaning: having no known beginning and presumably no end

So in other words this Sean Hannity lies while he's sleeping and chances are when he's eating too, with all that food in his mouth. That's just plain rude.

M.