GOP Social Security Strategy Document

For those who would be interested in reading it.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/gop.socsec.strategy.memo.pdf

Congressional Republicans used this at their retreat over the weekend. I like to know how the other side will spin before they get out of the gate, o it is interesting reading for me.

Wow... 103 pages!!! Can you give us a somewhat neutral summary?

If you're actually interested in discussing politics, then you shouldn't have a problem reading a 103 page document.

If you merely enjoy vocalizing the party dogma/rhetoric/etc, then I guess it doesn't matter what the document even says.

Act accordingly.

It's an interesting read. Especially the pre-written speeches (talking points) by age group.

Those will give you a good idea of what you will hear in the coming months.

I asked a simple question Ardin... no need to get nasty. I will read the whole thing if I find it necessary but was interested in Neehai's analysis first. There is NOTHING wrong with that!

It is a good read. I'd really like to see some of the DNC's talking point and prepared speeches sheets. That one that came out about inventing election fraud before it even happens was amazing!

There is actually something quite wrong with that. You can't offer insightful commentary about the report without actually reading it. I kind of figured that was common sense.

I think the attached graph (Pg. 60 of the PDF) demonstrates just how dire the situation is, regardless of your political affiliation.

I also think it serves as a perfect demonstration of the abominations which Powerpoint and Excel can combine to produce.

(Let me add the following caveat: I don't know how the authors of this report obtained the projection depicted in the attached graph. Though I don't doubt the veracity of the study, as it agrees with many of the predictions I've previousl heard, it's important that we not forget the ease with which data can be manipulated. Why, on this graph, do we see a downward trend at the beginning of 2005, which then begins going back up a couple of years later? What is the cause of this inflection point?)

Whoever said I was going to "offer insightful commentary about the report without actually reading it"? I asked for an opinion from Neehai is all and am well within my right to do so.

I fail to see why you are butting your head in this anyway. I didn't ask YOU anything, I asked Neehai. Take your trolling elsewhere and stop making assumptions that are wrong.

I was wrong to assume you might offer insightful commentary. My apologies.

Is that really the best you can come up with? lol Grow up!

Alas it is. Sorry, Billy. Any comments on my question about the inflection in the curve, though? The more I look at it, the more curious I become. It's not a historical trend, so obviously it's a quirk of their projection. It looks almost like they took the last couple of years of data, and then used a 6th-order polynomial regression to "project" the future trend. Which, of course, is ridiculous. I'd like to know more about their method.

On that curve it looks like the red line was going down, then started curving up at 2005...

Liberals make pronouncements on the Bible and Christianity all the time without having ever read it. So what's your point?

-Kiamat Dusk
I was flamed by a person of tolerance and diversity

I've read it.

A lot of Christians make pronouncements on the Bible and Christianity all the time without having ever read it. What's your point?

Nope. The 2005 tick is at the extreme left of the graph, and the curve definitely still has negative slope during that year. The slope begins approaching zero in 2006, but still has negative slope, before finally reaching zero in 2007. Then it begins a long-term positive trend.

I've read it.

Not to turn this into Social Security debate, but it is interesting thaty Republicans use a lower percentage to determine the economy growth when discussing Social Security and a larger percentage of growth when they talk about tax cuts and paying off the deficit. It is a clever idea and one you should look out for.

Aaron, I'm not sure the democrats have a strategy document on overhauling Social Security as that isn't on their agenda. There will likely be a counter-strategy document sometime n the future. One of the big strategies of the Democrats was to not spend the Social Security surplus. You might remember Al Gore talking about the "lock box". Well that was the Social Security surplus. Bush & Co. cracked that bad boy open and spent it.

So there will be Democrat strategies. However, I will be partisan and bias and not make it as easy to find those.

As this document (very interesting link, Neehai, thanks) is now being fed to the media one of the major motives behind this initiative has just become clear to me. From the Associated Press' dryly factual summarization:As these "accounts" are certain private mutual funds ("private" but now with a Federal imprimateur) the first beneficiary of these accounts are the fund managers who extract a management fee. The next beneficiaries are the annuity managers who also extract a management fee.

In a less "typical" case - which I suspect is relatively common given the shape of the male mortality by age distribution - a former contributor to the Social Security income transfer plan has now become a depositor into a private fund. Under the current mechanism should the taxed person die prior to SS distribution, the "deposits" have already gone to a SS recipient so aren't "lost" to the Social Security general fund. Under the new scheme it appears that upon early death of a private fund contributor that the deposits revert to the private mutual fund. Thus, dollars have been taken out of Social Security and handed to "private" investment firms.

Knowing how great the influence of corporations and industry coalitions has been in writing self-serving laws for the Government to enact, It surprises me not that this is a direct transfer of funds from Social Security to privately held money managers disguised as an action to ensure retirement benefits to people the Federal government won't be able to provide for.

Yes, I know this conclusion looks like a conspiracy theory, but I cannot find a hole in it.

Bond biggie bashes Bush's SS debaucle

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Bill Gross, manager of the world's largest bond fund, is criticizing President Bush's plan to privatize part of Social Security.

Gross, managing director at Pimco, called the argument about the solvency of Social Security "silly" and said it was an example of the president not focusing on more important issues, such as the budget deficit.

The president's argument for individual Social Security accounts is meant "to promote an agenda that has little to do with seniors and more to do with Bush, his ownership society, and ultimately his domestic legacy alongside the likes of Ronald Reagan and FDR," Gross wrote in comments posted on Pimco's Web site.

"Without a blockbuster of a program in his second term it is unlikely that Bush can go very far in the history books on the back of a paltry 3 or 4 percentage point tax cut for the rich," Gross wrote.

"Presto!" he continued. "We now have partial privatization of Social Security heading the agenda upon which the president intends to spend his well-advertised political capital."

But while the president says that will help fix Social Security, "the problem has more to do with demographics than the lack of ownership," Gross wrote.

Gross argued that it will take more than individual Social Security accounts to correct a projected shortfall and suggested the government should focus on cutting the budget deficit instead.

"Production can only come from employed workers and so the basic solution is to produce more workers, either through immigration or postponed retirement for the existing work force," he wrote.

"By reducing budget deficits now, and especially that portion of the deficit owed to foreign governments, we would be able to keep more of our domestic production within our borders and therefore available to senior citizens."

President Bush on Thursday kicked off a five-state tour to push his plan to overhaul Social Security, an issue highlighted in his State of the Union address.

While the president offered new details of how individual accounts would work in his address, he did not address many outstanding issues.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/04/markets/gross_social_security/index.htm