Bush's Plan to Loot Social Security

Bush wants to turn the initial budget for the start of the private accounts to private firms, now which private firm does come to mind in which Bush has close ties with?

Now we already know that the suspected firm already is taking hold of Canada's retirement accounts, so people some members of our elite is going to become richer that any of us dare to dream, thanks to Bush plans to privatized Social Security.

I am going to write this here in hopes you will all let your friends and neighbors know what is really going on here. The main campaign contributors for the Bush campaign this last go round the first go round were the large brokerage houses on wall street. Bush is helping them get your Social Security money out in the open so they can invest it and steal it from you. This is the plain short and simple thing that is going on in plain sight. My cousins own one of the largest investment banks not in New York and they are drooling at the chance at getting 10% or so of the trillions of dollars coming out of Social Security if it happens.
Now if it does happen, you can bet the Brokerage houses will lie, cheat and steal everything they can, just as they always do and the Tax Payer, you and me, will be asked to bail it all out but in this case it could bring about the shear bankruptcy of the United States as the total amount would be staggering, making the Savings and Loan Scandal look like childs play. Just remember it was the Bush family that brought you the S&L scandal, Neal Bush was the biggest scammer and walked away scott free, and they are about to bring you the SS scandal if you let it happen.

Originally posted by slank
.
How can you loot something that has already been looted?

.

Exactly - this has been going on for quite some time now. The funny thing is it's forgotten with each administration and the situation is blamed on the sitting President.


This is an excerpt from a 1998 Senate Budget committee meeting:

HOLLINGS: Well, the truth is...ah, shoot, well, we all know there's Washington's math problem. Alan Sloan in this past week's Newsweek says he spends 150%. What we've been doing, Mr. Chairman, in all reality, is taken a hundred billion out of the Social Security Trust Fund, transferring it over to the spending column, and spending it. Our friends to the left here are getting their tax cuts, we getting our spending increases, and hollering surplus, surplus, and balanced budget, and balanced budget plans when we continue to spend a hundred billion more than we take in.

I remember people on the right yelling about looting Social Security way back when - Clinton supporters weren't hearing it. Now it's completely flipped. Goddamn partisan politics.

Originally posted by GrndLkNatv
The main campaign contributors for the Bush campaign this last go round the first go round were the large brokerage houses on wall street. Bush is helping them get your Social Security money out in the open so they can invest it and steal it from you. This is the plain short and simple thing that is going on in plain sight. Just remember it was the Bush family that brought you the S&L scandal, Neal Bush was the biggest scammer and walked away scott free, and they are about to bring you the SS scandal if you let it happen.

GrndlkNatv: I have to agree with you, your post (IMHO) from what I have been reading these so called studies have been produced by the very people who want to get there hands on the SS monies, not to mention GW has never had a successful business and of course he will be long gone when the you know what hits the fan.

ONLY God knows what happens inside the White House.....

And MONICA

Originally posted by GrndLkNatv
I am going to write this here in hopes you will all let your friends and neighbors know what is really going on here. The main campaign contributors for the Bush campaign this last go round the first go round were the large brokerage houses on wall street. Bush is helping them get your Social Security money out in the open so they can invest it and steal it from you. This is the plain short and simple thing that is going on in plain sight. My cousins own one of the largest investment banks not in New York and they are drooling at the chance at getting 10% or so of the trillions of dollars coming out of Social Security if it happens.
Now if it does happen, you can bet the Brokerage houses will lie, cheat and steal everything they can, just as they always do and the Tax Payer, you and me, will be asked to bail it all out but in this case it could bring about the shear bankruptcy of the United States as the total amount would be staggering, making the Savings and Loan Scandal look like childs play. Just remember it was the Bush family that brought you the S&L scandal, Neal Bush was the biggest scammer and walked away scott free, and they are about to bring you the SS scandal if you let it happen.

This is not true on many levels. Infusing trillions of dollars of Social Security funds into the equity & corporate debt markets will result in more liquidity, stable markets and the potential for improved returns--which will be good for all investors, and in turn, serve to bolster the economy (and potentially in a big way), but Wall Street firms will not make out like bandits at the expense of everyone (especially because only a handful--four or five firms, will be selected as fund providers under the proposed plan.)

The only legal way for money managers to profit from managing Social Security money is to charge management fees, but the fees charged aren't going to be anywhere near current--or profitable rates. The rate that the White House quoted is 30 cents per $100 under management, which is about five to six times less that what is currently being charged ($1.60 to $1.75 per $100.) And only the largest firms will be able to deal with the administration of these accounts, and even so, it will come at a huge start up cost, which these measly fees will not even come close to covering.

Being that these accounts are being managed basically at a loss, you would think that the managers could make up for it with gouging the clients by manipulating stock prices. Nope--can't and won't happen. Since the last time privatization was considered in the nineties, there has been a significant amount of SEC regulation enacted and the entire industry is heavily scrutinized--gone are the days where delberate manipulation is possible without having Elliot Spitzer & his minions up your butt. We're talking fines that will put firms out of business. You can just imagine the aftermath if there is even one publicized instance of Grandma getting deliberately raked over the coals with a bad trade and losing some of her Social Security money--every firm managing these accounts will suffer audits. And just being audited can cost millions of dollars.

