Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

No, he laid out a plan to end the program entirely through fiscal mismanagemment. His insistence upon privatizing social security still paves the way toward insovlency of the entire program, (His intent all along).

You can’t take program that is one day going to run short of money and propose to fix it by removing even more revenue from the program. That, in a nutshell, is the President’s plan and it speaks directly to his intention to end the program altogether.

President Bush’s press conference performance rating: Bush 100, Press 0. It is amazing the simplemindedness of the reporters who asked pointed, suggestive questions about Korea, Iraq, Bolton, prisoner abuse, extreme partisanship etc., designed to embarass his administration and he responded with great common sense answers. He removed any doubts about his intelligence and grasp of facts in this press conference. In fact, the contrast between the collective intelligence and knowledge of all the reporters versus Bush was shocking. Now that would be the most original story to come out of the press conference but do you think the Post would discover it? The press should do an introspective to decide what its role is in distributing information. C-SPAN does a much better job of that with a lot loss budget than CNN. And with a lot less opinion and poison.

That, in a nutshell, is the President’s plan and it speaks directly to his intention to end the program altogether.

David, that just sound like hysterics…

I very much doubt that he has a grand scheme to end the program entirly. The people in this country can’t even agree that putting 4% of this money in their own hands (kind of - this plan does not even truly do that) to manage is the right thing to do. Unfortunatly that is because too many are terrified of the responsibility that would bring. Heaven forbid we take control over our own finances (even 4%) and not rely on the government to guide us in what’s best for our retirement.

Ask someone who’s about to retire in Agrentina or Galveston, TX what they think is the right way to go…

I was born Jan. 1950. Paid into SS all my life. And Bush now says on the one hand my benefits need to be cut and on the other hand he proposes removing funding for the program into private accounts. I lose both ways. At 55, I could not possibly hope to save enough in a private account to retire on at a very modest level from 65 out. Yet, he proposes to cut my benefits.

I would not even mind that, if America’s social safety net for retirement and disability and survivor benefits were in fact to remain intact for my daughter and the millions of others who will need it during bad times or due to a lifetime of low wages.

But to gut the program’s revenues while proclaiming to save the program is rhetoric for dunces who would buy a Brooklyn Bridge from a panhandler.

Bush probably can’t even figure out how to use a calculator explaining why his math of subtraction equals more money in the end.

Or maybe he forgot to take the plastic film with the fake display of numbers off the calculator. No matter what he punches in for Social Security, the same solvency numbers keep appearing…. :-)

I’m 52, married, and on permanent Soc Sec disability. There has been NO mention of how Bush’s suggested changes to Soc Sec Disability will affect me. Since I can no longer work, how do I have money put into a “private” account? Does this mean I get nothing when I reach retirement age? My husband is 47 and working full-time. He has a 401K at work plus what’s put into his Social Security account by himself and his employer. Does this mean he gets “cut” in monthly retirement benefits?

Too many questions…not enough answers.

Denise, those born before 1950 will not see benefit cuts under Bush’s plan. Those born after will see benefit cuts if they are not needy to destitute upon retirement under this plan.

As for disability, Bush assures support for maintaining that part of the program. But what good are those words if he intends to divert the revenues needed to pay those benefits from Soc. Sec. to privatized accounts. In the end, his plan bankrupts the soc. sys. and a whole lot sooner than 2041 when it would begin bringing in only 73% of the revenue needed to meet full benefit. payments.

You want to see a specific proposal that works look up the Ryan-Sununu Social Security Personal Savings Guarantee and Prosperity Act that has already been introduced by Sen, Sununu and Rep. Ryan. It addresses Personal Accounts, the transition costs and all the other associated parts. It has been marked up by the Social Security Actuary and found to make the program permanently solvent.

“has a 401K at work”
Why have a 401k? Haven’t you heard that personal retirement accounts are wrong? SS will take care of you.

“Does this mean I get nothing when I reach retirement age?”

Would this question even be asked if we were allowed to think for ourselves?

“Does this mean he gets “cut” in monthly retirement benefits?”

Depends on which way SS heads. If some get their way, then you would be means tested and if his 401k is to profitable then you would get nothing back from ALL of the money he put into SS.
The money he busted his ass for is gone forever. You couldn’t use it to better your quality of life or even to just make your retirement a little bit more fun.

“Too many questions…not enough answers”

Aw, don’t worry about it Denise. The left says SS is fine the way it is until around 2041 or something and shouldn’t be messed with.
You don’t even have to think about until your like 88 :) and even still, don’t, the govt will think for you.

“Aw, don’t worry about it Denise. The left says SS is fine the way it is until around 2041 or something and shouldn’t be messed with.”

Exactly, why change something so politically volatile until the voters are affected by it? Except for the fact that by then it will be kinda late to fix.

