WELCOME! If this is your first visit to Your Lincoln Park.com Community Website & Forums, we invite you to become a registered forum member and share your ideas and comments in over 100 forum categories created to help make Our City of Lincoln Park one of the best downriver communities.

Registration is FREE but required to post in many of the forums. Be sure to review our Privacy Policy and Forum Rules (TOS) prior to posting. Posts will be moderated for all members with 10 posts or less.

Hurricane Relief at RedCross.org
#1  
Old 03-22-05, 8:47 pm
Veritas Scriptor knows what he/she's talking aboutVeritas Scriptor knows what he/she's talking aboutVeritas Scriptor knows what he/she's talking aboutVeritas Scriptor knows what he/she's talking aboutVeritas Scriptor knows what he/she's talking aboutVeritas Scriptor knows what he/she's talking about
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts/Thanks: 2,569/305
Thanked 200 Times in 151 Posts

Arcade Awards High Score: 229 Rope Walker Champion!   High Score: 150 Shootout Champion!   High Score: 10508 Bottle Shoot Champion!   
Veritas Scriptor's Avatar  
Veritas Scriptor Veritas Scriptor is online now
Resident Argumentor Too
Inquistor Member

 

User note(s): 5
Exclamation Truth About SS:

Quote:
March 22, 2005

Congresswoman Candice Miller
Washington, DC
228 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Shelby Township, MI
48653 Van Dyke Ave.
Shelby Township, MI 48317

Congresswoman Miller,

Last night, I attended a symposium hosted by Oakland University (Rochester, Michigan) that featured Senator Carl Levin. He spoke, primarily, on the topic of privatizing Social Security. He was fervently against it. There was a brief segment of questions and answers following his presentation; but many questions were left unanswered (he had to catch a plane). The questions that were asked, in my opinion, were questions that allowed Senator Levin to lambaste the idea of privatizing the system even further than he already had during his oral presentation. I submitted a question of my own. But wouldn't you know it? It was never asked.

Prior to sitting for the event, attendees were met at the door and handed a two-page letter that was (presumably) composed by Senator Levin. It was addressed to "The Honorable Candice Miller".

Senator Levin's passing of this letter out to everyone smacks of politicking. It is quite obvious he is vying to make you look bad, should you opt not to heed his advice.

Below, you will find an exact replica of the letter that was handed out (bold font). I did not change any of the typos, bad grammar, incorrect punctuation, or misspelled words. This is exactly as it was handed to us; save for my own comments. Please take the time to read my comments. I tried to keep them as short and as to the point as possible. The issue of privatizing Social Security is one that I am quite passionate about. As such, I am well-versed in the matter and feel that I have very good grasp of the entire concept. Unfortunately, I feel that my understanding of the issue is more in depth than some of our nation’s politicians; including Senator Levin. There is much to know about this topic. His letter to you doesn't cover all of the myths and circumstances surrounding the controversy. Near the end of my comments, I touched on a few of them anyway. In that same section, I refuted a few issues that Senator Levin addressed during his oral presentation.

Without further adieu, I give you Senator Levin's dissertation:

“As one of your constituents, I am compelled to write to you to voice my increasing concerns over 2 very important issues: 1. Social Security and 2. prescription drugs
The first issue I am writing to you about is Social Security, and the changes the administration is planning. I understand that you are not yet sure if you will side with the President's proposed plan. I am strongly urging you not to side with this plan to privatize Social Security, and this is why:
1. your own Congressional Budget Office states that if nothing at all is done, full benefits would be covered until 2052, that's 10 years more than most other groups state (at 2042).”

The Senator's implication of a 10 year difference is not only conjecture; it is irrelevant conjecture. Does 10 years really make a difference in whether or not something needs to be done to reform Social Security? The fact that this point is even brought up (especially being his first point), leads me to believe that he is merely grasping at straws; trying desperately to find any way possible to discredit privatizing Social Security.

“2. The diversion of 2 trillion dollars from the Social Security surplus would lead to skyrocketing deficits that are already out of control. With the deficits as they are now, the future of my children has already been mortgaged, adding this burden to the deficit will break the backs of those who are going to be asked to pay it back.”

The "diversion" of two-trillion dollars would aim to correct a deficit that is expected to begin in as little as 13 years. Diverting this money would fund the current retirees Social Security benefits and allow my generation to begin saving for ourselves. The current system of "pay as you go" is just not cutting it. There are currently approximately 47 million Americans receiving Social Security benefits. As it stands, we have 3.3 working people for every one person receiving benefits (3.3:1 ratio). The baby boomer generation is expected to raise that number of Social Security recipients to nearly 79 million by the year 2008. This will equate to approximately two working people providing benefits to every one benefit recipient (2:1 ratio). That's nearly a 61% reduction!

