TerryinMD
Veteran Member
Looks like the war of words is beginning to heat up in Congress. I snipped a small piece out of an <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.msnbc.com/news/717275.asp>article</A> from the MSNBC Web site and here it is...
<font color=blue>DEMOCRATS SAY MONEY LACKING
Democrats argue that Republican privatization proposals are not credible because trillions of dollars of general revenue would have to be pumped into the system in order to finance private accounts and pay for the retirement of the baby boom generation. Because of Bush’s $1.35 trillion 10-year tax cut last year, the money is not there, they argue.
“It doesn’t add up,” said Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., who sits on the Ways and Means Committee. “We’re on our way to a fiscal train wreck in the financing of Social Security. All of the coupons and all of the privatization schemes in the world won’t make that budget reality go away.”</font color=blue>
What struck me as being very odd is in the first sentence - <font color=red>Democrats argue that Republican privatization proposals are not credible because trillions of dollars of general revenue would have to be pumped into the system in order to finance private accounts and pay for the retirement of the baby boom generation.</font color=red> (chose red to highlight - no hidden meaning) Why would tillions of dollars of general revenue be needed for private accounts? Let me try to understand - if I choose to set up a private account, the money taken by the Government and placed into a private retirement account is just that, private. The Government has been removed from the loop. The money is deposited and in a retirement account. This is unlike the current SS system which takes my money and uses it to pay out to the current retirees and anyone else eligible for SS benefits. If what I say is true (I think it is - tell me if I'm mistaken), then actually what is being said is that the personal retirement accounts will actually reduce the amount of funds going into the general revenue accounts.
The next sentence is also troublesome. <font color=red>Because of Bush’s $1.35 trillion 10-year tax cut last year, the money is not there, they argue.</font color=red> What does this have to do with the personal retirement accounts and SS. This all sounds like the typical smoke and mirror routine coming out of Congress. This article mentions Democrats but in all reality, some Republicans are just as guilty in portraying SS as some kind of sacred cow that should not be touched.
I just wish that someone in Congress would get the cajoles to stand up and change this system. There has to be a good solution. I just wish that Congress would cut out the double-talk and trash and develope a solid solution. I wish that I could opt out of SS and put that money in a plain Jane savings account. I certainly would feel more comfortable with that solution.
Terry
<font color=blue>DEMOCRATS SAY MONEY LACKING
Democrats argue that Republican privatization proposals are not credible because trillions of dollars of general revenue would have to be pumped into the system in order to finance private accounts and pay for the retirement of the baby boom generation. Because of Bush’s $1.35 trillion 10-year tax cut last year, the money is not there, they argue.
“It doesn’t add up,” said Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., who sits on the Ways and Means Committee. “We’re on our way to a fiscal train wreck in the financing of Social Security. All of the coupons and all of the privatization schemes in the world won’t make that budget reality go away.”</font color=blue>
What struck me as being very odd is in the first sentence - <font color=red>Democrats argue that Republican privatization proposals are not credible because trillions of dollars of general revenue would have to be pumped into the system in order to finance private accounts and pay for the retirement of the baby boom generation.</font color=red> (chose red to highlight - no hidden meaning) Why would tillions of dollars of general revenue be needed for private accounts? Let me try to understand - if I choose to set up a private account, the money taken by the Government and placed into a private retirement account is just that, private. The Government has been removed from the loop. The money is deposited and in a retirement account. This is unlike the current SS system which takes my money and uses it to pay out to the current retirees and anyone else eligible for SS benefits. If what I say is true (I think it is - tell me if I'm mistaken), then actually what is being said is that the personal retirement accounts will actually reduce the amount of funds going into the general revenue accounts.
The next sentence is also troublesome. <font color=red>Because of Bush’s $1.35 trillion 10-year tax cut last year, the money is not there, they argue.</font color=red> What does this have to do with the personal retirement accounts and SS. This all sounds like the typical smoke and mirror routine coming out of Congress. This article mentions Democrats but in all reality, some Republicans are just as guilty in portraying SS as some kind of sacred cow that should not be touched.
I just wish that someone in Congress would get the cajoles to stand up and change this system. There has to be a good solution. I just wish that Congress would cut out the double-talk and trash and develope a solid solution. I wish that I could opt out of SS and put that money in a plain Jane savings account. I certainly would feel more comfortable with that solution.
Terry