Bush talked a good game, but the supporting info was just not there… Like the Korea negotiations… All this talk about the multi-lateral negotiations and how effective they supposedly are yet giving no positive assesment on the situation itself. Quite frankly I think he dodged a lot of the important questions (including those on SS) and was about as fidgety as he normally is.

SirisC
SHHH! Your going to take the major vote scaring tactic the left uses on seniors away.

Seniors, that was nothing but evil right wing propaganda, please disregard and go back to sleep.

Politically, the Bush SSI proposals are deader than a doornail. Republicans from the House won’t touch them. C-Span aired a debate between Senators and a supporting cast of wonks. I watched it with rapt fascination. My wife thought I’d lost my mind, staring at geeks discussing 75 year economic projections. Really though, I’d ditto KCTim & encourage all to watch C-Span if you like real news & following politics. The Republicans took a shellacking on SSI.

It was no coincidence Senators were in the debate. Few of them face elections in ‘06. House Republicans, who actually have to face the music, are putting their hands over their ears and shouting ‘LA-LA-LA-I can’t hear you Mr President..”

Anyone wonder why, with majorities in the committees & on the floor, Republican congressman won’t push this thing?

The real shame is that there are much more important issues to face, and all this is so much wasted energy.

An easy medium-term fix is to remove the $90,000 cap.

When the SSI debate addresses changing the fundamental projections themselves- the deficits, job creation, & demographics- then I’ll know the politicians are serious.

And I’d love to see the Bush administration address demographics by encouraging baby creation.

But I shudder to think of the ensuing Rove campaign.

phx8

“And I’d love to see the Bush administration address demographics by encouraging baby creation.”

The tax deduction for dependants could be increased.

“An easy medium-term fix is to remove the $90,000 cap.”

From what I’ve read from IRS income tax reports, that would significantly increase SS budget. Possibly even double it. (Give me some time to look it up on irs.gov)

Heh. It always tickles me how the SS Privatization should work. Did you know how Savings and Loans worked? How about Enron or the Tech Bubble? If you do, then how could you be SOOO stupid as to face bankruptcy because of it?

Why is it that liberals believe that SS privatization is mandatory? Is it simply another scare tactic to thwart personal investment by the elderly and the “investmentally challenged”? Or is it another way of telling us that the intellectually superior Democrats know how to spend our money better than ourselves? Regardless, if you would like to see minimal growth via today’s SS program, you will always have that option.

And yes, Aldous, I am SOOO stupid to place trust in capitalism and support promising corporations through investments. And to think I was dumb enough to buy Microsoft in the early 90’s! Or worse yet, Anadarko Petroleum or Coca Cola (although I did have Enron!)? Have you heard of a concept called portfolio diversification? I’ve been using this get-rich-slow scheme for years. I just wish the Bush plan would give me a higher percentage to control myself; at least I would know that I will have SS benefits, instead of wondering if I have SS benefits after the Baby Boomers suck the system dry.

“If it’s broke, don’t fix it. Just raise taxes.” — Anonymous Progressive

Did everyone miss the part of President Bush’s where he said the basic plan he was touting was written by a Dem.?
Hasn’t Pres. Bush been asking for Ideas from both sides of the isle all along?
To the best of my knowledge the Dem.’s in congress plan is zilch, do nothing but block judges?
If Bush can assure seniors nothing will change for them, and IF he can show younger voters how they may come out better, And IF the Dem.’s in Congress just “stay the course”, IMHO they will look like a deer in the headlights in 2006 once again wondering, “what the hell went wrong?”

Before someone gets angry, I’m not bashing, only predicting.

Another thing I saw, and wondered if anyone else noticed, …

That very long isle(on camera) to the podium giving Bush lots of time for his famous “swagger”.

I’m quite sure that was planned and meant to be a poke at the far left, it drives them nuts.

Beagle,

“To the best of my knowledge the Dem.’s in congress plan is zilch, do nothing but block judges?”

Here’s what I don’t get: Republicans see the SS issue as a matter of privatization or doing nothing. My suggestion would be to stop sucking off the surplus. Then again, that would mean less money for the government to spend and that means things like public education and medicare get hammered. Unless, of course, we raise taxes. But we all know that’s never going to happen.

SS issue is plane and simple. It’s like wishing in one hand and taking a very large dump in the other. Unless you wish for a hand full of dump you will not get what you want out of it. And when every one wishes for a hand full of dump then you end up with no dump to give, and not even Ex lax can cure that blockage, and not even the DNC can stop the change to prevent it.

Do any of you really believe the DNC cares about your empty had full of nothing. All they care about is using the SS to get your vote, that’s all it every really was about. A plan to help in getting the DNC in power and keep it there. As old FDR and his party use to say, SS is a real son of a bitch, but it’s our son of a bitch and not there’s.