Needless to say, this is going to put a huge burden on the system. We have just enough to fund their benefit payments. But what will be left for my generation? Using this two-trillion dollar surplus to transition the system from "pay as you go" to "invest for your future" is the only answer. Senator Levin speaks of the future of his children being leveraged? This is nothing new. This nation has been in a constant deficit since 1835. Every generation of children since then has been "mortgaged". If we don't refinance the mortgage on Social Security now, my generation will see its benefits in foreclosure.

“3. With the skyrocketing deficit, there will be cuts in many programs, and Social Security will not be left out. Add to this the fact that companies are decreasing their pensions paid to their retirees to cut costs. Also, skyrocketing deficits lead to decreased transfer payments to the states, which leads to decreased resources for people. With decreases in Social Security benefits those who rely on Social Security alone will end up well below poverty level, and those that are depending on a pension from their employer may not be too far behind when their pension benefits are cut. What is your plan to make sure the streets of America aren't filled with homeless Senior Citizens?”

Here's a newsflash: Whether we cut Federal spending or not, the deficit is going to continue to "skyrocket". It's called "inflation" and "compounding interest". Why not put the power of compounding interest to work for the American people? It would certainly help combat the eroding effects of inflation. I'm not talking about a 6% 20-Year US Treasury bond (the average annual return of a 20-Year US Treasury bond from 1926 to 2000 was 5.7%). I'm talking about investing the proposed 1/3 of the Social Security tax that I pay into an account that is invested in a moderate portfolio of securities. It can be set up to mirror a major market index like the S&P 500. I'll touch more on this topic in the next section.

Senator Levin makes some bold claims that our Federal deficit will lead to Social Security being cut. Guess what? It's already on the chopping block! This is why we need to privatize it. It's obvious the current system is showing signs of failure. We need to take a proactive stance and rectify it before it's too late. The epitome of foolishness is to continue doing the same thing while expecting a different result. We need to change the system in order to get a different result. The end-result being a Social Security system that will continue to work for generations to come.

What is our "plan to make sure the streets of American aren't filled with homeless Senior Citizens?" The plan is to privatize the system before it becomes insolvent!

“4. The Stock Market is never a sure thing. People diverting up to 2/3 of their Social Security payroll tax into a private account do not have a guaranteed benefit. What happens when China, Japan, and all the other countries of the world call in the skyrocketing debt owed to them by the United States? What happens with a Stock Market crash and these people loose everything they've saved (do Enron, Worldcom, and Tyco ring a bell)? All they'll have to depend on is 1/3 of the full social security benefit they would have been entitled to. Does your party have a plan for the devastation this would cause?”

It is true the stock market is never a sure thing. But I challenge anyone to show me one single instance where the S&P has shown a negative return over any 20-year period. Show me one. Since its inception 80 years ago, the S&P 500 has returned an average of about 11%. This includes the period during the peak of the Great Depression. According to the Cato Institute, the real rate of return on Social Security investments is about 1%. Imagine this: If a 20-year-old worker were to invest $1,000 of their Social Security tax into the S&P 500 and $1,000 into the current system, the S&P 500 investment would be worth about $98,000 by age 65 while the Social Security "investment" would be worth about $1,900.

What Senator Levin fails to recognize is that the privatization of Social Security is not calling for short-term trading in individual, speculative, securities. It would call for a diverse portfolio of investments properly allocated across a broad spectrum of securities over 20 to 30-year periods. Sure, some individual securities will falter; but others will succeed. The end result in the S&P 500, historically speaking, has produced a 100% rate of positive returns over every rolling 20-year period for the last 80 years.

Using the likes of Enron, WorldCom, and Tyco is nothing more than political rhetoric. Nobody will be permitted to invest their Social Security tax dollars into individual securities. If they were, I would not support the measure.

“5. When a family member dies, it is always a tragic loss, especially if the person who passes on is the breadwinner of the family. Many families depend on survivor benefits to raise their children. The administration talks of decreasing this benefit substantially, if not cutting it out altogether. This would devastate a group of Americans.”

The interesting part about this particular section is that during Senator Levin's Q&A section, someone asked what would happen if a Social Security contributor died. I am paraphrasing here, but he said "As far as I know, the President's plan does not alter the current system."

But let's pretend, for a moment, that Republicans really are in favor of decreasing (or eliminating) survivor benefits. How many people who are age 65 (or older) are still raising children? I rest my case.

“6. The idea of decreasing benefits for women because they live longer is an offensive plan. With the Republican party firmly against a woman's right to choose, firmly against raising the minimum wage to a reasonable living wage, and now the idea of decreasing women's benefits because they live longer, seems only to be another ploy by the Republican party to keep women as second class citizens. The plan does not call for a reduction in benefits for the men who live to be very old, nor does it call for the benefits to be increase for the women who die at an early age. No one can predict how long anyone is going to live, and this idea is just plain bad.”

