SwiftVets.com

[sdmoel]

I saw this about Social Security that the Dems are passing around.

Social Security Calculator...

http://democrats.senate.gov/ss/calc.html

Doesn't this "promised" social security change by a certain year (SS runs out or cuts considerably)? And wouldn't Bush's plan recoup some of this lost "promised" SS? Please excuse my ignorance. Just starting to dig.

[sdmoel]

Check this out, what do you think?

You’ve seen the phony, one-sided calculator that won’t explain where it gets its numbers and won’t allow you to vary certain key assumptions. Now, try a real one:

http://www.patrickruffini.com/archives/2005/02/the_bush_social.php

Why is the other phony:

- Absurdly Inflated “Promised” Benefits. The Reid calculator projects your “promised” Social Security benefit. What they don’t tell you is that it’s a promise that there is absolutely no way we can pay for under the current system. The Reid “calculator” doesn’t acknowledge what happens when your benefits get slashed by around 25% when the trust fund is exhausted – or the effect of phasing in these cuts earlier. Political Calculations explains why Social Security’s real rate of return will continue on its inexorable path down to zero, and then turn negative, a fact that acknowledged by the far more sophisticated calculator you see posted below.

- Wage Indexation. The Reid calculator simply assumes that the wage indexation of benefits will be done away with by inflation indexing. But that’s just one option on the table. Given the wild leap of faith implicit in this assumption, you would think the Reid calculator would be up-front about the specific dollar effect of turning wage indexing on or off. But they aren’t. I wonder why.

- Pessimistic Rates of Return. About the only thing the calculator is transparent about is the projected real rate of return on personal retirement accounts – just 3%. But the last time the government examined this question in detail – before the late ‘90s boom – it found the real return on stocks to be 7%. I assume a conservative 4.5% real rate of return on PRAs. By going with 3%, the Reid calculator artificially depresses your PRA-added benefit by 15%, a good chunk of your putative “losses.”

- Fuzzy Math? Ironman, who devised the calculator, e-mails with another point of interest:

“If someone born in 1975 and someone else born in 2005 have lifetime average annual salaries of $30,000, and the "Promised" Social Security annual benefits are adjusted to 2005 dollars to eliminate the effects of inflation, how come the dollar values of their "promised" benefits are different?”

2 + 2 = -17.5! Assume average real wage gains of 2% (the theoretical, best-case rate of return in Social Security -- which will be unsustainable by 2010 based on the program cash-flow) and real rates of return on PRAs of 4.5%. Under Bush’s plan, 37.7% (4 of 10.6 points) of your retirement payroll taxes are set aside for PRAs. What happens when you substitute a 4.5% investment for a 2% investment on the PRA side, and take a 2% investment down to 0% on the remaining 62.3% (to account for wage indexing). Your gains from PRAs outweigh your losses from inflation indexing by about 3 to 2. Even under Reid’s concocted, cherry-picked scenario, his numbers don’t add up.

You’ve seen the phony, one-sided calculator that won’t explain where it gets its numbers and won’t allow you to vary certain key assumptions. Now, try a real one:

http://www.patrickruffini.com/archives/2005/02/the_bush_social.php

[GM Strong]

The Dems are full of $%#^. There isn't even a proposal on the table yet. When the system breaks and goes bust all that will be left is promises and taxes.

Their calculator is based on false assumptions.

What's going on now. Being a "Boomer" I don't qualify for full retirement SS Bennies till I'm 66 and 10 Mos. So the the age is already rising. Forget 65, everybody is rushing to retire at 55, no less. I can't do it. All the Fed workers have nice retirement plans invested the same way the self serving Libs want to keep SS out of. OK for them but not for the rest of us. These mealy mouths wanted to do just that when BJ Clinton was in. What a bunch of (*&^#%%^s.
_________________
8th Army Korea 68-69

[wwIIvetsdaughter]

The Democratic mantra that SS is an ironclad contract with US workers is hogwash. This so called ironclad contract has been modified (by Dem controlled Congresses) many times since its inception in 1935. I for one (45 YOF) can recall clearly when SS taxes were capped at 3% of the first $3,000 you earned. Also, about twenty years ago, the so called retirement age of 65 started to creep up for individuals born after the late 50's, including myself. So there is nothing sacred, ironclad or sacrosant about the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security. What Dems fear is from personal accounts is two fold: 1) lost tax money to put in place liberal program after program to buy votes and stay in power and 2)even more Americans realizing that they can do better directing the investment of their money themselves, thereby learning Hey, I don't need liberal goverment!

[GM Strong]

[SBD]

There is no Social Security Fund, the Dems make it sound like the SS Tax gets collected and put into the governments checking account to write the checks. In reality, Social Security is nothing more than a filing cabinet somewhere in Washington filled with a bunch of IOU's in the form of Treasury Bonds. If these countries, IE China and Japan mostly, decide to stop funding our debt, as they have been lately, there will be nothing to pay anyone. The President's plan does 2 things, it stops the Dems from continuing to raid Social Security by replacing it with IOU's, and it also helps raise the value of the dollar by forcing us to save money.

SBD

[baldeagle]

Another thing which you never hear mentioned is that participation in the private accounts is voluntary. You have the choice to remain in the current system or elect to join the ownership brigade.
If you elect to privatize, you then have the choice of (a) stocks, or (b) U.S. Treasury bonds guaranteed by the treasury of the United States. You are not required to gamble on the Stock Market, as the Dems keep trying to scare people with. (Though over the long term, the Stock Market consistantly out performs the bond market, and I assume that if you are planning for retirement, you are planning long term.)
Now, who can logically argue against having a choice except the folks who think they can spend your money more sensibly than yourself.
_________________
"In a word, I want an American character, that the powers of Europe may be convinced we act for ourselves and not for others; this, in my judgment, is the only way to be respected abroad and happy at home." --George Washington

[GM Strong]