I can tell you from personal experience that all of the major Wall Street firms that are large enough to manage Social Security accounts have cleaned up their act because they have been caught, fined--sometimes heavily, and are on compliance probation. Putnam Investment was fined several hundred million dollars last year for trading violations--and then lost half a billion dollars in business when the news came out. Strong Funds & Janus were fined in a similar price manipulation scandal. Vanguard was fined. Bank America was fined almost half a billion dollars. Banc One, Wellington, Alliance--all fined. Even Fidelity, who had been previously thought of to be squeakly clean was caught breaking laws last year. There is no stone being left unturned. Almost $10 billion in fines were assessed by the SEC in 2003 and 2004. Good news if you are a compliance professional, but money management firms are not going to risk taking these types of losses again. And it's not just the fines--people pull their money out of these firms when they are caught with their hand in the till.

So the notion that Wall Street is going to get filthy rich on our Social Security dime is false. Wall Street portfolio managers aren't drooling over the prospect of managing Social Security money--at least the smart ones aren't.

But why even bother with private accounts?

According to the White House briefing, under no circumstances will anyone be able to withdraw funds from thier accounts prior to retirement. The government could just directly allocate a portion of the Social Security funds to Wall Street money managers, which would accomplish better returns because the investing would be handled by professionals, bypass the tremendous cost associated with administering millions of private accounts, yet still offer a huge cash infusion to the markets.

It seems to me that private accounts are just a diversion--they offer an illusion of choice and the only change is offering the option of inheritence to wealthier participants, while losing a guaranteed benefit for poor participants. The rhetoric is so misleading--"opt-ing out" means to remain in the current plan--not opt-ing out of making contributions. And private accounts have zero effect on the solvency issue--and worse, those who don't opt for a private account will start seeing a decrease in benefits as soon as 2009.


You can access a copy of the full White House briefing on private accounts here...
www.factcheck.org...

www.forbes.com...
www.sec.gov...

Originally posted by lmgnyc


You can access a copy of the full White House briefing on private accounts here...
www.factcheck.org...

www.forbes.com...
www.sec.gov...

How can you trust with the truth the same people that are trying to get their hands on your money?

The links are all for the privatization and ivestment of social security.

I will no trust any of them, is money for the invesment firms to be made, they will get the profits at our expenses.

Originally posted by marg6043
How can you trust with the truth the same people that are trying to get their hands on your money?

The links are all for the privatization and ivestment of social security.

I will no trust any of them, is money for the invesment firms to be made, they will get the profits at our expenses.

John 20:25

So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”

But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it.”

Thomas doubted the word of 10 of his closest friends. You're doubting facts presented by factcheck.org, a non-partisan fact focused group widly recognised as being legitimate by experts.

lmgnyc, awesome post. That was very well put.

Well I don't think god is going to help us with the ss security now so I will prefer to rely on humans to help with this one, rather than the bible if you don't mind.

Let's leave the preaching for the church, and if you are such a good christian pray and pray good because we all going to need it.

Originally posted by marg6043
Well I don't think god is going to help us with the ss security now so I will prefer to rely on humans to help with this one, rather than the bible if you don't mind.

hehe, well, first, gotta refer to your rather and people wonder why this country is in trouble The point of quoting John was to show what the great doubter said and draw parallels in your statement, not to say Thomas wanting to stick his hand into Christ's chest would help Social Security

Let's leave the preaching for the church,

Not a chance God is not a secret to be kept.

and if you are such a good christian pray and pray good because we all going to need it.

I would not call myself good, but I am praying, believe me. This country and the world needs it desperatly.

Originally posted by junglejake
I would not call myself good, but I am praying, believe me. This country and the world needs it desperatly.

Thanks junglejake at least you are honest, something that most are not.

I am no a religious person but we are going to need all the praying we can get.

I am death serious.

[edit on 8-2-2005 by marg6043]

Originally posted by marg6043

How can you trust with the truth the same people that are trying to get their hands on your money?

The links are all for the privatization and ivestment of social security.

I will no trust any of them, is money for the invesment firms to be made, they will get the profits at our expenses.

I think that you misunderstood my post--and I wasn't using the links for anything other than source information (although Factcheck.org is an unbiased source.) I work in the industry and my clients are large money managers. Nobody is expecting to make huge profits off of Social Security accounts.

The management fees that the government will allow firms to charge will be extremely low--30 cents per $100 (normal fees are usually $1.60 to $1.75 per $100) and this isn't going to cover the tremendous cost of setting-up and maintaining millions of low-balance Social Security accounts.

Also, price manipulation isn't possible because of the intense scrutiny that occurs. Every large firm has been subject to fines because of trading violations--some as high as half a billion dollars. Compliance is taken very seriously these days because it is extremely costly to get caught.

What makes sense is investing a portion of Social Security funds in the stock market--this would serve to bolster the economy as well as improve investment returns for retirees. However, this doesn't have to be accomplished via private accounts.

What doesn't make sense is that private accounts are the most drastic change proposed to "fix" the Social Security system and they seem to have the least benefit. The system is not made more solvent, all retirees will still have to sacrifice benefits, and there is the greatest risk that the people who need it the most will be left in poverty.

I don't understand why Bush selected this option to champion when there are other less aggressive solutions.