True to form! Democrats finally propose Social Security reform.

[natedogg]

http://money.cnn.com/2005/05/13/reti...socsec_wexler/

Ah yes. The only solution is to raise taxes even *more*, so we can increase the Trust Fund! What an idiot.

Attention Wexler! Raising taxes *today* will not in any way help Social Security *tomorrow*. That's because all excess payroll tax revenues are flushed down the drain by *you*, the irresponsible congress.

Furthermore, you can't save the money even if you want to. The cash depreciates at the rate of inflation and in the near future we may experience high inflation. You can't invest in the market like some bozos have suggested (while at the same time decrying personal accounts as too risky because the market is too risky), because that would be tantamoun to Maoist govt control of industry.

So.... your stupid proposal to raise FICA revenues by lifting the cap is beyond idiocy. It will dig a bigger hole than we are already in, but thanks for playing!

natedogg

[bdk3clash]

I think you're mischaracterizing the actions of one Democratic congressman as somehow representative of the Democratic Party as a whole.

In fact, the very article you link to makes it pretty clear that other Democrats are not pleased with his proposal.

From the second paragraph in the article:

[ QUOTE ]
Democratic leaders, who have successfully kept their party unified against President Bush's personal accounts, are privately fuming Wexler is moving ahead with his own plan. They fear Republicans will be able to spin it as a broader "Democratic plan," relying on tax increases that Republicans abhor.

[/ QUOTE ]

[andyfox]

Of course they will raise the maximum income on which the payroll tax applies. Nothing will get through Congress that doesn't have this provision.

Did you ever take a look at Paul O'Neill's plan? If you have, I'm curious what you think of it.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Attention Wexler! Raising taxes *today* will not in any way help Social Security *tomorrow*. That's because all excess payroll tax revenues are flushed down the drain by *you*, the irresponsible congress.


[/ QUOTE ]

That should be 'flushed down the toilet '.

I expect nothing but idiocy from most of congress and anticipate that, if anything is done at all, the legislation will be an outstanding piece of lunacy.

And by the way, I'm looking at property near the Mexican Border. The reasons may not be obvious, but I have some good ones. Don't ask.

-Zeno

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course they will raise the maximum income on which the payroll tax applies. Nothing will get through Congress that doesn't have this provision.

[/ QUOTE ]

I fear you are right. I'd rather see no bill get passed at all.

[ QUOTE ]
Did you ever take a look at Paul O'Neill's plan? If you have, I'm curious what you think of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't read it. Bear in mind I believe the whole thing should be scrapped, so if Paul O'Neill's plan is intelligent and reasonable and designed to "save" the program, I probably won't like it. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I prefer Bush's plan because it is possibly the worst plan of all that includes privatization. I hope it will lead us down to the path to eventually eliminating Social Security altogether, which has been a huge bane for the lower class income bracket.

Short of that I prefer we do nothing because we can be certain that in a few short years when the surplus dries up Congress will panic and introduce major reforms. Those reforms will almost certainly be the stupidest bills ever passed by Congress. Even if I tried to, I am sure I could not come up with something as stupid as Congress will pass in the panic that ensues when the surplus turns negative.

natedogg

[andyfox]

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05054/461401.stm

[Phat Mack]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't ask.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are you looking for property near the Mexican border? You must be trying to get into some of those Criss-Cross games that have the joker nailed to the center of the table. Or you're looking for some Cooncan action. How many acres?

[Phat Mack]

[ QUOTE ]
Attention Wexler! Raising taxes *today* will not in any way help Social Security *tomorrow*. That's because all excess payroll tax revenues are flushed down the drain by *you*, the irresponsible congress.

[/ QUOTE ]

The money gets flushed down the drain regardless of what they do with SS. If they increase the SS Trust Fund, it just means that some of the paper that would normally be held by the Chinese is held by SS.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Attention Wexler! Raising taxes *today* will not in any way help Social Security *tomorrow*. That's because all excess payroll tax revenues are flushed down the drain by *you*, the irresponsible congress.

[/ QUOTE ]

The money gets flushed down the drain regardless of what they do with SS. If they increase the SS Trust Fund, it just means that some of the paper that would normally be held by the Chinese is held by SS.

[/ QUOTE ]

The money wouldn't get flushed down the toilet if they weren't collecting a surplus that they can't use.

And there IS a difference between the Chinese holding the paper and the SSA holding the paper. Surely you undertand that borrowing money from *yourself* is an excercise in futility?

Assuming for a moment that spending levels are actually rational (in reality they're quite insane), if we borrowed the $200Billion surplus from the Chinese instead of from payroll tax revenues, we could drop payroll tax rates by $200B.

Either way, we're going to pay off that $200B out of future taxes. By borrowing it from ourselves in the form of payroll tax surplus, we make it a double taxation scheme.

The Trust Fund is a joke. It's worse than a joke. It's a lie and a scam to tax workers now, in order to justify taxing them more later to make up for the tax revenues that were spent now.

It's the biggest financial fraud ever perpetrated, and *Wexler* wants to up the ante by collecting even more taxes now before the jig is up!

There are only two possibilities here.
A. Wexler is an incompetent moron who shouldn't go anywhere near a bill that deals with numbers.

B. Wexler is a scumbag.

Neither option would inspire me to vote for him next election if I were a consituent.

natedogg

[Zeno]

10 - 20 acres is a nice round number.
It all depends.
Just like in poker.
It will be 'desert land'.
I like options - and border areas are good for options.

Think Voltaire.

-Zeno