home

Bush's Social Security Non-Plan

By Jeralyn, Section Other Politics
Posted on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 11:27:55 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

President Bush today acknowledged at his press conference that he has no plan for social security.

THE PRESIDENT: First of all, Dave, let me, if I might correct you, be so bold as to correct you, I have not laid out a plan yet, intentionally. I have laid out principles, I've talked about putting all options on the table, because I fully understand the administration must work with the Congress to permanently solve Social Security. So one aspect of the debate is, will we be willing to work together to permanently solve the issue.

....I'm not interested in playing political games. (Laughter.) I'm interested in working with members of both political parties.

Colorado Congresswoman Diana Degette calls him on the carpet (received via e-mail.):

"Today, the President said he was not interested in political games. If that is the case, he should talk straight to the people of Colorado - and the nation - about exactly what he wants to do to Social Security.

To this point, the President's only proposal is to add $2 trillion to the deficit, slash benefits for future retirees and make saving for retirement much more risky. He insists on privatizing the program even though he admits it will not help the long term solvency of Social Security. That's simply unacceptable.

As the President of the United States and the leader of the party that controls Congress, the onus is on him. Either he can sit down with Democratic leaders of the House and the Senate and craft a truly bipartisan solution, which we are willing to do, or he can step up to the plate and tell America what his solution is."

< Terry Schiavo Case to Move to Federal Court | Bernie Ebbers Jurors Explain Verdict >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Bush's Social Security Non-Plan | 67 comments (67 topical)
    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#1)
    by scarshapedstar on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 11:28:56 PM EST
    Hmm. If we're the party of "no" for opposing a "nonexistant" plan, does that make them the party of fill-in-the-blank? After all, technically, since Republicans are willing to lay their lives on the line for any Bush social security proposal - "sight unseen", as Bill Kristol might say - it could involve selling children into slavery. Why do Republicans want that? Could be fun!

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 12:27:36 AM EST
    I really think people just don't get it, the fact is Bush is setting-up the fall of social security and the next president cuts social security and the third president moves it for good. so within 16 to 20 years No More "social security people for anyone, don't you understand what is happening? and remember bush said the money would go into the big corporation which mean china and the boys in the communist party will love that idea of our guy bush and business. American third world idea the bush way. That is if he don't have a third world war with china within the next 4 years.

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#3)
    by john horse on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 04:06:36 AM EST
    If Bush was any sort of real leader, wouldn't he have the balls to put his plan for social security on the table? The fact that he doesn't demonstrates that Bush is not a leader but a misleader. He misleads the public about social security being in crisis in order to implement a solution (private accounts) that he has admitted will do nothing to solve the supposed problem (solvency).

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 05:44:09 AM EST
    He calls it a plan, or "principles" rather. I call it a scam.

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 06:09:15 AM EST
    I'm 34 and do not factor social security in any way into my retirement planning. For me, anything that is there in 2040 is a bonus. But I must ask, do some of you really believe there is no problem with the program or is it just the privitization propsal on the table that you don't like? What are some comprimises or alternatives? What is really going to bankrupt the system in the long run? I have heard that longer life expectancies and spousal benefits are major problems.

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 06:43:39 AM EST
    Come on. What Bush is saying that he is looking for input, something that you folks have condemed him for not doing on other issues.

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#7)
    by wishful on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 06:51:46 AM EST
    LCA, are you married and do you have children? Are you independently wealthy? If you answered "yes", and "no" respectively, could your spouse and children survive without grave harm if you were hit by a bus later today, on what you have in the bank right now? My husband died exactly one week after he turned 35, and I used SS survivor benefits for about a year after he died, while I was adjusting to being a grieving widow of a young son. I didn't have to sell our modest house, and had time to get back to a job that could support us. Hope you are not so arrogant as to say that he should have provided better for us. He did his best. We both came from lower mid class families, and did better than our parents. PPJ-as you might already know, Bush is looking for input, as long as it is what he already has in mind "in principle". All other ideas--not so much.

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 07:05:31 AM EST
    Lets see instigate a brawl step back and pretend you had nothing to do with it. Then come forward a act like the hero putting an end to a very ugly fight. Why wasn't I born a dumb redneck I wouldn't have to tear my hair out every night!

