Why doesn't anyone mention that Privatization won't fix the SS shortfall?

[Sandpiper]

In all the discussion about Bush's desire to gut Social Security, there's a giant elephant in the living room that no one is bringing up.

Bush's plan won't do ANYTHING to fix the projected shortfall that he's using to frighten people. Privatization will not shore up the system, it will take money out of it.

The only way he'll be able to Privatize and pay future obligations to retirees is by CUTTING BENEFITS.


Getting the public to oppose this is as simple as telling retirees and soon to be retirees: George Bush will cut your benefits. Is that what you want?

[pinto]

1. yeah, see this Wall Street Journal piece:How Social Security Might Change

How Social Security Might Change

By JACKIE CALMES
January 30, 2005

Through two election campaigns, voters have heard President Bush call for fixing Social Security by letting them carve out personal retirement accounts. Now many are surprised to learn that such accounts aren't a solution by themselves -- not without future benefit reductions, more payroll taxes, or both.

What exactly are the other changes that might be made to Social Security?

That is the question administration officials have only just begun addressing as Mr. Bush works with Congress to hash out the devilish details for averting Social Security's projected insolvency before midcentury. Officials say he may suggest more details Wednesday in his State of the Union address, though no one expects him to be specific about a comprehensive plan until late February, if then.

To date, Mr. Bush has just offered "principles" for legislation. Chief among them: His demand that it must allow workers to divert some of their Social Security payroll taxes to personal accounts, in hopes of earning higher returns on investments. But less well advertised is that, in return, workers would forfeit some traditional benefits when they retire. Even with that, private accounts not only wouldn't restore Social Security's 75-year solvency, they would add to its immediate shortfall: Taxes diverted to workers' own accounts would have to be made up somehow, to pay today's retirees.

<more>

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/0,,SB110703449985340148,00.html

[EVDebs]

2. Wall Street wants to 'churn' those accounts and make commissions

they can't squeal on themselves and 'journalists' today aren't worth a cent. They only do what they're told to do by their corporate globalizing masters.

[pinto]

5. I thought the article was a pretty good overview of the options being

passed around...your assessment of "journalists" is well taken, yet I felt there were enough facts in this piece to help people build an opinion of what may actually be considered in the Congress.

Thanks for the post.

[BrklynLiberal]

3. Could it be because Bush and his minions control the media?

[isit2008yet]

4. They can also fix it

by increasing retirement age -or- Employers and employees are paying in about 12% into the fund raise that intake by 1.87% and it pays full benefits for decades -or- invest current SS funds into something like the government Thrift Savings Plan and its good to go for decades. So a couple of little tweaks and its fixed.

It should also be noted that current predictions of SS demise is based on a very conservative GDP growth estimate of 1.8%. Current growth is in the range of 3-4%.

The 2018, time of demise, is when we actually start dipping into SS surplus. At 2042, we begin drawing down benefits if the age or income to the SS fund is not increased.