Official VP Debate Thread

[Damocles]

The government is going to have to borrow at some point to pay for the benefits they have promised. Unless they change the full retirement age for future takers.

They already do, unless you use accounting techniques to make it look like none of the money they spend there comes from money borrowed. It isn't like there is an account full of money, it's an account full of Treasuries... Money "borrowed" to be spent in the General Funds.

They may borrow to pay for today's seniors, but would have less an obligation than currently for future retirees. In the long run, it should prove less as the investment risk moves from government to individual. This is why so many companies went from pensions to 401k/403b formats over the past 40 years.

Yup.

 

[Phantasmal]

It said up to 1/3 over time. You are conflating, and purposefully. They spent quite a bit of political capital presenting the idea, but the "privatize it" people scared the old people by pretending that their benefits would go away somehow even though they wouldn't be affected at all.

They would be affected, the government would have to borrow in order to sustain the current benefits. I thought we were trying to get away from borrowing!

 

[Phantasmal]

They already do, unless you use accounting techniques to make it look like none of the money they spend there comes from money borrowed. It isn't like there is an account full of money, it's an account full of Treasuries... Money "borrowed" to be spent in the General Funds.


Yup.

They are going to have to borrow to privatize, also. Sooner than later.

 

[Damocles]

They would be affected, the government would have to borrow in order to sustain the current benefits. I thought we were trying to get away from borrowing!

See SF's post above.

During that time the arguments I presented were "look at Chile's program we can use that as a guide"... The argument from the left was "doom!"

The reality is, this would have made SS more solvent over time and the limited choices would not have been "the stock market"... Seriously, no way would a "just put it in the stock market" plan would have passed. It was clear even "partial account" was too much and the left was successful in scaring people away.

 

[Bonestorm]

It said up to 1/3 over time. You are conflating, and purposefully. They spent quite a bit of political capital presenting the idea, but the "privatize it" people scared the old people by pretending that their benefits would go away somehow even though they wouldn't be affected at all.

What two things am I conflating Damo?

The Bush Administration never presented an actual plan for consideration. Bush presented ideas for a plan, but left out a shitload of details. A full plan with all the details was never actually presented for Congressional consideration.

And you said 1%. You didn't say shit about a 1/3rd. The Ryan plan allowed for the full 6.2% employee contribution and allowed for investment in a whole host of things that carried significant risk of losses.

 

[Damocles]

What two things am I conflating Damo?

Well, first you were conflating Ryan's plan with Bush's, then you were conflating what the plan would have started with (which he spoke of in the SOTU Address), with what would be possible in the future.

The Bush Administration never presented an actual plan for consideration. Bush presented ideas for a plan, but left out a shitload of details. A full plan with all the details was never actually presented for Congressional consideration.

I see, so the argument never existed because the left was successful in scaring Congress from presenting a bill... Utter nonsense. We spent time on the previous site we used to frequent speaking of it... Now I understand why you are so quick to assume that I can't remember things in speeches from 2003, it's because you can't even remember 2005...

And you said 1%. You didn't say shit about a 1/3rd. The Ryan plan allowed for the full 6.2% employee contribution and allowed for investment in a whole host of things that carried significant risk of losses.

1. That would be half, not their whole contribution (their employer would be giving the other half which wouldn't be invested this way).
2. I wasn't speaking of the Ryan plan, and I believe you know it. Your first hint may be when I said I was speaking of the idea that Bush presented during his second term and spent political capital promoting and which we argued about on SR's site.

 

[wanderingbear]

Who desides who wins the debate?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Who desides who wins the debate?

You do Bear... you do.

 

[Phantasmal]

See SF's post above.

During that time the arguments I presented were "look at Chile's program we can use that as a guide"... The argument from the left was "doom!"

The reality is, this would have made SS more solvent over time and the limited choices would not have been "the stock market"... Seriously, no way would a "just put it in the stock market" plan would have passed. It was clear even "partial account" was too much and the left was successful in scaring people away.

http://www.devex.com/en/news/truman-packard/76221

 

[Bonestorm]

Well, first you were conflating Ryan's plan with Bush's, then you were conflating what the plan would have started with (which he spoke of in the SOTU Address), with what would be possible in the future.

In order to conflate Ryan's plan and Bush's plan there would have to be a Bush plan. There isn't. I asked you what plan you were referring to with your comments because it was very different from the Ryan plan.

I see, so the argument never existed because the left was successful in scaring Congress from presenting a bill... Utter nonsense. We spent time on the previous site we used to frequent speaking of it... Now I understand why you are so quick to assume that I can't remember things in speeches from 2003, it's because you can't even remember 2005...

No, the argument that the plan never existed is that the plan never existed. Speeches aren't plans. They're speeches. And the left wasn't successful in scaring Ryan or Sunnunu from presenting a plan. The Bush Administration never had plan for their own reasons that were good and sufficient to them. THey talked a whole lot about privatizing SS, but never offered a plan to do it.