First of all, I am not in support of decreasing benefits for women. But I can see why this proposal exists. It is a statistical fact that women outlive men, on average. As such, insurance companies charge women lower premiums than they charge men. I think it's odd that Liberals are quick to jump on this proposal, but they say nothing of the fact that, as a man, I pay more in insurance premiums than the average woman of the same age and health. I find it odd (and hypocritical) that as a man; I pay more in car insurance premiums than a woman who is younger than me! Where are their bleeding hearts now?

As far as a woman's right to choose; Senator Levin neglects to pay homage to the fact that close to 50% of Americans view the right to "choose" as the right to "murder"; but I won't comment with my own opinion on the matter. I just wanted to point out another hypocritical fact...that Senator Levin is only standing up for half of the American people. This doesn’t really matter anyways because the issue of Social Security is not about civil rights or about partisan politics...it’s about securing the future of all Americans. Leave the controversy at the door and embrace the real issues surrounding our Social Security debacle!

Senator Levin's comments on the minimum wage standard have nothing do with women. Yet he uses that as a claim to insinuate that the Republican Party uses that as one of several means to "keep women as second class citizens". Last I checked, the Federal Minimum Wage applied equally to both men and women. Again, another attempt at grasping at straws to "solidify" a meritless argument against Social Security reform.
(Continued on Next Post...)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The views and opinions contained herein are my own. They may not reflect the views and opinions of yourlincolnpark.com, the moderators, or affiliates. I make no claims to the validity of my statements. This is for novelty purposes only. Contact your financial/tax/legal advisor for details. No purchase neccessary. Void where prohibited. Restrictions may apply. See official rules for details. Offer ends immediately. © 2004, 2005, Veritas Scriptor. Some rights reserved. Happy New Year.

  Submit to Quotes       Reply With Quote  

#2  
Old 03-22-05, 8:50 pm
Veritas Scriptor knows what he/she's talking aboutVeritas Scriptor knows what he/she's talking aboutVeritas Scriptor knows what he/she's talking aboutVeritas Scriptor knows what he/she's talking aboutVeritas Scriptor knows what he/she's talking aboutVeritas Scriptor knows what he/she's talking about
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts/Thanks: 2,569/305
Thanked 200 Times in 151 Posts

Arcade Awards High Score: 229 Rope Walker Champion!   High Score: 150 Shootout Champion!   High Score: 10508 Bottle Shoot Champion!   
Veritas Scriptor's Avatar  
Veritas Scriptor Veritas Scriptor is online now
Resident Argumentor Too
Inquistor Member

 

User note(s): 5
Exclamation Re: Truth About SS:

Quote:
“7. In 1983, President Ronald Regan signed the bill that 'tweaked' the Social Security system at that time which has led to the surplus situation we have now. It is apparent to anyone who looks at Social Security critically that a few adjustments here and there would have the same results. A complete overhaul of the system would be a total disaster especially for retirees, but for Americans of all ages. The Wall Street fat cats salivating at the thought of all that money coming their way have no plan to assist elderly Americans will end up poverty stricken from this plan.”

In 1983, the Social Security system was on a path to collapse into failure within months. There wasn't time enough for a complete overhaul of the system. Today, we have a few decades to avert a potential collision. We have time to plan it right. Senator Levin makes my case for me when he says "It is apparent to anyone who looks at Social Security critically that a few adjustments here and there would have the same results." Same results? You mean the result of, within 35 years of "tweaking" the plan, to again see the possibility of having our Social Security system become insolvent? No thank you. I want different results this time. I want to see it survive long enough to provide supplementary income to my generation when it retires.

Senator Levin's comments about “Wall street fat cats” are pure propaganda designed to gain fanfare amongst the working class. As mentioned previously, the privatization of Social Security does not allow for the American people to invest their tax dollars in individual securities. This eliminates the need for a local stockbroker. Unless, by "Wallstreet fat cats", Senator Levin is referring to the influx of capital that will be pouring into American companies. If this is the case, then we are all "Wallstreet fat cats", as the infusion of capital into the American economy creates jobs for all Americans; including the working class.

By the way, Senator Levin spelled former-President Ronald Reagan's name wrong.

“The second issue I would like to address is that of the rising cost of prescription drugs. Today I had my asthma medication refilled, only to find that the price of the medication had increased again. This has been the third increase in 6 months. When I started this medication 3 years ago, it was $93 a month. Now, the same medication is $153. I am thankful everyday that I am only dependent on one medication. I can't imagine how people cope who depend on numerous medications to live. With no limitations on the pharmaceutical companies, they will only continue to raise these prices higher and higher. The higher the prices go, the greater the profit margin for these companies. For a party that continually states it's the more moral party, does this like a moral situation to you? Also consider this, with Michigan leading the nation in unemployment, the biggest thing corporations complain about is the rising cost of health care and then lay off workers. The skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs directly affects the cost of health care, along with the cost of uninsured people not having access to preventive health care and only seeking medical attention when critically ill. The cost of preventive medicine pales in comparison to the cost of Emergency Room and Intensive Care Unit bills. You must consider the implications that the policy your administration has taken with respect to prescription drugs and the pharmaceutical companies. It is disastrous to both old and young alike. I don't see any higher morals in these policies. It is in the best interest of all Americans to do something to curb this ever increasing cost of prescription drugs.”

