ZI am sure for byrd that delicious taste, taste alot like............ crow, jim crow at that.

First, the issue of, " will equity investments produce higher returns"? is not the issue facing Social Sceurity. The issue is the ability of SS to pay 100% of promised benefits after 2042. The Bush individual accounts have no impact on that issue. They do not make SS able to pay benefits as promised and the diversion of money into individual accounts will make the financial problem facing SS appear sooner because Trillions, that would have gone into the trust fund, will not be available but in the individual accounts. The other part of the Bush plan is to change the way COLA is calculated which will cut future benefits about 30 %. Thus the Bush plan will result in the same problem, as doing nothing-- Cutting benefits from 25-30%.

The concept of investing part of the trust fund in a sound mix of equities has been used by almost every state pension plan in the United States. That is very different from investing in individual accounts that will reduce the amount of money available to meet the Social Security's obligations. Adding to the trust fund by higher Social Security taxes and investing those additional funds in a mix of equities would help solve Social Security funding issue. The Bush plan does not solve the problem and in fact will cut benefits the same way as doing nothing. It is impossible to ensure payment of the Social Security benefit as promised without increasing the amount dollars available in the trust fund to cover the baby boomers after 2042. What Bush is trying to do is convert the system to partially privatize system and reduce the benefits to pay for the conversion. That is not going to benefit anyone.

ZI am sure for byrd that delicious taste, taste alot like............ crow, jim crow at that.

just Crow!  Jim is dead. Except in the North!

Reply By: COL Gene

Col Gene, so nice of you to drop by.  And you are wrong again, but rant away.  You do have a one track mind, but at least you are always on topic and always predictable.

I kind of feel sorry for you.  What is a dem to do now that his old homestead has sold him down the proverbial river!

So rant away.  I have already refuted you point by point, and this is not on whether it will work or not, only that the democrats (non-bush Hater ones) think it will.  Otherwise, why sell out their constituents?

Dr. Guy it is you that are wrong. First I have been a Moderate Republican since 1962.

The impact of diverting funds into an individual account that is invested in an equity fund depends on first, how much of a reduction, the person making such a choice, will take in their SS benefits and the level of the market when a person retires and converts their account into a retirement payment. For some there could be inceased retirement for others the amount could be less.

For the workers who are too old for individual accounts, the issue is where is the money comming from to pay their benefits as promised? Without added funding , that will not be possible after 2042 according to SS. The Bush plan provides no added funding and will actually result in less funds going into the trust fund by several trillion dollars. This is what the SS admin and CBO have stated and is not my opinion but the opinion of these experts on SS. So HOW DOES THE Bush plan insure that people who are too old for the individual accounts will reveive their promised benefits? How will you insure that the market will be UP if the individual accounts are approved when a person retires? If the objective is to protect the future benefits under SS, please show us how the Bush plan does that?

Dr. Guy it is you that are wrong. First I have been a Moderate Republican since 1962.

No Col Gene, you are wrong.  You have never been a republican (other than perhaps a jim Jeffords one).  When you trashed Reagan, I knew you were a seminar blogger.

But you are polite and on point, if repetitious.  And of Course been proven wrong so many times that I dont care to keep track. 

I will read your responses, but I will not agree with you.  You are a one horse show, and it is the same show day after day after day.

You really don't know what you are talking about. Not only am I a Republican, but I served as a Republican committee person and did support Ronald Reagan in his first election. However when it became clear that that his promise that his tax cut would balance the budget were untrue I did not support him in his reelection.. In 2000 I had been a volunteer for Senator McCain and would have supported him if he had won the nomination. When George Bush and the GOP machine trashed Senator McCain's Vietnam and military record it became clear to me I was not going to support George W. Bush. In the election 2004 having seen what George Bush did to this country I of course did not support him in 2004.

I am a moderate Republican that some call a Rockefeller Republican. The problem with the Republic party today is that it is controlled by conservative right who represent only a minority of a total United States population. There are many Republicans who simply do not agree with the far right but many just can not vote for anybody except a Republican regardless of their philosophy.

You have still not answered my questions as to how the Bush Social Security proposals are going to insure that baby boomers will receive their full benefits? That's the issue Bush is running around the country telling everyone about. It is the financial crisis he says exist within Social Security and I would like to learn how his proposals of creating individual accounts or cutting benefits by changing the way the COLA is calculated are going to pay the promised benefits to the baby boomers.

You really don't know what you are talking about. Not only am I a Republican, but I served as a Republican committee person and did support Ronald Reagan in his first election.

Rightttt!  I know what I am talking about.  You are just blowing smoke up anyone's ass who will listen.

Dont kid a kidder.  Say your peace and try to convince the feeble minded.

Another time when you are not a one trick pony maybe.

You are a lyre. I have been a Republican since 1962. I was elected to the Republican committee of Chester County Pennsylvania between 1974 and 1977. I did support Ronald Reagan in his first election. I did volunteer to support Senator McCain. You never answer the questions the same as most of the other Bushies. "Birds of a feather flock together" is a saying that describes Bush and the sorry people that support his lame policies.

First, the issue of, " will equity investments produce higher returns"? is not the issue facing Social Sceurity. The issue is the ability of SS to pay 100% of promised benefits after 2042. The Bush individual accounts have no impact on that issue. They do not make SS able to pay benefits as promised and the diversion of money into individual accounts will make the financial problem facing SS appear sooner because Trillions, that would have gone into the trust fund, will not be available but in the individual accounts. The other part of the Bush plan is to change the way COLA is calculated which will cut future benefits about 30 %. Thus the Bush plan will result in the same problem, as doing nothing-- Cutting benefits from 25-30%.

First off, clueless old liberal, this was NOT what was being discussed was it? Was GW mentioned? NO he wasn't.

Dr. Guy it is you that are wrong. First I have been a Moderate Republican since 1962.

"If" your a moderate republican then I'm "superman"!

You are a lyre

If he's a lyre (next time spell it right. try liar.) then you sir (spelled "cur") are an asshat!

drmiler NO, YOU ARE AN ASS

I am a moderate Republican that some call a Rockefeller Republican. The problem with the Republic party today is that it is controlled by conservative right who represent only a minority of a total United States population.

The republicans have only a minority of the U.S. population behind them, but they keep winning every election.

drmiler NO, YOU ARE AN ASS

Takes one to know one! I just bet I can find more people to refute your statement about me than you can find to refute the one I made about you.