1. That would be half, not their whole contribution (their employer would be giving the other half which wouldn't be invested this way).

It is the employee's full contribution.

2. I wasn't speaking of the Ryan plan, and I believe you know it. Your first hint may be when I said I was speaking of the idea that Bush presented during his second term and spent political capital promoting and which we argued about on SR's site.

I know that you weren't. You description here "idea" is accurate. That's what it was. An idea. It wasn't a plan.

 

[Phantasmal]

Well, first you were conflating Ryan's plan with Bush's, then you were conflating what the plan would have started with (which he spoke of in the SOTU Address), with what would be possible in the future.


I see, so the argument never existed because the left was successful in scaring Congress from presenting a bill... Utter nonsense. We spent time on the previous site we used to frequent speaking of it... Now I understand why you are so quick to assume that I can't remember things in speeches from 2003, it's because you can't even remember 2005...


1. That would be half, not their whole contribution (their employer would be giving the other half which wouldn't be invested this way).
2. I wasn't speaking of the Ryan plan, and I believe you know it. Your first hint may be when I said I was speaking of the idea that Bush presented during his second term and spent political capital promoting and which we argued about on SR's site.

They tell me Bush is no longer in office and his plan left with him, so now what is the plan? And do you support it?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

They tell me Bush is no longer in office and his plan left with him, so now what is the plan? And do you support it?

Who has submitted a plan since Bush's to privatize SS?

 

[Damocles]

In order to conflate Ryan's plan and Bush's plan there would have to be a Bush plan. There isn't. I asked you what plan you were referring to with your comments because it was very different from the Ryan plan.

There was. That you want to pretend it didn't exist because you first heard about it in a speech, and that you, apparently, never before discussed it is just pretense.

No, the argument that the plan never existed is that the plan never existed. Speeches aren't plans. They're speeches. And the left wasn't successful in scaring Ryan or Sunnunu from presenting a plan. The Bush Administration never had plan for their own reasons that were good and sufficient to them. THey talked a whole lot about privatizing SS, but never offered a plan to do it.

Speeches wherein a plan is defined is a speech yes, but pretending it isn't a plan because it was presented in a speech is just obvious pretense.

It is the employee's full contribution.

It is not, however, the full contribution for the employee. Nor is it the "Ryan Plan"...

The most they could invest under the Ryan plan is that 1/3 number again and also over a long time frame...

http://www.lwv.org/content/federal-privatization-ryan-plan

(from the link: “A Roadmap for America’s Future” contains a plan to privatize Social Security. That plan would give workers under age 55 an option of investing about a third of their Social Security taxes in personal retirement accounts. It would guarantee that the account would never be less than the amount placed into the account plus inflation. The account would belong to the individual and could be inherited. Individuals would invest a portion of their contributions in a limited number of funds managed by the federal government. That portion would increase over time to a maximum of 5.2 percent of the current 12.4 percent Social Security payroll tax. Retirement age would very gradually rise to age 70, instead of age 67. In addition, a one-time payment of $2 billion would be required to assure continued benefits to those over age 55 and others not participating in the privatization plan.)

I know that you weren't. You description here "idea" is accurate. That's what it was. An idea. It wasn't a plan.

It's as if you just don't want it to be so you can pretend to "win" so you simply say stuff like, "Plans presented in speeches like the SOTU Address aren't plans."

That's pretty silly. We spent months arguing about it, that you first couldn't even remember is sad and as I said before, it pretty much makes me understand why you think it is so shocking and something to mock when I remember things from the past...

 

[Bonestorm]

There was. That you want to pretend it didn't exist because you first heard about it in a speech, and that you, apparently, never before discussed it is just pretense.

Where is the document laying out the details of the plan that could be considered by the Congress (and, more importantly, the Congressional Budget Office)? It doesn't

Speeches wherein a plan is defined is a speech yes, but pretending it isn't a plan because it was presented in a speech is just obvious pretense.

A speech about a proposal that must be submitted to Congress to become law is just a speech about something that you want to do. The idea was never laid out in detail or formally presented for Congressional consideration.

It is not, however, the full contribution for the employee. Nor is it the "Ryan Plan"...

The most they could invest under the Ryan plan is that 1/3 number again and also over a long time frame...

http://www.lwv.org/content/federal-privatization-ryan-plan

(from the link: “A Roadmap for America’s Future” contains a plan to privatize Social Security. That plan would give workers under age 55 an option of investing about a third of their Social Security taxes in personal retirement accounts. It would guarantee that the account would never be less than the amount placed into the account plus inflation. The account would belong to the individual and could be inherited. Individuals would invest a portion of their contributions in a limited number of funds managed by the federal government. That portion would increase over time to a maximum of 5.2 percent of the current 12.4 percent Social Security payroll tax. Retirement age would very gradually rise to age 70, instead of age 67. In addition, a one-time payment of $2 billion would be required to assure continued benefits to those over age 55 and others not participating in the privatization plan.)

