Social Security?

[kallend 2,175]

"The time is now" [to fix Social Security], G.W. Bush, GOP Convention, 2000

"Social Security reform will be the top domestic priority", G.W. Bush, 2004 Presidential debates.

So what's happening?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Democrats decided to make it a political issue instead of the healthy debate and search for answers that Bush tried to make it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15356-2005Mar7.html

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

Democrats decided to make it a political issue instead of the healthy debate and search for answers that Bush tried to make it.

Thankfully someone stands against W's bad ideas.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Democrats decided to make it a political issue instead of the healthy debate and search for answers that Bush tried to make it.

Thankfully someone stands against W's bad ideas.

Problem is thats all they do. Never any solutions, just bashing.

[ReBirth 0]

Quote

the healthy debate and search for answers that Bush tried to make it.

Bwhaahahah!! I guess you forget the part where he said he wouldn't consider ANY plan that didn't include voluntary personal savings. Issuing ultimatums doesn't usually lead to healthy debate, or answers.

[kallend 2,175]

Quote

Democrats decided to make it a political issue instead of the healthy debate and search for answers that Bush tried to make it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15356-2005Mar7.html

Senate: GOP majority
House: GOP majority

Somehow your response lacks credibility.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

the healthy debate and search for answers that Bush tried to make it.

Bwhaahahah!! I guess you forget the part where he said he wouldn't consider ANY plan that didn't include voluntary personal savings. Issuing ultimatums doesn't usually lead to healthy debate, or answers.

Whats wrong with personal accounts? Oh, thats right it keep politicians from getting their hands on the SS money and pissing it away like they did for the last 50 years. Thats a good thing, right?

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

Problem is thats all they do. Never any solutions, just bashing.

Imagine:

You are driving down the road, and a pedestrian steps out in front of you. Do you immediately call your insurance agent, or do you try to avoid the accident first.

Or, more accurately, you are a passenger in the car, and the driver is driving on the sidewalk. Do you call your insurance agent, or try to get the car steered off the sidewalk?

At some point reckless behavior has to be stopped before responsible actions can be taken.

[ReBirth 0]

Quote

Whats wrong with personal accounts?

For you and me? Nothing. I like the idea of them. However, the cost of diverting that money from the existing program has to come from somewhere. And the majority of people would quickly invest it improperly meaning we still have to shoulder the burden later for them, or let them starve (although that could be mitigated by limiting choice)

And that's not the point anyway. The point is that issuing ultimatums is not conducive to healthy debate or answers.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

Oh, thats right it keep politicians from getting their hands on the SS money and pissing it away like they did for the last 50 years. Thats a good thing, right?

That is a good thing. You seem to be forgetting which White House administrations allowed spending from SS funds.

[ReBirth 0]

Quote

Quote

Oh, thats right it keep politicians from getting their hands on the SS money and pissing it away like they did for the last 50 years. Thats a good thing, right?

That is a good thing. You seem to be forgetting which White House administrations allowed spending from SS funds.

Yeah...but it's ok. He's going to fix SS anyway, so what he's using out of it now won't matter. Duh.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Oh, thats right it keep politicians from getting their hands on the SS money and pissing it away like they did for the last 50 years. Thats a good thing, right?

That is a good thing. You seem to be forgetting which White House administrations allowed spending from SS funds.

And you seem to forget Congress was complicit too. The point is, do we keep the same system that we know doesn't work and continue to pour money into the pockets of politicians, knowing what they will do with it ? Or do we try to limit what politicians have to spend?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Whats wrong with personal accounts?

For you and me? Nothing. I like the idea of them. However, the cost of diverting that money from the existing program has to come from somewhere. And the majority of people would quickly invest it improperly meaning we still have to shoulder the burden later for them, or let them starve (although that could be mitigated by limiting choice)

And that's not the point anyway. The point is that issuing ultimatums is not conducive to healthy debate or answers.

Sure it is. A declaration that continuing with the same fucked up system and insistance that we find a better way forces people to think outside the box. I think a system whereby the employee has a portable type of vehicle like an IRA which the employer contributes a portion of the employees wages is an idea that could be discussed. But the Democrats never wanted to consider any alternatives because they were more interested in demagoging the issue than presenting rational alternatives.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

And you seem to forget Congress was complicit too

How about: VETO!

Quote

The point is, do we keep the same system that we know doesn't work and continue to pour money into the pockets of politicians, knowing what they will do with it ? Or do we try to limit what politicians have to spend?

Generally speaking, Bush supporters chose to vote to keep the status quo, while Kerry supporters (yes, its hard to keep a straight face saying that) wanted to limit the spending habits of Congress.

Living outside one's means is not fiscally responsible, no matter how you look at it. But, that is exactly what we do when we decrease taxes and increase government spending, as has happened over the course of the last five years.

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

Quote

The point is that issuing ultimatums is not conducive to healthy debate or answers.

Sure it is.

Is this just because you cheer for that team, or would you feel the same of a Democrat in power kicked off discussion with an ultimatum?

I don't know people or negotiation all that well, but I figure most folks don't tend to react very cooperatively when ultimatums are brought to the table.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

A declaration that continuing with the same fucked up system and insistance that we find a better way forces people to think outside the box. I think a system whereby the employee has a portable type of vehicle like an IRA which the employer contributes a portion of the employees wages is an idea that could be discussed. But the Democrats never wanted to consider any alternatives because they were more interested in demagoging the issue than presenting rational alternatives.

