Sign Me Up....

[MMMMMM]

I believe it much more likely that you were in Vietnam, than that jokerswild works for IBM.

[MtSmalls]

I'm not sure what you mean about getting to keep 2% of your money. If you are talking about the amount that you would be able to put into your privatization account, you should read the fine print. At retirement you only get to keep the amount that you earned on your investments that exceeds the 3% return that Social security currently earns. And even then you may be forced to either buy an annuity with the remaining balance, or be limited to the amount of money withdrawn every year.

Ownership society my ass.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure what you mean about getting to keep 2% of your money. If you are talking about the amount that you would be able to put into your privatization account, you should read the fine print. At retirement you only get to keep the amount that you earned on your investments that exceeds the 3% return that Social security currently earns. And even then you may be forced to either buy an annuity with the remaining balance, or be limited to the amount of money withdrawn every year.

Ownership society my ass.

[/ QUOTE ]

So many misleading statements in your post. I see why Liberals do so poorly in elections. Even a highschool dropout will be able to see the gaping holes in your rebuttal.

I'll only bother to adress two of your glaring errors.

1. The legislation is not yet written, do you hear me? The legislation is not yet written.

2. Why in the world would it be a bad deal and only be able to keep the 7% (a number which I dispute since SS funds have never accumulated at a rate of 3%) when my alternative is to get next to nothing by keeping the status quo?

Just because you are a wild eyed red faced Liberal shouldn't you wait till you see the result of the bills that come out of committee before bashing another great idea just because President Bush thought of it first?

[ACPlayer]

I was reading the few details that the president offers in todays paper. You dont own the money in that 2 or 4 percent. IN fact if you retire and die the next day, your heirs lose the entire amount as the annuity is gone bye bye. THere is likely very little choice in how you invest the money too -- govt provided investment providers only is how I understand it.

Of course there are no details on how these changes will save social security. However, we can watch and see if the admin is willing to come up with anything more substantive. My guess is there will be some minor changes and the president will claim victory for sweeping changes and saving social security.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
At retirement you only get to keep the amount that you earned on your investments that exceeds the 3% return that Social security currently earns. And even then you may be forced to either buy an annuity with the remaining balance, or be limited to the amount of money withdrawn every year.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe you're info is from an erroneous Washington Post story that was retracted by the Washington Post yesterday. I might add that this was after the vehement insistance by the administration. I heard New Jersey Senator Corzine spouting the "info" that was presented in the erroneous Washington Post story yesterday. One can only wonder if this was a deliberate excercise in disinformation.

Washington Post Story Indicating they Goofed

From the article:

The Washington Post incorrectly reported Thursday that the balance of a worker's personal account would be reduced by the worker's total annual contributions plus 3 percent interest. In fact, the balance in the account would belong to the worker upon retirement, White House officials said.


"Individuals get to keep everything they set aside in personal accounts, plus the increased rate of return they'll realize on their investment," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. "So to suggest otherwise is wrong. It is the individual's account, and the government cannot touch it."

[MtSmalls]

Yes, I read both of these articles. Its a semantics question. The government won't be reaching into your account for the funds. They will be reducing the guaranteed benefit, dollar for dollar, based on what you earn in your 'private account'

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I read both of these articles. Its a semantics question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha it's not a semantic question at all. The Washington Post had to retract a statement that said you would not get to keep what you've contributed to the private plus 3% compounded on top of that. It was blatently wrong. Weak attempt at spinning it.

[ QUOTE ]
The government won't be reaching into your account for the funds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right and the Washington Post stated that the government would be reaching into your funds.

[ QUOTE ]
They will be reducing the guaranteed benefit, dollar for dollar, based on what you earn in your 'private account'

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, they will be reducing the guaranteed benefit, dollar for dollar, based on what you contributed to your 'private account.'

[MtSmalls]

From the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: http://www.cbpp.org/2-2-05socsec2.htm

At retirement, workers with private accounts would experience a reduction in their Social Security benefits equivalent to the amount that would be in their account if the payroll taxes diverted to the account had earned interest at a rate 0.3 percent below the rate paid on Treasury bonds.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
From the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: http://www.cbpp.org/2-2-05socsec2.htm

At retirement, workers with private accounts would experience a reduction in their Social Security benefits equivalent to the amount that would be in their account if the payroll taxes diverted to the account had earned interest at a rate 0.3 percent below the rate paid on Treasury bonds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is different than what you wrote after I called you on the disinformation you posted:

They will be reducing the guaranteed benefit, dollar for dollar, based on what you earn in your 'private account'