I agree that a nearly 60% increase in the cost of Senator Levin's prescription drug (over a 3 year period) is excessive.

But allow me to play the Devils Advocate: How can Senator Levin absolutely attribute this rise to the pharmaceutical companies trying to increase their profit margins? Pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies have extremely high research and development expenses. They research and develop many drugs; many of which never get the FDA's stamp of approval. They have to cover these expenses somehow. Sure, they can keep drug costs stable. But then they run the risk of going belly-up and giving up their market share to their competitors who, in turn, could price-fix the entire market. Is my scenario the definitive word in why prices go up? Maybe not.

But maybe Senator Levin's scenario isn't the correct one, either.

“It is time that the "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" philosophy ended in Washington. There are too many lives at stake. It is time that the politicians of this country start standing up for what is truly the right thing to do, not just blindly follow their leader down the garden path. These 2 issues are critically important to the future of this country. I am asking that you not blindly follow your party in voting for the President's plan, but vote for the plan that is best for all Americans. Remember, the people who want to privatize social security already have secure futures for their children's children's children. The people fighting against the privatization of social security don't even have their own future secure, let alone their children's. I am urging you to continue to stand up for those who need your help, not those who want more profits in their coffers.”

I find it extremely ironic that Senator Levin is asking you not to "...blindly follow your party in voting for the President's plan..." At tonight’s symposium, Senator Levin stated several times that he does not completely understand all of the components of the President's plan. Yet he is calling upon American to reject the proposal. Talk about blindly following! Until Senator Levin can say, with certainty, that he understands the entire dynamic of this plan; he is not qualified (in my humble opinion) to render advice on how to vote for it.

Naivety can be a dangerous thing. People often shun the idea of trying to understand something that is unfamiliar to them; they often thwart anyone's attempts to enlighten them. In Dr. Seuss' popular children's book "Green Eggs and Ham", Sam-I-Am's friend was very outspoken in his belief that green eggs and ham were no good. But once he took the time to try them, he realized that he liked them.

Why do we spend so much time teaching our children to give things a chance, when as adults, we spend much of our time doing the exact opposite?

Senator Levin says, "The people who want to privatize social security already have secure futures for their children's children's children. The people fighting against the privatization of social security don't even have their own future secure, let alone their children's." Well I want to privatize the program, and I don't even have children; much less grandchildren or great-grandchildren! Senator Levin wants to fight it, but I'm willing to wager the futures of his children are secured. It is blatantly obvious to me that Senator Levin is making very general statements about this whole program and those who support and oppose it. He makes generalizations that are, for lack of a better word, prejudicial. We don't need prejudice when deciding the fate of Social Security. We need objectivity. And we need to drop the partisan antics and work together to ensure the fate of Social Security lives on!
(Continued on Next Post...)


  Submit to Quotes       Reply With Quote  

#3  
Old 03-22-05, 8:51 pm
Veritas Scriptor knows what he/she's talking aboutVeritas Scriptor knows what he/she's talking aboutVeritas Scriptor knows what he/she's talking aboutVeritas Scriptor knows what he/she's talking aboutVeritas Scriptor knows what he/she's talking aboutVeritas Scriptor knows what he/she's talking about
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts/Thanks: 2,569/305
Thanked 200 Times in 151 Posts

Arcade Awards High Score: 229 Rope Walker Champion!   High Score: 150 Shootout Champion!   High Score: 10508 Bottle Shoot Champion!   
Veritas Scriptor's Avatar  
Veritas Scriptor Veritas Scriptor is online now
Resident Argumentor Too
Inquistor Member

 

User note(s): 5
Exclamation Re: Truth About SS:

Quote:
Here are some facts that Senator Levin either did not touch upon, or did not explain well enough:

