Bush administration projects record 2009 deficit

Her is a good example of how the federal goverment is getting us with SS. The city of Galviston TX. opted out before congress passed the loopole to stop them and its a sweet deal for them. Here is just some of the numbers:

Galveston vs. Social Security. Upon retirement after 30 years, and assuming a 5 percent rate of return — more conservative than Galveston workers have earned — all workers would do better for the same contribution as Social Security:


Workers making $17,000 a year are expected to receive about 50 percent more per month on our alternative plan than on Social Security — $1,036 instead of $683. [See the Figure.]
Workers making $26,000 a year will make almost double Social Security’s return — $1,500 instead of $853.
Workers making $51,000 a year will get $3,103 instead of $1,368.
Workers making $75,000 or more will nearly triple Social Security — $4,540 instead of $1,645.
Galveston County’s survivorship benefits pay four times a worker's annual salary — a minimum of $75,000 to a maximum $215,000 — versus Social Security, which forces widows to wait until age 60 to qualify for benefits, or provides 75 percent of a worker’s salary for school-age children.
In Galveston, if the worker dies before retirement, the survivors receive not only the full survivorship but get generous accidental death benefits, too. Galveston County’s disability benefit also pays more: 60 percent of an individual's salary, better than Social Security's.

Two government studies of the Galveston Plan — by the Government Accountability Office and the Social Security Administration — claim that low-wage workers do better under Social Security. However, these studies assumed a low 4 percent return, which is the minimum rate of return on annuities guaranteed by the insurance companies. The actual returns have been substantially higher.

Here is a link to the entire story:
NCPA - Brief Analysis #514, Galveston County: A Model for Social Security Reform (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba514/)

Why did Congress pass the loophole to stop them? Is it because it takes away from today's money that the Galveston residents would be paying into SS?

Why did Congress pass the loophole to stop them? Is it because it takes away from today's money that the Galveston residents would be paying into SS?
Yes they opted out while they could and congress closed that loophole pretty quick. I guess they knew other cities or states would do the same when they saw the success they where having.

the problem with privatized social security is that you will still have millions of Americans that will make bad choices with their money. and then guess who gets to bail them out? that's right, our gov"t

Well, I guess your reasoning doesn't work very well, considering that Republicans controlled both the Senate and the House (as well as the Presidency) during 2004 -- the worst budget deficit since 2008.

Republicans controlled the Senate and House from 2003 to 2007. When exactly do you think the housing market and gas prices started going to shit? Dems have had control for one year, the previous 4 years controlled by Republicans, and you want to blame the Dems? LOL.

For the record, I consider myself a Republican. However, I'm not partisan, and I blame those who I think are responsible -- regardless of political affiliation.
i think if people in Washington would live by these words, and get off the blame game, our political system would work alot better. nice quote

the problem with privatized social security is that you will still have millions of Americans that will make bad choices with their money. and then guess who gets to bail them out? that's right, our gov"t
Dude, read the article. They are in fixed Annuities which guarante 4% return even at the fixed rate they are doing better then SS. But they have been averaging 6.5% and they have to participate. No one is saying do away withe retirement savings we just want alternatives that are much better then the current Federal system. If a financial advisor did with your money what the federal goverment has done with SS they would be thrown in jail and the key thrown away. Just read the article when you have the time and I think you may learn that the current system sucks. If I'm correct your young 25? and you should be the biggest supporters of changing this system so you don't have to throw your money away like I have had to do. I want to retire by age 65 and if I could have taken the money that goes to my SS and put it in a fixed account I could have retired at age 60. I would have something like tripple the monthly income and could have left a nice chunck for my children. Can't do that with SS.

Terrorist strikes are and will continue to be a major threat for the forseeable future as long as fundamental Islamists are teaching that the U.S. is the "great Satan" and openly declare jihad against us. I guess 9/11, the first WTC attack, the USS Cole, Khobar (sp.) Towers, numerous attacks against U.S. embassies are just "made to look like problems". Let's not forget the subway attacks in England or the train attacks in Spain, all very real. When we take the view that these attacks are not a threat and ignore the problem it only grows worse.

You have misunderstood me. I never said that terrorism is "not a problem", or "made to look like a problem". I said it is "made to look like our biggest problem". There is a big difference between what I said, and what you are arguing against.

As far as I can tell, terrorism hasn’t increased dramatically in the past 10 years (or even 30 years). Terrorism has always existed, and it always will. There will never be an end to the “War on Terror”. Except due to Bush’s neglect for foreign relations, we are not at any greater risk for terrorist attack now, than we were 10 years ago. Just because we have been attacked isn’t proof of anything. Everyone gets attacked, and it’s been happening for a long time. America was overdue. So, now that averages are finally catching up to us, everyone wants to make it seem like we have this new major threat that never existed before.

Bush got bad intel due to our Human Intelligence network being dismantled by the Clinton Admin (not to say he still wouldn't have made poor decisions with better intel) and made some strategically poor decisions in the execution of the Iraq War. However if he lied, so did a majority of the Congress and several leading Democrats.

