aye, here in britain the pensions system is in a bit of a mess to say the least. They're talking about the majority of people about my age (early twenties) and maybe even older, having to work until 70 or possibly 75 in order to have a pension that it'll be possible to survive on.
of course, way before then i may just save up then go find some place where the GBp is strong and living is cheap. I hear much of South America is still like that, and a little more peaceful than a decade or two ago.

The president is using the issue of social security and trying to convince people that social security is an issue that must be addressed immediately. This is a smokescreen, for the immediate risk is Medicaid and Medicare, programs that are teetering on the brink of collapse. Yes, social security is a very big issue, but Medicaid/Medicare are even bigger one. Pres. Bush will push the social security issue in his inaugural address, but will remain silent on Medicade and Medicare. Will we buy it?

SA - you make it sound like this was GWB's idea! I hate to tell you, but Clinton had town hall meetings about SS reform long before Bush ever got elected!

You "progressives" like to blame EVERYTHING on Bush. Better watch it, he'll send a tsunami your way!

This from Online Newshour

PRESIDENT CLINTON: For too long politicians have called Social Security the third rail of American politics. That's Washington language for it's above serious debate. This year, we must prove them wrong. This conference--with its wide participation--is a good start.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I believe, first of all, we have to reform Social Security in a way that strengthens and protects the guarantee for the 21st century. We should not abandon a basic program that has been one of the greatest successes in our country's history. Second, we should maintain universality and fairness. For half a century this has been a progressive guarantee for citizens. We have to keep it that way. Third, Social Security must provide a benefit that people can count on. Regardless of the ups and downs of the economy, or the financial markets, we have to provide a solid and dependable foundation of retirement security. Fourth, Social Security must continue to provide financial security for disabled and low-income beneficiaries. We can never forget the one in three Social Security beneficiaries who are not retirees. And, fifth, anything we do to strengthen Social Security now must maintain our hard won fiscal discipline. It is the source of much of the prosperity we enjoy today. [Online Newshour]

There's like 6 people on the planet that believe that SS is fine the way it is and Hal Pawluk is one of the 6!

Not to put too fine a point on it Hal, but you come out of the box with a big point of saying the president is "lying," then you immediately say something is, putting it gently, obviously not true: "The truth is that while Social Security could use a tweak, the president's plan will leave you holding the bag on paying 25% of your savings to plan administrators while reducing your benefits."

In fact, the president has not yet submitted ANY specific plan, and Republicans seem to be still debating amongst themselves how exactly to approach the whole thing. Does the president actually submit a bill with specifics, or cheerlead and move more behind the scenes as Republican leadership in Congress crafts the legislation?

You're just making stuff up. I understand being broadly skeptical of any big changes like what W is broadly talking about, but you undermine your credibility rather severely when you just blatantly make specific factual assertions that are as fabricated as a CBS National Guard story.

way to fine a point! With logic like that how are we supposed to blame W for everything? Damn Al!

Andy, you definitely need to get out more.

Clinton's call for "reform" is not the same as Bush's (and Gingrich's) call for "destruction."

It is recognized by millions that Social Security needs a minor course correction, and is not in a crisis as Bush and the financial industry lobbyists claim it is.

Al, you're being "disingenuous."

(But I am not surprised to see you defending the Bush administration as I'm still not convinced that you are a libertarian as you claim to be,)

Bush has been lying - up, down and sideways - about Social Security since he started talking about it nationally.

As to plans, the administration and their fellow-travelers have floated a few modified versions on how to "privatize" Social Security. They all have the same result: lower benefits and higher costs.

The worst one, which I haven't discussed, includes reindexing of benefits. Instead of linking benefits to wages, this would link benefits to inflation.

If that version is implemented, you 20-year-olds would be better off putting your money into a hermetically-sealed tin can and burying it in your back yard.

Your claim, Al, that I'm making it up is just right wing crap - got their latest memo, did you?

You need to pay attention when you read the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Business Week and the rest of the business press. I have links to specific quotes from some of their relevant articles at the last link in my post.

Yeah, you're right Hal...WTF would Alan Greenspan know anyway?

You're going to have to give me a link, Andy:

Where exactly does Greenspan say that Social Security must be "privatized" to the tune of $2-4 trillion in new borrowing for the transition, and a payoff of another $1 trillion to financial services firms?

His concerns are more informed than that, and are closer to my position than Bush's.

And just for your own benefit, I recommend that you take another look at what "privatization" has done for workers in other countries. I don't want that to happen here - do you?

Where does anybody use the numbers your using?

Here's a link where Greenspan says SS can't go on the way it has
Before the Committee on the Budget, U.S. House of Representatives
February 25, 2004 Tell me you never read that?

The part that bothers me about this Hal, is that all the BS you're spewing about SS tells me that you must have read what the chairman of the federal reserve would have said about it!

So what's the deal, you just blow off valid arguments from people that would know if they don't fit into your rhetoric?

How old are you anyway? Is it that you're so old that you know YOU'LL never run out of SS money in YOUR lifetime?

Now give me a link from somewhere other than some bloggers opinion with the numbers that you spew!

What people need to know is that SS was NEVER meant to be the ONLY form of income after retirement.

And lastly Hal, Greenspan surely never said that SS was fine and should be left alone which is the BS line you've been spewing on this subject for a month or two now.

We could probably have a productive discussion of you understood the material you read, Andy, instead of just speing out that "BS line" you've been fed.

As far as the links go, you should read the material there before whinging about it. The link at the end of my post goes to a page on my site where I've collected my posts on this subject since last March.

In each of those posts you won't find links to other bloggers but rather to credible sources like Business Week, the Wall Street Journal, National Review and research studies.

And I have "surely never said that SS was fine and should be left alone."

Pay attention and maybe we can talk some day.

Great work, Hal.

Al Barger, you might wanna read last Sunday's NY Times Magazine; they did a huge, in-depth analysis of the SS "crisis" -- and according to most experts, what Hal says is spot on.

Coupla additional points:

1) You have the right to an informed opinion.

2) Are you ever insulted by the Marketing of Fear that the Bush administration so favors when it comes to manipulating public opinion? *Seems to me a 'libertarian' would be especially aware of this technique...


*winky*

Shark's free investment advice for your "ownership" retirement plan:

*Enron
Tyco
WorldCom


* cheap!