Social Security is not the same as a retirement account. It is a safety net, not a retirement plan. If you open it up to higher risk private investments, for many people the safety net will dissolve into corporate losses.

For Great Deals on Gear

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The point is that issuing ultimatums is not conducive to healthy debate or answers.

Sure it is.

Is this just because you cheer for that team, or would you feel the same of a Democrat in power kicked off discussion with an ultimatum?

I don't know people or negotiation all that well, but I figure most folks don't tend to react very cooperatively when ultimatums are brought to the table.

Matter of perspective. I have in the past, in order to effect creative thinking, announced I wanted creative solutions, not a rehash with a slight variation to what we have been doing. It's called leadership and those who know how to use leadership abilities, know that demanding better of people, gets better results. You have to force people to break out of a certain mindset. Those who want to work to effect real change will respond to the challenge. Those who don't, bitch and whine. In a corporate setting, they get fired.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

Matter of perspective. I have in the past, in order to effect creative thinking, announced I wanted creative solutions, not a rehash with a slight variation to what we have been doing.

That is different than bringing a single solution to the table an insisting it is the only possible answer.

For Great Deals on Gear

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

A declaration that continuing with the same fucked up system and insistance that we find a better way forces people to think outside the box. I think a system whereby the employee has a portable type of vehicle like an IRA which the employer contributes a portion of the employees wages is an idea that could be discussed. But the Democrats never wanted to consider any alternatives because they were more interested in demagoging the issue than presenting rational alternatives.

Social Security is not the same as a retirement account. It is a safety net, not a retirement plan. If you open it up to higher risk private investments, for many people the safety net will dissolve into corporate losses.

And if you set up a retirement account, you have less need for a safety net ie. less money. Have you ever sat down and figured out what your rate f return is on SS? It's about 1%. Think you could do better than that over a lifetime? Do you think it's fair that the govt. gets to keep all that money if you die before retirement without a spouse or children?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Matter of perspective. I have in the past, in order to effect creative thinking, announced I wanted creative solutions, not a rehash with a slight variation to what we have been doing.

That is different than bringing a single solution to the table an insisting it is the only possible answer.

He didn't propose a single solution. He only said any solution must include personal retirement accounts. You find that unacceptable?

[ReBirth 0]

Quote

How about: VETO!

That would be a first. This president has yet to veto a single damn thing. He's absentee when it comes to cost cutting.

[ReBirth 0]

Quote

He didn't propose a single solution. He only said any solution must include personal retirement accounts. You find that unacceptable?

Yes...I find that unacceptable. That indicates he is not willing to listen to differing view points. But that's pretty much his trademark, no?

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

Matter of perspective. I have in the past, in order to effect creative thinking, announced I wanted creative solutions, not a rehash with a slight variation to what we have been doing.

And I have often taken that very same approach. But if you waltz in and say, "I want creative solutions, not a rehash, so the solution has to be X. Now, discuss!" that might be a bit different, now wouldn't it? How would you, as an obviously intelligent and analytical performer, receive such an ultimatum?

Quote

It's called leadership and those who know how to use leadership abilities, know that demanding better of people, gets better results. You have to force people to break out of a certain mindset.

Out of what kind of draconian leadership book do you operate? FORCE PEOPLE? How about guide, coach, stimulate, etc.?

Leadership? Force people?

Quote

Those who want to work to effect real change will respond to the challenge. Those who don't bitch and whine. In a corporate setting, they get fired.

There are plenty of great folks out there whose earnest desire to effect change is directly affected by their leadership's approaches to, well, leadership. That's why Blanchard and Deming (et al) sell so many books. And I don't recall much reference to confrontation as being a successful leadership method, in any of the related literature I've read, anyway, not to mention in practical application.

Principled Negotiation. Perhaps you should try Getting To Yes by Fisher and Ury. Here's a quickie.

And you're casting things in a binary fashion ("with us or against us" sound familiar?), which doesn't represent things very accurately. There's a broad spectrum of people and their motivations and their responses. As a leader, you should know that.

Finally, your analogy would at least be somewhat applicable if we were discussing an issue in which the leader was administering a discussion with individuals who report to him. In this case, if the President was addressing his cabinet with an ultimatum, then your analogy at least holds water there. But it doesn't: legislators don't have to respond to the President the way employees do to their chain of command.

Again, I remain unconvinced that ultimatums are a good way to stimulate healthy debate and negotiation, but I'm willing to entertain arguments to the contrary.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

And if you set up a retirement account, you have less need for a safety net ie. less money. Have you ever sat down and figured out what your rate f return is on SS? It's about 1%. Think you could do better than that over a lifetime? Do you think it's fair that the govt. gets to keep all that money if you die before retirement without a spouse or children?

I think you are missing the idea behind a safety net. It is for when things don't go as planned. I am quite confident I could invest my money and receive a higher rate of return than with SS. I am equally confident that not 100% of American taxpayers could do the same thing. Hence the need for a safety net.

What do I need with that money if I die w/o a spouse or child before retirement?

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

He didn't propose a single solution. He only said any solution must include personal retirement accounts. You find that unacceptable?

Yes.