Let's not forget, Bush is our Commander in Chief. Ultimately, he is responsible for all military operations. Remember Enron, when the CEO claimed he didn't know the CFO was cooking the books, and therefore he was not responsible? That argument didn’t work for him, and it doesn’t work for Bush either.

This rise is similar to the spike during the Carter Administration. Many factors go into the oil price, the actual use of oil by the U.S. military is not even on the radar as a major factor. The major factors spiking the oil price are increased demand from China, India and other developing countries (I believe U.S. demand has gone down slightly or remained constant over the last year or so) and unrest/instability to the oil supply, Iran/Israel potential war, Venezula - Chavez, political instability in Nigeria. The U.S. involvement in Iraq has been a constant since 2003.

You mention unrest and instability as possible factors which drive up the price of oil. You imply that instability caused by the Iraq war can't be driving up the price of oil, because that war has been ongoing for five years. However, the Iran/Israel conflict could be driving up the price? The Iran/Israel conflict has been going on since the Islamic Revolution in Iran -- 1979. So, why is the Iraq war not a factor for driving up the price of oil? The Iraq war is causing more instability in the Middle East, and therefore the oil market, than anything else you mention. You’re right about China and India – their increased demand only compounds the problem. However, demand for oil is always growing. It always has. As a result, production increases as well. China and India’s demand for more oil is just status quo – the Iraq war is not.

It is obvious that our military is using more oil fighting in Iraq, than it would be otherwise. Furthermore, United States oil consumption rose 3.5% between 2003 and 2004 (http://indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=us&product=oil&graph=consumption) (couldn't find figures for beyond 2005). We don’t know for sure if that consumption increase was due to increased oil consumption by our military, but I think it is quite likely. Also consider that the US consumes more oil than any other country, and a 3.5% increase in our consumption is certainly on the global radar, and a major factor.

Although this increase was 4 years ago, it still affects the oil market today because we haven’t yet decreased our consumption to account for the 2004 increase. Average US oil consumption rose about 0.75% per year on average before 2004. So, in that year, our oil consumption rose 2.75% more than usual.

Our problem with the dependency on foreign oil is still the same, spike or not in oil prices. Congress hasn't approved (Repub or Dem controlled) drilling in key areas where we know there are vast reserves, new refineries, new nuclear power plants, greater research into new power sources other than combustible engines. This should've been addressed aggressively after the spike in oil prices and the Mid-East turmoil in the Carter years and hasn't been.

Decreasing dependence on foreign oil will also greatly reduce the U.S. dollars from funding many governments hostile to the U.S.

I can’t argue with that. Although, I’m not an advocate for more drilling – that just delays the problem.

Nothing like using a quote from a Democrat to state a case against Bush....Pretty hypocritical of the Chariman of the House Budget Committee to blast Bush for the budget deficits. His committee forwards the final House version of the approved budget to the House floor for a vote. The CONGRESS must pass the budget, they have the ultimate control on the Gov't purse-strings. For him to blast Bush on this is ridiculous, it's like two guys robbing a bank, getting caught, and the gunman who went into the bank puts all the blame on the getaway driver. They are both very responsible.

The fact that this guy is a democrat means nothing to me. Don’t discount what he says, just because the guy is a democrat.

You’re right – congress should share in the blame. However, the budget process begins with Bush, and it is his budget proposal which is the foundation for the approved budget that is sent to the floor. Bush needs to be more responsible (as does congress). He can’t submit a piece of shit budget and then blame congress for approving it (which he isn’t as far as I can tell – it just works both ways). The bottom line is: Bush submitted his request, and congress approved it because that’s what the President said he needed. If they didn’t approve it, Bush and the Bushies would have blamed congress for executive failures because they didn't approve their budget. “We didn’t get our budget, so we couldn’t do what we needed to do, blah, blah, blah…”

Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid are the biggest expenditures of the Federal government each year (close to 50%). By no means are these problems that pale in comparison to the other two. The solutions will take some work, but we've got to take action now and not push this off on future generations.

Just because these social program are our biggest expenditures doesn’t mean they are our biggest problems. Frankly, I like seeing the majority of government money going back to the citizens. I agree these programs can be improved, but I think there are more important issues to deal with, like defense spending.

But the President that appoints the cabinet is elected, and the Congress and Judicial systems do have significant oversight of the Executive branch.

Just because the president is elected, doesn’t mean the citizens have any sort of real control over the cabinet.

Sorry for the long post...

i've read on galveston before, and i wish i could opt out... right now, i'll opt out of SS and medicare and invest that money myself into health/life insurance and IRAs/Roths/401k and be much better off.

i hate throwing my money away knowing i'll never see it again.

i've read on galveston before, and i wish i could opt out... right now, i'll opt out of SS and medicare and invest that money myself into health/life insurance and IRAs/Roths/401k and be much better off.

i hate throwing my money away knowing i'll never see it again.

Well if your employed you only see half the money getting thrown away. I'm self employed and I have to pay double for both me and my wife and it kills me each month to see how much SS takes from my family. For those who don't know how it works. Half is paid by the employee and the employer pays the other half so self employed pay it all.