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 07:12:25 AM EST
    wishful, - I am married with 2 children. - No, I am not independently wealthy. - If I was hit by a bus today my wife and kids would be just fine because I have plenty of life insurance. I acquired the insurance shortly after I was married at 28 - it's a good thing too because I spent much of the second half of last year in the hospital with cancer. My locked in rates would not be so favorable now... I am not so arrogant to say your husband should have planned better and I am very sorry for your terrible loss. That being said, I do believe in sound financial planning - living within your means (a scarcity these days), savings and insurance, especially for those with families.

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 07:13:39 AM EST
    LCA SS is in the same boat as the Military. Did you know Navy will not have any money and will be broke in 5 years and the president wants to privatize the Pacific Fleet and rent it out to the highest bidder China, Iran, Russia to save it.:} SS is not going Bankrupt we need to fund it thats all. The rest is smoke and Bull S---T.

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 07:17:40 AM EST
    Don't look to bushbag if you believe in living within your means and sound financing. This guy has The USA up to ears in debt!

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 07:22:57 AM EST
    ED - At what point do you think we should stop collecting FCIA? When it reaches 40%? 50%? The problem is that we are not producing enough children to keep SS sound. That is a problem, whether you understand it or not. As for being a redneck, your neighbors may think you are. Have you asked? wishful - Input is input. Claiming no problem is input. But that doesn't make it right.

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#13)
    by wishful on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 07:25:37 AM EST
    LCA, thank you for your words of sympathy. And bravo on your sound financial planning. I do second ED's point that maybe we should consider that on a national level--think Iraq war and reconstruction expenses, tax cuts for the wealthy, corporate welfare, tax shelters by incorporating overseas, star wars failed program continued financing, etc.,etc. BTW, I told you that I survived financially. The short time that I used SS survivors benefits is no shame. We both paid in to that insurance plan, and it was there when we needed it. Are you suggesting otherwise? I sure hope not.

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 07:28:44 AM EST
    aka jim The Democrats have put forward a program, it's called Social Security! It's like a rolls royce thats running just fine. You don't scrap it for an unreliable beetle just because it's gonna run out of gas.

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 07:29:50 AM EST
    PPJim, people defending the Bush administration on many issues have demanded very picky choice of terminology from critics. The memory of a Dog has a short half-life but I recall barking, growling, and snapping over whether the specific term "imminent" was used, and by whom, and whether WMD included conventional HE, and if so which ones, and whether the accounts Bush has been touting are called "private" or "personal" and so on. Some of those were real Dogfights with real biting. So we're being precise. On the White House website itself, the Bush Social Security "thing" is referred to -- even headlined -- as "the President's Plan". In February a Treasury Asst. Sec. went into painful detail about how "the President's reform plan" will work and what will be included, and when, in "the President's plan," and what an innumerate optimist would project "the President's plan" will cost (if he were squiffed on nitrous oxide and happy-juice at the time). For you to say now that Bush has no plan and is just looking for input would make a Dog laugh out loud. If he wanted input, he'd tell us what it was supposed to sound like. In fact, he has. To hear Bush himself say it actually made a Ghost Dog roll on the floor woofing.

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 07:40:50 AM EST
    wishful - not suggesting otherwise at all. You absolutely deserve that benefit. I think the system should be preserved, with privatization as a small, optional part (not necessarily in the costly manner current propsed). The problem with survivor benefits and life expectancy as I understand is this: You have a sole earner who draws for more than the 13 or so years the plan is currently designed for (assuming one pays in for 40+ years), then is out-lived by a spouse who never paid in for another X number of years. The draw then exceeds what was paid in by a significant amount. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 07:41:13 AM EST
    Blank lets see Fica up 50% to 70% I've heard Bill Gates has made an offer to Buy it! If we can afford Over 200+ Billion for a little country in the middle east. If we can afford a trillion dollar welfare payment to the richest 10% of us, We CAN afford SOCIAL SECURITY for the rest of us!