Personally I would love to see the SSA go away and be replaced with nothing. I am 52 years old, a high school drop out and yet I retired at 51 without any SS payments and did nothing that is illegal. I started paying into SS at age 13, have received nothing from it and do not expect to receive payments from it. But I sure would have been better off not paying into it and taking care of it myself. The government is not my keeper but I am the keeper of my government and I intend to do every thing to either get rid of SS or make it better than it is. If the DNC elects not to take part in this process of change then that’s fine with me, they can try and change it back after they regain power. In the mean time it Will Be Changed.

Zeek,

I think what the President was putting forward was a balance of personal accounts and reforms.

You’re a young guy, and quite “a clever fellow” I might add, I don’t even know you but I don’t want you or my son to “take it up da patute” on SS in your later years.

I agree with you on the surplus’s, put it back the way it was before L. Johnson.

More taxes isn’t the anwser, once inposed you will never get rid of them, you’ll pay them the rest of your life.

Limetime,

“Why is it that liberals believe that SS privatization is mandatory?”

Which liberals said that?

“Have you heard of a concept called portfolio diversification?”

The base of an investment portfolio should consist of safe, certain, guaranteed investments, such as a house, & yes, SSI.

“I’ve been using this get-rich-slow scheme for years.”

And that is smart.

Compare investing in index funds versus the lowliest of Treasury Bonds, from the beginning of the Bush administration. We’re halfway through the fifth year of the adminisration- which investment is doing better?

Beagle,

“Did everyone miss the part of President Bush’s where he said the basic plan he was touting was written by a Dem.?”

Are you referring to a very similar proposal by Clinton? It was opposed by both Democrats & Republicans, & voted down by Congress.

“To the best of my knowledge the Dem.’s in congress plan is zilch….”

A number of proposals have been floated by the Dems, including removing the $90,000 cap. This suggestion was flatly rejected. Others, Dems & Reps alike, have floated trial balloons involving an increase in the retirement age (which I believe is still on the table), & increasing SSI withholding (which is off).

The Republicans won the election, control the House & Senate & Executive Branch. Short of a filibuster, or closing down the government by walking out & preventing quorems, Dems cannot stop whatever legislation the Republicans wish to enact.

It’s not the Democrats preventing SSI legislation. It’s Republican congressman, especially the Representatives, who are terrified of being held responsible for the bonehead ideas of the Bush administration in the midterm elections.

Beagle,

I subscribe to the motto: “Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.” In the case of SS, that means expecting to be paying into SS some 40 years down the line while not receiving any benefits, ever. I hope, of course, that this administration or the ones after it will be able to remedy SS before it comes to that, but I won’t wait with bated breath.

Most certainly I will not allow myself to be put in a position where I shall “take it up da patute” as you put it.

“More taxes isn’t the anwser, once inposed you will never get rid of them, you’ll pay them the rest of your life.[sic]”

I’m ready for that… You make it sound as though I wouldn’t be paying taxes for the rest of my life anyways :P

Doing something is better than doing nothing at all, like the Dems want. I heard a Dem on Fox News today, (can’t remember who) swear that the numbers were wrong, and that SS was safe until the mid ‘50’s. So does that mean we should do nothing now, as it is not an issue yet? That, my friends, is truly appalling. Let’s wait until the floodgates open before attempting to fix a system that everyone agrees is a failure as it stands? Any representative that feels that way needs to go back home and let a more active person take their place.

Remember this, folks. This is a government of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE, and for the PEOPLE! It’s about time the PEOPLE took back what is rightfully ours!

Mark, in 1998, Social Security was projected to dip into the red in 2032. In 2003, it was 2042. New projections have pushed it back to 2052. Things just keep looking less and less bad.

Just think of how good things will be when we finally get a Democrat in the driver’s seat again and really go to work on fiscal responsibility.

Why do you think the left is so against the reform of the SS? It’s because they know it works!! They don’t want the “working people” to know that. The government has been using these investment accounts for years and have generated themselves a nice little “nest egg”. Was nobody listening to President Bush? It’s not anything that is going to be “mandatory” you do it if YOU choose. Everyone is saying “what if the market crashes again?” Like President Bush said there are other ways to invest like bonds, cd’s etc. that will be safe, and even when the stock market has “crashed” did it not always come back? We’re talking about our children here and their children and so on. President Bush stated that those recieving SS now are still going to get their benefits. The new SS is for the future generations. I personally think that this is a great idea. I love the idea that I, MYSELF, will control my own money and future. I was on government assistance for many years and was quite relieved when I got off it. Nothing worse then someone telling you what you can and can’t do. Mainly government. Why have them control OUR future when we can do it ourselves?