Projected state of the system:
  • We all know that projected figures show Social Security paying out more in benefits than it reaps in taxes. This doesn't mean the system is "bankrupt" just yet. It simply means that it will begin drawing from the modest interest it is receiving in its trust account. At an average historical rate of 5.7% (the average rate of interest on a 20-Year US Treasury bond from 1926 to 2000), it will barely keep up with inflation (average rate of 3.2% from 1926 to 2000); much less provide any substantial growth to keep the system afloat.
  • By 2028, is projected that Social Security would have to start delving into the principle of the securities held in trust.
  • By 2042 (2052 if you use the CBO figures), there will be no funds left in the trust account. As a result, benefits would be expected to drop anywhere from 20% to 30% of its promised levels. Over time, this reduced benefit would only increase, until one day; it will cease to exist altogether.
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's opinion:
  • Arguably, Mr. Greenspan has one of the keenest economic minds in the world. He publicly endorses the establishment of privatizing Social Security. Albeit, he also feels that more realistic promises for future benefits need to be made.
The amount of money proposed to be invested:
  • Currently, Americans pay 12.4% of their earned income (up to $90,000) into the system. The proposal to privatize it only segments 4% (or roughly 1/3) of this amount to be invested in private accounts.
  • If (as Senator Levin so eloquently puts it) the stock market "crashes" and all invested assets are lost; recipients will still receive 2/3 of their projected benefit. It just so happens to equally roughly the same amount that they would receive if nothing is done to reform the system!
Raising the income may cap solve the problem:
  • This is a huge one. As I exited the symposium, I overheard attendees commenting on this portion of Senator Levin's presentation. They were under the impression that if the cap were raised to $200,000, that this would put more money into the flailing system. They are only half right.
    • The current cap of $90,000 means that recipients can only receive benefits paid out of that cap. In other words, if you raise the cap to $200,000, you must also raise the amount of benefits that will be paid out to them in retirement.
  • This would bode well for the near-term; as it would provide increased funding to the program. But what happens when all those people earning over $90,000 start to retire? Who is going to pay for their enormous benefit payments? What will we do then; increase the cap again?!
  • People earning in excess of $90,000 should have the fortitude to self-fund their own retirement. Establishing a higher cap would not only harm their ability to invest into self-directed accounts; but it would economically harm their employers who are required to contribute 50% of the cost. This could equate to further job losses; as employers would tighten their budgets to meet the increased expense.
Private accounts failed retirees in other nations:
  • Many Latin American nations like Chile established private accounts for workers to divert earnings into. The United Kingdom also adopted a similar policy in the late 1970's. Yes, it's true that those nations' systems are not performing up to par. But let's look at one key difference:
    • The accounts were self-directed! They were allowed to divert their earnings into self-directed brokerage accounts where they were able to purchase individual securities (much like an IRA or some 401k's). The Unites States' version would disallow this. Instead, the funds would be invested into diverse portfolios of funds or market indices (like a pension plan). And as mentioned earlier, not once has the S&P 500 returned a single negative return over any rolling 20-year term.
Administration costs would increase significantly, and interest payments on the $2 trillion loans would compound, thus eroding private account investment returns:
  • There is no denying that costs would increase. There is also no denying that the borrowed money would have to be repaid (at whatever rate Treasury Bonds are paying at the time of issuance). But consider this:
    • The average annual return of the S&P 500 for the last 80 years has been about 11%. The average 20-Year US Treasury bond paid an annual rate of 5.7% during that same time.
  • Assuming the loan is to be paid back at the same rate of return as the historical average 20-Year US Treasury Bond (5.7%) and assuming an asset management fee as high as 1.4% (which is on the high end, some are as low as 0.2%), you would still clear approximately a 3.9% return on your money invested. Once the loans are repaid, you could expect to clear 9.6% (using historical rates of return).
Social Security recipients would not be entitled to their full contribution amounts, as they have to purchase an annuity to provide an income stream for life:
  • This argument refutes itself. Recipients would be using a portion of their combined contributions to purchase an annuity that would provide an income stream for the remainder of their life. Think about that. That removes a large burden from the system!
  • Senator Levin, admittedly, does not understand the concept of purchasing an annuity. When speaking at the symposium, he lamented that it was a "very complicated" thing to understand; and that he wasn't sure he totally understood the concept. He went on to explain a potential pitfall with purchasing an annuity: That if the owner dies, their survivor would receive nothing. This is untrue! Many annuities do have a "second-to-die" option on them. In exchange for a slightly reduced annuity payment, you can opt to extend the payments over the life of your spouse (or children when they reach a qualifying age) after you have passed.
US Treasury Bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States Government; therefore they are the "safest" investments:
  • I'm not going to refute the safety of US Treasury Bonds. They are AAA credit-rated and have never once defaulted on a single payment. They are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.
  • But at the same time, most insurance companies are considered very safe, too. Many are also AAA credit-rated and have never once defaulted on a single payment. In fact, there are some insurance companies that are older than the United States Government!
  • Insurance companies are heavily regulated. They must have deposits on hand to match every dollar of their clients’ money. The Federal Government cannot say the same thing. They have fractions of a dollar on hand to match investors’ assets.
  • If an insurance companies goes belly-up, their deposits (or insurance) will cover their promised payments. If, by some chance, they do not...then all other insurance companies must collectively step up and carry the burden of repaying the amounts.
  • If the US Government is facing the possibility of defaulting on debt-service, their remedy is to raise taxes to cover it. So in essence, you will be paying yourself back!
Is the proposed system a little complicated? You bet it is. Does its complication make it wrong? Not at all. If Senator Levin took the time to truly understand this proposal, he might see that it works. He might see that he likes it afterall.

I'm 25 years old, and I understand it well enough. I understand it enough that I would be willing to debate the issue with anyone who cares to challenge me.

