Re: Question about President's Social Security plan

From: Bill (xxx_at_yy.zz)
Date: 01/10/05 

Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 21:43:34 GMT

"Jim Blair" <jeb@wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:crukgr$foj$1@news.doit.wisc.edu...
>
> "The Trucker" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:crme0u01u2h@news3.newsguy.com...
>> Jim Blair wrote:
>> >> >> >> Jim Blair wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >>> >
>> >> >> >> >> >>> >I am puzzled by the politics of this debate. Bush wants
> to
>> > (in
>> >> >> >> > effect)
>> >> >> >> >> >>> >reduce the FICA now with the restriction that the tax
>> >> >> >> >> >>> >reduction be invested/saved for future retirement.
>
> Trucker Coburn:
>
>> >> >> >> (snicker) You and The Chimp are definitely on the same page
> here.
>> > I
>> >> >> > wonder
>> >> >> >> if it ever occured to any right winged moron that WE can't _all_
>> > save
>> >> > for
>> >> >> >> our retirement ....
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Hi,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Of course we all can. Anyone and everyone can save and invest.
>> >> >
>> >> > TC:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Again B-Liar changes the basis so as to lie. Saving .ne.
> investment.
>> >> >>
>> >> > ......
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Stocks would be an "investment" as opposed to a "savings". I have
>> >> >> said
>> >> > that
>> >> >> we all can't "save" at the same time. There is a flaw in this but
> you
>> >> >> will not find it. ....
>> >> >
>> >> >> A share of stock is an investment as opposed to a "savings", ....
> etc.
>> >> >
>> >> > Hi,
>> >> >
>> >> > When I say that I "saved for my retirement" since 1966, what I mean
> by
>> >> > that is each year I "saved" about 10% of my income by not spending it
>> >> > on consumption and instead bought stock mutual funds and bond mutual
>> >> > funds with
>> >> > that money. I call that "saving and investing". I "saved" money by
>> >> > "investing" it. Understand? My "savings" were "invested". Same
>> > dollars.
>> >> > Where is the lie?
>> >>
>> >> I do not care a rat's *** about what you did, Blair.
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > You seem unable to grasp an abstract concept. I thought maybe if I put
> it
>> > in terms of a specific example (me) that could in principle be extended
> to
>> > anyone (and to everyone), then you could grasp it. But I was wrong :-(
>> >
>> >>
>> >> You entered: "That is why Bush has the right idea. If WE save for our
>> >> retirement, the government does not have to save for our retirement."
>> >>
>> >> And I said that "we" cannot all "save" for our retirement at the
>> >> same time. You then drag in "investment" and claim
>> >> that I am wrong in my position that saving up a bunch of bucks/bonds
>> >> is no more workable for all of us to do individually than it is for
>> >> government to do it collectively.
>
> jeb:
>> >
>> > I did that because you seemed to understand that we all could "invest",
>> > and do not realize that the money that A "saves" can be "invested" by B.
>> >
>> > To a first approximation, saving equals investment. Unless by "saving"
>> > you mean only money stuck in a mattress.
>>
>> That is what "save" means Blair. It means forgone consumption. It
>> has _NOTHING_ to do with _investing_.
> ....
>
>> There is no absolute link between saving and investing.
> ......
>
>>....And I said that it makes no
>> difference whether the government "saves" by buying bonds or all
>> the individuals "save" by buying the same bonds. If you want to let
>> the individuals but differing kinds of bounds then some will lose
>> ans some will win.
>
> Hi,
>
> While the Bush plan is not in its final form, I think it clear that he would
> permit individuals to
> INVEST in both stocks and various kinds of bonds (corporate and government)
> with money
> that would otherwise go to FICA.
>
>>...But the overall savings still will not change and
>> will do no good. You should go visit Hummel instead of suggesting
>> that trio for me.
>
> That would be the case if there were no connection between buying corporate
> and municiple bonds, and
> corporate stocks and investment. And you are not the only one to deny any
> connection.
>
> But I say they are connected: when you buy a bond, the company or city or
> whoever issued the bond
> uses the money you gave them to build something. When you buy a CD from a
> Savings & Loan, the
> S&L uses that money to help someone else buy or build a house, etc.
>
> I don't agree with the calim that people buying stocks, bonds or CD's will
> "do no good".
>

Let me interject a point here. For CDs you are right. For stocks and bonds
people mostly buy and sell from/to each other. In fact every dollar you make
from stocks (exclusive of dividends) comes out of another investors pocket
(exclusive of buybacks) - reminisicent of Ponzi.

Bill

>>
>> >>....This shifting of ground and
>> >> placing words into the mouth of the opponent is typical
> Blair/Republican
>> >> lying.
>> >>
>> >> The lie is in inserting the word "investing" into the discussion as
>> >> though this was part of what you originally said ....
>
> jeb:
>> >
>> > It was. As in "save and invest".
>
>> We can all learn a lesson here: Mr. B-Liar cut the original verbage
>> so as to lie about how the word "invest" was part of it. This is
>> _very_ Republican in that any data that does not support your position
>> is simply eliminated or edited out.
>
> Re-read the last line of my opening starement above.
>
> ....
>
> jeb:
>
>> > Sounds like you are advising people NOT to buy stocks and bonds today.
> Is
>> > that correct?
>>
>> Not actually. Not so long as they are doing it _freely_. It
>> is still possible to get ahead individually by knowing who has the
>> most political clout, for instance. Who will be able to extract the
>> most rent in the future due to their government supported monopoly
>> privileges. But this is not what is meant by "investments" that
>> increase future productivity.
>>
>> >>
>> >> >> However, the construction
>> >> >> of more hydroelectric dams and fish ladders, and the creation and
>> >> >> maintenance of a better power distribution system, and the proper
>> >> >> development of bullet fast trains, and all sorts of other things
>> >> >> could be accomplished by government just as well or better than
> these
>> >> >> things are being done by the rent seeking Repugnican monopolists.
>> >> >
>> >> > ??? Are you saying that today the government is better at building
>> > capital
>> >> > for the future than private companies?
>> >>
>> >> Absolutely not, Blair. I'm saying that government _COULD_ be much
>> >> better at it.
>> >
>> > So you want to depend on government rather then private spending for
>> > investment. But not because you think the government HAS or likely WILL
> do
>> > a better job, but because they _COULD?
>>
>> I would say that both government and private sector are needed in the
>> arena.
>
> And I agree.
>
>
>>...But SS is not (according to my (and others) definition of that
>> system) to be looked at as an "investment" system. It is a social
>> insurance system.
>
> Yes. Which is one of its problems. That is why it can't cope with the
> changing demographics.
>
>>....When I speak of government "investments" I speak
>> of capital infrastructure, and education for instance.
>
> Funded in part by bonds. Of the type that Bush would let individuals buy
> with the money that would
> otherwise go to FICA.
>
> TC:
>
>> >> Returning to the actual topic, Blair. George Bush and the Republican
>> >> party are lying when they say that forcing people to send money
>> >> to Wall Street is any kind of "fix" for SS.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Actually his plan would not "force" anyone to buy stocks or bonds.
> People
>> > would have that as an option if they wanted to, instead of paying the
> same
>> > money in FICA.
>> >
>> > You should at least try to understand the issue.
>> >
>>
>> Why is it that cutting fica taxes and eliminating the cap will
>> not give people that same option, Blair? THAT is the real issue.
>>
> But who is proposing that?
>
>
> ,,,,,,,
> _______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
> (_)
> jim blair (jeblair@facstaff.wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin
> USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable
> binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good time
> call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
>
>

Loading