This is getting ridiculous again…

Mark,

“Doing something is better than doing nothing at all, like the Dems want.”

First, not necessarily, especially if you manage to screw things up while not addressing the problem at all (like Bush is doing!). 2nd, not all Dems want to keep the system as it is now. Not being a Democrat, I can’t really speak on their behalf, but I know plenty of liberal Dems that think something needs to be done.

“I heard a Dem on Fox News today, (can’t remember who) swear that the numbers were wrong, and that SS was safe until the mid ‘50’s.”

Fox get’s the dumbest Democrats they can to make the entire Democratic party look bad. It’s their lil’ tactic. Don’t be fooled, there are far more intelligent Dems than the kind you see on Fox.

“Let’s wait until the floodgates open before attempting to fix a system that everyone agrees is a failure as it stands?”

See, you just said yourself that even the Dems know their needs to be a change.

Heather,

“Why do you think the left is so against the reform of the SS? It’s because they know it works!! They don’t want the “working people” to know that.”

You have got to be kidding me… First, as I’ve said, the left does want reform, just not your kiind of reform. Second, no one cares more about the working class than the left, so if they could do something they think will help the working class they’d do it.

“Like President Bush said there are other ways to invest like bonds, cd’s etc. that will be safe, and even when the stock market has “crashed” did it not always come back?”

Ok, great. Explain how that makes Social Security solvent. I’ll answer that for you, it doesn’t. Like always, you guys completely evaded the true question.

“Why have them control OUR future when we can do it ourselves?”

Exactly, why rely on SS at all? I’ve long been mystified as to why people would rely on SS as a retirement plan in a country with as much opportunity as this. This may come as a shocker to you, but you CAN invest in CD’s, bonds, and stocks WITHOUT government help. If you people were so serious about “taking control” of your future you wouldn’t give a damn about SS.

Social Security was based on demographics that are very different than we will have in a couple of years. Only through massive tax increases could we keep the current system. It is disingenuous to claim that the system won’t be bankrupt because it will be able to pay 75% of the benefits. Try telling the clerk at the check out that you plan to pay only 75% of the bill. Or for that matter, try telling the IRS that you plan to pay only 75% of your taxes. Being able to pay only 75% of your obligations means you are bankrupt.

Bush’s proposal will give those who earn more than $90,000 less so that those making less than that will get more. This affects me and I am satisfied to get less if it means someone who needs it more can benefit. How can the Democrats, who claim to protect the poor, be against helping them?

As I read through some comments I can’t help but wonder why so many people under 50 didnt have the nerve to save a little as they were aging? I myself started late and then it was only because my wife is so adamant about saving money. At what point in your lives did you sit back and say to yourself ” I’ll let the Government take care of me”. Personally, I would rather have the choice to make a contribution to a private account then worry about wheather or not the politicians are going to take the money and put into the general account. If it is in a private account it is that much less that they will be able to squander. Some of you really need to read back through your posts and honestly realize the whining you are doing and how you expect the Govt. to take care of you. Grow up! . (Disabled excluded)

douglas,

“Some of you really need to read back through your posts and honestly realize the whining you are doing and how you expect the Govt. to take care of you. Grow up!”

Isn’t relying on SS, be it private or a general fund, still a reliance on the government? So, naturally, shouldn’t your suggestion be that SS be abolished completely? Aren’t you people all about “making choices” and living with the consequences? The perfect manifestation of your logic is no SS at all; rather, people would build their own retirement funds irregardless of the government.

Jack,

“Bush’s proposal will give those who earn more than $90,000 less so that those making less than that will get more.”

Just give me the statistics man… comeon… That’s all I’m asking for here are the statistics to back all this up. I want to know is, how much does Bush’s plan cut/relocate and how will this change as demographics change? If you don’t know the answer to this question you have no business claiming it is a workable plan.

Social Security is not a problem, do I make a lot of money? No. Do I mind giving a little to make sure those who need it will be able to buy medicine? No. Do I mind giving a little to ensure some people don’t become desparate? Absolutely Not! Do I mind that the current regime is cutting off the very lifeline for those people would otherwise have nothing(their fault or not)? YES
Just think, with fiscal responiblity, we could end poverty and the problems that come with it. Instead we have someone with an IQ just a little more than a toad trying to repay all the contributions to his campaign at our expense. Who wins here? We were blinded by this SS bs, all the while the regime was crafting a boondoggle for energy companies with this stupid energy bill. Have fun breathing mercury and dont eat the fish.

posty,

“Social Security is not a problem”

I suppose that depends on who you are… If you are a) rich, b) close to dying, or c) a foreigner, then SS is probably not a problem for you… Other than that…