Like Senator Levin, I too, am "urging you to stand up for those who need your help". I beseech you to ignore Senator Levin's assumptions and investigate, for yourself, the inner-workings of privatizing Social Security. Do your own due diligence. Seek clarification and professional advice wherever necessary. Then make the right decision to vote in favor of making it happen.


Very Sincerely Yours,


Veritas Scriptor
(Real Name Removed)


Bibliography:

http://www.cbo.gov/
http://www.socialsecurity.org/
http://www.gothamgazette.com/iotw/debt/
http://www.fool.com/news/2000/foth000607.htm
http://www.vercoradvisor.com/articles/basic.html
http://www.socsec.org/publications.asp?pubid=503
http://seniorliving.about.com/od/lawpolitics/a/sssolvent_2.htm
http://www.senate.gov/~levin/newsroom/release.cfm?id=230775
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7066201/print/1/displaymode/1098/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/27/national/printable638921.shtml
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Retirementandwills/Createplan/P90016.asp?Printer
http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/business/investing/sns-ap-revised-sp500,0,7102375.story?coll=snsap-investing-headlines
(The End)


  Submit to Quotes       Reply With Quote  

#4  
Old 03-22-05, 9:07 pm
Veritas Scriptor knows what he/she's talking aboutVeritas Scriptor knows what he/she's talking aboutVeritas Scriptor knows what he/she's talking aboutVeritas Scriptor knows what he/she's talking aboutVeritas Scriptor knows what he/she's talking aboutVeritas Scriptor knows what he/she's talking about
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts/Thanks: 2,569/305
Thanked 200 Times in 151 Posts

Arcade Awards High Score: 229 Rope Walker Champion!   High Score: 150 Shootout Champion!   High Score: 10508 Bottle Shoot Champion!   
Veritas Scriptor's Avatar  
Veritas Scriptor Veritas Scriptor is online now
Resident Argumentor Too
Inquistor Member

 

User note(s): 5
Re: Truth About SS:

Anyones thoughts?


  Submit to Quotes       Reply With Quote  

#5  
Old 03-22-05, 9:09 pm
RubberArm knows what he/she's talking aboutRubberArm knows what he/she's talking aboutRubberArm knows what he/she's talking aboutRubberArm knows what he/she's talking aboutRubberArm knows what he/she's talking aboutRubberArm knows what he/she's talking about
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts/Thanks: 3,079/130
Thanked 97 Times in 66 Posts

Arcade Awards High Score: 19360 Snipers Champion!   
RubberArm's Avatar  
RubberArm RubberArm is online now
Resident Argumentor
Inquistor Member

 

User note(s): 2
Re: Truth About SS:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Veritas Scriptor
Anyones thoughts?
Yeah, my first thought, when I saw this post was, "I sure hope Veritas posts a summary of this."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Preamble of the Constitution of Michigan of 1963:
Quote:
We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom, and earnestly desiring to secure these blessings undiminished to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution.


  Submit to Quotes       Reply With Quote  

#6  
Old 03-22-05, 9:25 pm
Veritas Scriptor knows what he/she's talking aboutVeritas Scriptor knows what he/she's talking aboutVeritas Scriptor knows what he/she's talking aboutVeritas Scriptor knows what he/she's talking aboutVeritas Scriptor knows what he/she's talking aboutVeritas Scriptor knows what he/she's talking about
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts/Thanks: 2,569/305
Thanked 200 Times in 151 Posts

Arcade Awards High Score: 229 Rope Walker Champion!   High Score: 150 Shootout Champion!   High Score: 10508 Bottle Shoot Champion!   
Veritas Scriptor's Avatar  
Veritas Scriptor Veritas Scriptor is online now
Resident Argumentor Too
Inquistor Member

 

User note(s): 5
Re: Truth About SS:

You'd flip if I told you that this is the summary!

It's nearly impossible to summerize any more than this. Sorry...it is what it is.


  Submit to Quotes       Reply With Quote  

#7  
Old 03-22-05, 9:33 pm
RubberArm knows what he/she's talking aboutRubberArm knows what he/she's talking aboutRubberArm knows what he/she's talking aboutRubberArm knows what he/she's talking aboutRubberArm knows what he/she's talking aboutRubberArm knows what he/she's talking about
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts/Thanks: 3,079/130
Thanked 97 Times in 66 Posts

Arcade Awards High Score: 19360 Snipers Champion!   
RubberArm's Avatar  
RubberArm RubberArm is online now
Resident Argumentor
Inquistor Member

 

User note(s): 2
Re: Truth About SS:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Veritas Scriptor
You'd flip if I told you that this is the summary!

It's nearly impossible to summerize any more than this. Sorry...it is what it is.
Doh!

Seriously though, I will read it through when I get a chance.


  Submit to Quotes       Reply With Quote  

#8  
Old 03-22-05, 10:11 pm
Mr Magoo just got here
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts/Thanks: 2,669/2
Thanked 278 Times in 173 Posts

Mr Magoo's Avatar  
Mr Magoo Mr Magoo is offline
Man of Reason
Inquistor Member

 
Re: Truth About SS:

I always get a good laugh when youngsters like Veritas Scriptor point out that Social Security needs to be fixed. I've been hearing this since the early 50s.