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 07:44:29 AM EST
    I would have to agree that Bush is being a bit diseneuous here, at least with regard to the Democrats and most liberals. After all, asking those who continually insist there is no problem at all with Social Security for their input on solving the coming crisis with the system is like asking a blind man what he thinks of the color of your shirt. They have nothing to offer on the matter . So I guess we have to assume that Bush is speaking to someone else, someone who does not suffer from the reverse-chicken-little syndrome currently infecting the majority of the left. And who knows? Maybe they will see that this is in fact an offer to open negotiations at the ground floor and find something constructive to say on the matter. I certainly hope so.

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 07:57:23 AM EST
    Justpaul "reverse chicken little" is kind of weird. "reverse Emperors Clothes" "reverse the world is coming to an end" I dont' get it. You think the Majority of the left has a "problem" because it is not falling for Chicken little's claim "the sky is falling".

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 08:11:08 AM EST
    Ed, No, I think they have a problem because they are running around screaming "all is well" when the future problems with Social Security are clear and obvious. And the funny thing is, 7 years ago, most of the left agreed.

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 08:20:13 AM EST
    As a young man in the 1970's in the USAF, I remember hearing that if I was allowed to take the money going into the SS system and invest it privately, I would have 4 or 5 times as much when I retired. I saw (& still see) nothing wrong with that. What's the problem of being able to leave my kids something as apposed to giving it to government when I go...? After all....it's my money, right? For those of you that think the SS system is just fine... I hope you're right, but giving bennies to thousands of Aliens who paid nothing in seems to me to be a potential problem. Do the math.

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#22)
    by scarshapedstar on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 08:20:25 AM EST
    "Come on. What Bush is saying that he is looking for input, something that you folks have condemed him for not doing on other issues." Oh, yeah, I'm sure. Let me call him up right now, I'm sure he'd love to hear my input on a number of topics.

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#23)
    by scarshapedstar on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 08:22:51 AM EST
    Hey, Jim: If Bush wants input so badly why does he handpick Republican audiences for these things and rehearse his questions and their answers and dismiss the people who don't rim him out enough? Oh, right, it's "see no propaganda" Jim. Never mind.

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 08:25:14 AM EST
    You're all so hateful! You're all going to die.

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#25)
    by scarshapedstar on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 08:26:15 AM EST
    Oops, I thought this was about Bush's potemkin "town hall" meetings with "real people." Didn't realize we were talking about the press corpse.

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 08:34:13 AM EST
    Posted by: LCA on March 17, 2005 07:09 AM But I must ask, do some of you really believe there is no problem with the program or is it just the privitization propsal on the table that you don't like? What are some comprimises or alternatives? LCA there are major problems that have developed with the system and it may be prudent to begin to adress them now before the situaton gets worse. However, from what I gather from Bush's "plan(s)" it sounds like he wants to change it to some sort of national 401(K). Which may not be a ba idea. Why not instead make cuts to benefits and perhaps increased payroll tax while turning social security into a true trust fund earning interest as opposed to spending whatever comes in each year, simultaneously creating a national 401(k) program in which all working Americans are encouraged to save through IRA style private accounts?

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 08:35:53 AM EST
    I think Doctor and shorter Doctor are in need of a good Brain Surgeon to have that wingnut troll brain tumor of theirs excised. :) {:(

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 08:41:38 AM EST
    Posted by: PPJ (aka Jim) on March 17, 2005 07:43 AM Come on. What Bush is saying that he is looking for input, something that you folks have condemed him for not doing on other issues. Remove the cap on income that has Social Security taken out of it. In other words, take 3% from the employee and the employer from all pay. Include bonuses, 'loans', and any other scheme that companies have for considering monies paid to employees by employers as anything but taxable income. Include any monies paid to any members of any board of directors for all companies as well. There's your input. Why do I think that this input will not be considered by this administration?

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 08:45:00 AM EST
    Posted by: LCA on March 17, 2005 07:09 AM But I must ask, do some of you really believe there is no problem with the program or is it just the privitization propsal on the table that you don't like? What are some comprimises or alternatives? LCA there are major problems that have developed with the system and it may be prudent to begin to adress them now before the situaton gets worse(i.e. the fabled baby boomers begin to collect benefits, imagine the fight then). However, from what I gather from Bush's "plan(s)" it sounds like he wants to change it to some sort of national 401(K). Which may not be a bad idea. All the tal