(1) It is the employee's full contribution.

(2) That's the revised Ryan Plan. I was talking about the Ryan Plan presented in 2005 and I already linked to the particulars about that plan.

It's as if you just don't want it to be so you can pretend to "win" so you simply say stuff like, "Plans presented in speeches like the SOTU Address aren't plans."

That's pretty silly. We spent months arguing about it, that you first couldn't even remember is sad and as I said before, it pretty much makes me understand why you think it is so shocking and something to mock when I remember things from the past...

We spent months talking about the idea of privatization, but we never debated a specific plan about precisely how to go about privatizing SS because Bush never presented a specific plan. In fact, people like me who argued against the idea had to deal with all sorts of bullshit about how our criticisms weren't valid because they weren't based on Bush's plan but on a report prepared by the President's Commission on Strengthening Social Security that Bush said was a good idea.

I remember it very well, Damo. You can't bullshit me on this one.

 

[Bonestorm]

Who has submitted a plan since Bush's to privatize SS?

Aside from the fact that Bush never submitted a plan, Paul Ryan's Roadmap included a privatization scheme.

 

[Phantasmal]

Who has submitted a plan since Bush's to privatize SS?

There were six plans during the 110th Congress, five with private accounts, I can not find, yet, who sponsored them. I know Ryan's budget plan proposes privitization, still reading...

 

[Phantasmal]

Where is the document laying out the details of the plan that could be considered by the Congress (and, more importantly, the Congressional Budget Office)? It doesn't




A speech about a proposal that must be submitted to Congress to become law is just a speech about something that you want to do. The idea was never laid out in detail or formally presented for Congressional consideration.



(1) It is the employee's full contribution.

(2) That's the revised Ryan Plan. I was talking about the Ryan Plan presented in 2005 and I already linked to the particulars about that plan.




We spent months talking about the idea of privatization, but we never debated a specific plan about precisely how to go about privatizing SS because Bush never presented a specific plan. In fact, people like me who argued against the idea had to deal with all sorts of bullshit about how our criticisms weren't valid because they weren't based on Bush's plan but on a report prepared by the President's Commission on Strengthening Social Security that Bush said was a good idea.

I remember it very well, Damo. You can't bullshit me on this one.

Bush's plan as you stated was never fully formulated, it kept changing and from I have read, it would not have made SS solvent! That is what is the knee slapper!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

When a wise person debates with a fool, the fool rages and laughs, and there is no peace and quiet. -- Proverbs 29:9

 

[Damocles]

Where is the document laying out the details of the plan that could be considered by the Congress (and, more importantly, the Congressional Budget Office)? It doesn't




A speech about a proposal that must be submitted to Congress to become law is just a speech about something that you want to do. The idea was never laid out in detail or formally presented for Congressional consideration. Amazingly we argue a point of the plan, (it starts at 1% of the 12.4% and over a long period of time allowed up to 1/3 of the contribution...) right here in this thread, but we couldn't have argued that, because it wasn't a plan...



(1) It is the employee's full contribution.

It isn't. It comes up to 5.4% of the 12.4%. I even gave you a link to read it.

(2) That's the revised Ryan Plan. I was talking about the Ryan Plan presented in 2005 and I already linked to the particulars about that plan.

So the actual plan isn't the one you want to talk about. Got it.

We spent months talking about the idea of privatization, but we never debated a specific plan about precisely how to go about privatizing SS because Bush never presented a specific plan. In fact, people like me who argued against the idea had to deal with all sorts of bullshit about how our criticisms weren't valid because they weren't based on Bush's plan but on a report prepared by the President's Commission on Strengthening Social Security that Bush said was a good idea.

I remember it very well, Damo. You can't bullshit me on this one.

Except you apparently don't. We spoke about the plan outlined in a speech, you just want to pretend that it didn't exist because, apparently, you say that nothing can be a plan unless it is also legislation, which is stupid.

 

[Bonestorm]

It isn't. It comes up to 5.4% of the 12.4%. I even gave you a link to read it.

So the actual plan isn't the one you want to talk about. Got it.

There is no "actual plan." There was Ryan's 2005 plan, which is exactly as I described it. There was the Roadmap. And there may have been others. The actual plan that Romney and Ryan are running on (smartly) stays far, far, far away from privatization altogether.

Curiously, there is no plan (or speech even) that limited contributions to 1% as you claimed.

Except you apparently don't. We spoke about the plan outlined in a speech, you just want to pretend that it didn't exist because, apparently, you say that nothing can be a plan unless it is also legislation, which is stupid.

No, we spoke about lots of things to do with privatization. But we never discussed an actual plan from Bush because he never put one out. Instead, we talked about things that Bush might do and what his plan might look like and how shitty they were.