Social Security was set up as a retirement for seniors. It was put together during the Depression.

Had it been left as that it would have been fine, but the POLITICIANS decided to use it to pay people with disabilities, widows, orphans, etc.

Not saying that we should have left people with disabilities, widows, and orphans out in the cold, but why use Social Security?

There is just not enough money to fund retirements and these programs as well.

Now the baby boomers are about to collect Social Security. There will be too many people trying to collect with too few workers.

The POLITICIANS use Social Security to gain votes. The Democrats use it to get seniors stirred up and get their vote. The Republicans use it to get the younger people stirred up and get their vote.

Rather than fixing it, the POLITICIANS would rather scare the young and old people alike.

As long as the POLITICIANS are fighting and using Social Security to gain votes, we know the program still has money. Once they stop bickering and sit down to seriously discuss how to fix it, then we will know Social Security is almost broke.

I thank you.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Collect the Back Tax, put Ms Lulko on the job.
Councilman Mario DiSanto. In your heart, you know he's right.

  Submit to Quotes       Reply With Quote  

#9  
Old 03-22-05, 11:03 pm
RubberArm knows what he/she's talking aboutRubberArm knows what he/she's talking aboutRubberArm knows what he/she's talking aboutRubberArm knows what he/she's talking aboutRubberArm knows what he/she's talking aboutRubberArm knows what he/she's talking about
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts/Thanks: 3,079/130
Thanked 97 Times in 66 Posts

Arcade Awards High Score: 19360 Snipers Champion!   
RubberArm's Avatar  
RubberArm RubberArm is online now
Resident Argumentor
Inquistor Member

 

User note(s): 2
Re: Truth About SS:

Alright Veritas, I read it through once and will have to again to fully grasp this watered-down version, but I have one question for now:

You refer to the S&P 500 as not having a negative showing for any 20-year term. But my understanding is that the 500 companies that are used for indexing purposes changes over time. Sometimes, correct me if I am wrong, companies are dropped for poor performance from the list of 500.

So, my question is: If one were to invest in a S&P type fund, and those companies used for indexing purposes change over time, would the fund change accordingly in order to keep up to date with the current index?


  Submit to Quotes       Reply With Quote  

#10  
Old 03-23-05, 12:35 am
buckeyebil is making fast friendsbuckeyebil is making fast friends
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts/Thanks: 642/0
Thanked 23 Times in 22 Posts

buckeyebil's Avatar  
buckeyebil buckeyebil is online now
Inquisitor Member
Inquistor Member

 
Re: Truth About SS:

ignorance,and fear of change. do i think s.s. is a good investment? no. do i want change.? no not untill after iam 62 and start collecting my 1100 a month, since iam close, iam counting on that 1100, along with my company 401k for retirement. the stocks, and mutial funds in my 401k do much better than s.s.. but iam big time igno this investment stuff, and if it hadnt been for a friend telling me where to invest, i wouldnt have the least idea what to do with it. fear, idont want to study it, i dont want learn about it, i just want my check to come every month! when i retire in a cpl more years, i just want my gated condo,my camry,and my early bird special at the pancake house. and when it comes to the younger generation, well iam , but i dont care, i want mine, you guys can worry about your s.s. after iam dead.


  Submit to Quotes       Reply With Quote  

Shop Lincoln Park! Visit Our Advertisers

     Post New Topic      Reply
Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >

Return to Political Science
« Previous Topic | Next Topic »


Topic Tools
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode


Posting Rules
You may not post new topics
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

         Post New Topic      Reply
Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >
Display Modes   Similar Threads Topic Tools
 Support Our LP Businesses
AJRN Marketing
AJRNMarketing.com

Buy Michigan Products - Let's Keep Our State in Business!
BuyMichiganProducts.com

Preserving The Past For The Future
Lincoln Park Preservation Alliance

Wholesale Mortgage Connection
WholesaleMortgageConnection.com

Your DownRiver Mortgage-Your Home-Your Loan-Your Choice
YourDownriverMortgage.com

Lincoln Park's First Annual Business Expo Photo Gallery!
View Lincoln Park Business Expo Photo Gallery

