A fascinating insite into the Bush message machine

[Frank Newgent]

I really do wonder if the goal of the Dems is to keep as many people as close to poverty as possible, and thus dependent on the Democrat-sponsored welfare state.

Whining points (hwn wn point): small arguments or phrases that political strategists issue to representatives or supporters of a party or administration to be used over and over again in speeches, talk show appearances and debates. The strategy is to create a scheme, to make the idea a common assumption by sheer means of sniveling repitition. Whining points are often gross simplifications of issues, and become name calling if used too often. The most effective whining points consist of one or two words, e.g. "higher taxes", "gubmit IOU", and "Hillary Clinton".


[size=1/4]edited for spelling[/size]

 

[Shinytop]

Whining points (hwn wn point): small arguments or phrases that political strategists issue to representatives or supporters of a party or administration to be used over and over again in speeches, talk show appearances and debates. The strategy is to create a scheme, to make the idea a common assumption by sheer means of sniveling repitition. Whining points are often gross simplifications of issues, and become name calling if used too often. The most effective whining points consist of one or two words, e.g. "higher taxes", "gubmit IOU", and "Hillary Clinton".


[size=1/4]edited for spelling[/size]

"Hillary Clinton"

Seems to me calling her name a whining point is a whining point designed to minimize all discussion about her many past sleaze actions and her obvious pandering to what can get her votes.

 

[Bjorn]

I'd like to get an actual return on my investment. You know, so if I put in $360 a month for 35 years it will be worth $409,000 after that time, as opposed to the $151,200 it would be worth if I had stuck it under my mattress. And that's assuming a conservative rate of return of 5%.

Wouldn't we all.

The president is telling us these days that we would get 5-6% by investing in safe, government-approved funds of different kinds.

"Safe" and "government approved" are the key words.

I suggest the government just take the accumulated surplus in the SS (well, it would have to borrow money, but so they would if they privatize it) and invest in those safe and approved funds immediately. Come to think about it, they must be idiots for not doing it already.

US bonds have been considered one of the safest investment opportunities for a few generations now. Maybe the president had a revelation and knows it won't be so in the future?

 

[billydkid]

significant point

But not really addressing the post - Were you all aware that the way the privatization plan works is this - You are allowed to invest a certain portion of your SS taxes as you see fit and then when you come of retirement age you give all this money back to the government and they parcel it back out to you as they see fit. It may be a little bit more than you might get from SS depending on how well your investments went, but it is not your money any more than the SS taxes you pay in now are your money.

 

[hammegk]

Re: significant point

.... it is not your money any more than the SS taxes you pay in now are your money.

Hmm. I understand that this money actually *IS* yours, and if funds remain on your death, those funds are in your estate -- unlike SS 'funds' - (i.e. current tax revenues being disbursed).

 

[Bjorn]

Re: significant point

You are allowed to invest a certain portion of your SS taxes as you see fit

I think this is a misunderstanding - you will not be allowed to invest 'as you see fit', at least by the preliminary 'plans' we have heard so far.

and then when you come of retirement age you give all this money back to the government and they parcel it back out to you as they see fit.

I think this is another misunderstanding - the idea is, as far as I know, that the money in your private investment account will be yours, with some restrictions on how fast (over how many years) you can withdraw the money and spend it. AFAIK hammegk is correct.

It may be a little bit more than you might get from SS depending on how well your investments went

It may in fact be a lot more, but not with 'no risk'.

 

[Mycroft]

I'd like to get an actual return on my investment. You know, so if I put in $360 a month for 35 years it will be worth $409,000 after that time, as opposed to the $151,200 it would be worth if I had stuck it under my mattress. And that's assuming a conservative rate of return of 5%.

My understanding is the system as proposed by Bush Jr functions very much like a government run annuity, which is functionally identical to what we have now only with a greater bureaucracy.

I’d support any number of reforms, but not this one.

 

[corplinx]

Define privatization?

Its still a govt plan if the govt gives you 3 choices of index funds you can divert 30 percent into.

I thought privatization was about taking a govt program and outsourcing it to a private sector company or companies. At least thats what it meant during the gingrich era.

Back then I think the thought was:
"We stop using the SS surplus so there is extra money in the system. We turn it over to a company or companies to run and they invest the surplus in index funds, bonds, etc."

 

[CapelDodger]

(Privatizing used to be a great word, describing everything the conservatives were for ...)

It is a positive word, isn't it? Privacy should be respected, we value our private lives and parts. So what went wrong?

I think it's the light of experience. Over here, Blairites only use the word in the context of "This is not privatisation!", after the experience of the Thatcher years. In the US ... wasn't there some bad press for energy privatisation in California?

If so, one wonders why it took so long for the Republicans to twig. Maybe they're not as slick as we thought. And maybe they're slick enough to get elected (universal suffrage sounds good, but in the light of experience ...) but not slick enough to get around Congress. It should be fun to watch them try.

 

[SlippyToad]

Define privatization?

Herewith, Slippytoad's dictionary presents his defenition of:

Social Security Privatization

(or)

Personal Accounts (for the Mathematically Challenged)

Privatization consists of the intentional fiscal mismanagement of a 70-year old social insurance program with the purpose of deliberately bankrupting the same, while not appearing to do so to current interested voters. In strategic terms, Privatization (er, Personal Accounts there, buddy!) could be termed a Sleeper Mine. A device that goes off causing untold havoc long after the original combatants have left the scene, scoring a phyrric victory at best, but giving a certain sense of satisfaction to the builders of such a device in that they will finally get to have their way. In no way should the deployment of such a scheme be construed as being in the best interests of anyone, considering that the descendents of the employers of such a plan will be in the immortal words of Douglas Adams, a bunch of mindless jerks who'll be first against the wall when the Revolution comes.

See also Starving The Beast, and People Interested in A Bananna Republic.

 

[TragicMonkey]

There will be fewer people receiving Social Security benefits in 40 years, so I really don't see how this is a crisis.

Drug and medical costs aren't going to go down or stay the same in that forty years.