CBS offers misleading Pro-privitization predictions

[n2mark]

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2465

[GetTheRightVote]

1. brought and paid for by * in his WH schemes

:kick:

[n2mark]

2. Yes, I agree

[whistle]

3. Figures never lie, but liars always figure....

...the only way that such claims can be made is if both scenarios (privatization and current social security) are run using the same basic conditions (i.e. if the choose the 8% rate of return, then show how such a return for 135,000,000 million workers would work in total). Social Security guarantees a basic level at retirement, regardless of how key economic drivers perform. That has been the 70 year history of social security. Private accounts really depend on the individual decision process and luck, because one man's gain is another's loss no matter how the chips fall.

They are comparing apples and bananas. Both scenarios must be done in the macro or aggregate scenarios, not what would be best case for a particular group. There will always be high exceptions. What really needs to be factors is how the work force as a whole would come out under each set of conditions. Likely winners, likely losers and what are the determinants for each of the outcomes. I think we would very quickly see that much of the working population are risk avoiders, not risk takers and would avoid any long term plan which failed to guarantee what social security offers under the current program even going out 50 to 75 years.

Remember, the 100 year plan for the U.S economy is for a nominal annual rate of 3.5% in GDP with a real annual rate of about 1.25% in GDP using the Office of Budget's own figures. If all Americans would invest in the next Wal-Mart, or the next Microsoft, or the next Martha Stewart Inc. then all returns would be marginalized. If even a part of the private accounts went into some future ENRON, there would be major dislocations in the long term economic security of large groups of the population. The way to make Social Security a forced savings program is to allow the allow borrowing from the SS surplus only to pay down the national debt thus reducing the interest rates and allowing the economy to grow in that manner. The IOUs to social security would be exactly as they are now, but the surplus could not be spent, or in the case of what has happened under Bush, been looted to fund the tax refunds to the wealthiest 5%.

[applegrove]

4. I still say the growth is with stocks invested outside the USA in

the emerging economies. That is why the growth rate is so high.

So take SS and invest outside the USA. That is what they are saying but they will not say it outright. Bush WH wants us to argue growth rates & crisis based on assumption about growth rates in USA (which will be low).

Make Bush put 'pen to paper' and say exactly what his plans are.

I bet you - he can't do the investment accounts on top of SS (like Canada) because he thinks he is going to succeed in getting rid of income tax and replacing it with a sales tax.

[BrklynLiberal]

5. kick

This should be seen by more people.