One of Lincoln Park's Finer Resturants - HOBNOBS
View HOBNOBS Website

ATLAS Chiropractic of Lincoln Park
Call ATLAS Chiropractic @ 313.388.9693

» Latest Forum Topics
Welcome
Last post by Zlhsalaru
09-27-05 1:36 am
New to our Forums? START HERE
4 Replies, 26 Views
3-word Story Game
Last post by Zlhsalaru
09-27-05 1:33 am
Games
764 Replies, 3,268 Views
Mayor Brown votes NO on our IheartLP UNREAL!
Last post by Zlhsalaru
09-27-05 1:31 am
Council Meetings Reviews
14 Replies, 110 Views
The longest thread ever.....can we do it?
Last post by Zlhsalaru
09-27-05 1:26 am
Games
1,747 Replies, 6,976 Views
Um..uh..um
Last post by MasterQM
09-26-05 11:59 pm
Council Meetings Reviews
2 Replies, 21 Views
Can I ask a question?
Last post by MasterQM
09-26-05 11:53 pm
Councilwoman Valerie Brady
2 Replies, 34 Views
Question on Council Agenda September 29, 2005
Last post by DonDiego
09-26-05 11:28 pm
Council Meeting Agendas
7 Replies, 124 Views
Pitbulls are a threat in Lincoln Park
Last post by DonDiego
09-26-05 11:15 pm
Council Meetings Reviews
2 Replies, 22 Views
Why two remark sessions?
Last post by DonDiego
09-26-05 11:13 pm
Council Meetings Reviews
4 Replies, 39 Views
Mr. Higgins, commissions available
Last post by DonDiego
09-26-05 11:12 pm
Ask our Boards and Commissioners
1 Replies, 25 Views
Bid to purchase large Outer Drive Property...
Last post by DonDiego
09-26-05 11:06 pm
Council Meetings Reviews
36 Replies, 404 Views
State Revenue Sharing will NOT be touched this...
Last post by Robbie
09-26-05 9:01 pm
Council Meetings Reviews
1 Replies, 15 Views
Can I ask a question of Mr. Vaslo?
Last post by Bonehead
09-26-05 8:40 pm
Council Meetings Reviews
0 Replies, 24 Views
Residents go to podium September 26 2005
Last post by Robbie
09-26-05 8:31 pm
Council Meeting Agendas
2 Replies, 26 Views
Hoover School is closed today
Last post by Robin
09-26-05 8:25 pm
Elementary Schools
4 Replies, 70 Views
Cultural Commission
Last post by Robbie
09-26-05 8:14 pm
Council Meeting Agendas
33 Replies, 380 Views
Please accept my apology, Councilwoman Brady,...
Last post by Robin
09-26-05 7:46 pm
Councilwoman Valerie Brady
11 Replies, 180 Views
Question for DDA or EDC or whoever.....
Last post by Robin
09-26-05 7:37 pm
General Topic Discussions
1 Replies, 23 Views
Why have businesses left Lp?
Last post by happy and relaxed
09-26-05 7:31 pm
General Topic Discussions
43 Replies, 440 Views
I don't need to see your boxers
Last post by Mike S.
09-26-05 7:22 pm
General Topic Discussions
13 Replies, 125 Views
Talk about Depressing!!
Last post by Leslie
09-26-05 7:12 pm
General Topic Discussions
31 Replies, 381 Views
Magina Books in the news
Last post by Rocky
09-26-05 6:53 pm
Shop Lincoln Park Businesses
4 Replies, 71 Views
Kandes and Kovacs violate the city ordinance on...
Last post by Lupin
09-26-05 6:45 pm
Re-election / Campaign 2005
50 Replies, 537 Views
Guess which Democrat said this???
Last post by DonDiego
09-26-05 5:47 pm
General Topic Discussions
3 Replies, 34 Views
DiSanto for safer streets
Last post by Mr Magoo
09-26-05 5:15 pm
Re-election / Campaign 2005
37 Replies, 295 Views
Police Protection
Last post by Mr Magoo
09-26-05 4:28 pm
General Topic Discussions
38 Replies, 592 Views
El Paso's Has a Face Lift!!!
Last post by Rocky
09-26-05 2:08 pm
Shop Lincoln Park Businesses
13 Replies, 143 Views
What side of southfield is is Petries bike shop ?
Last post by MaryCross
09-26-05 1:48 pm
General Topic Discussions
3 Replies, 38 Views
Barking dog
Last post by Rmc2017
09-26-05 1:39 pm
New to our Forums? START HERE
10 Replies, 147 Views
Flower Bulb Sale
Last post by Leslie
09-26-05 11:38 am
IN THE SPOTLIGHT
11 Replies, 84 Views

» Bookmark YLP
Add Your City of Lincoln Park Michigan Community Website to your bookmarks!

YourLincolnPark.com is a Community Created & Managed website and is not affiliated with the City of Lincoln Park.
YLP Home    What's New?   City Events Calendar   Council Minutes   City Ordinances   Photo Gallery
  Advertise & Volunteers   Business Yellow Pages   In Honor of - Joseph "Smokey Joe" Lyson

| Your City of Lincoln Park Community Website | Privacy Statement

Review MMSi Copyright, Privacy, Disclaimers and Terms of Use Policies here.


The time now is 1:37 am EST

Contact Us - Refer Friends - Website & Forums Terms of Use - YLP Main - Archive - Top

Copyright MMSi 1998-2005 - All Rights Reserved   |   Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2005, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.   |   Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v1.0.1
Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign