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


    • 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 talk about SS going bankrupt is very misleading. Under the current system all money paid in durring a year is payed out the same year with any extra spent elswhere. So all the projections on how long till it is overpaying is based on how many will be working in a given year opposed to receiving benefits. To make tthe situation worse SS also covers disability claims and has evolved into some sort of retirement plan for some higher earners which tend to not need it. So also there would have to be some sort of income line drawn where you are not eligible to collect the benefit. Then cuts to benefits and perhaps increased payroll tax could be justified 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) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 08:45:42 AM EST
    Brijorg SS is just fine thankyou! Stop groveling around in the repugs misinformation details! If we can fund our military our highways, our schools, unemployment Ins. We can manage funding SS now and in the future. Here's a simple idea, Why not have a monthly National lottery of 100 million and all proceeds to go into a SS Piggy bank.

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 08:47:53 AM EST
    Tom, I doubt very much that the administration is reading the comments section of TalkLeft in search of input. Maybe you should try sending them a message directly. Assuming that 6% of all income would be more money than 12% of most income, you might have a chance, although most forecasts are that it would take something like 18% of most income to keep the system solvent, so the hill is already getting steeper. First you'll have to get the Democrats to step forward and promote yet another tax hike (should be easy enough since that's what they are generally inclined to do anyway), then you'll have to show that this actually makes sense and would be enough to keep the system solvent. Good luck.

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 08:50:17 AM EST
    All I'm saying is private accoounts ARE a good idea, but not for social security.

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#34)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 09:09:59 AM EST
    (Hint: your congressman doesn't buy it...) Wrong, Ace. All members of Congress who were first elected after 1983 pay into Social Security, just like all other federal employees. Don't believe everything you read in chain emails.

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 09:12:32 AM EST
    Brijong and (:Tom:) - It seams both of your proposals would help: - make everybody pay-in without limits on types of income - opt out additional benefits for those who can afford it - stop spending everything as soon as it comes in, allow it to grow - provide a national 401K option to those who don't have one provided by their employer ED - yes, let's have the poor pay for SS.

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 09:32:57 AM EST
    LCA Yes but it's a PERSONAL CHOICE tax isn't it. If your not in it you cant win it! The Repugs are asking for input right! I personally believe all the likes of Bill Gates and those folks who win my lottery should be required reach deep down into their deep pockets and help support all the rest of working America who makes it possible for them to become so Filthy Dirty Rich. :) :}

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 09:34:43 AM EST
    I sense a "Your a Commie" attack comming my way! :}

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 09:47:28 AM EST
    doctor a-hole get some therapy

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 10:06:06 AM EST
    hey, doctor ace, you keep wacking off to those pictures of ann coulter dressed up as eva braun you're going to go blind. also, too much wacking off, can cause dementia, oops, too late.

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 10:11:22 AM EST
    Hey Ricky1756 I can speak for myself! Docktor ace Check out Ricky1756's post!

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 10:12:43 AM EST
    The real debate about Social Security is whether it should be replaced by something entirely different. It's a Defined Benefit Plan plus Insurance for survivors and disabilities. But the private accounts would just be another Defined Contribution Plan, not much different than tax-sheltered IRAs, 401Ks, SEPPs, Keogh plans, 356 plans, etc. These plans are a dime a dozen--but try to fund a Defined Benefit Plan. Only extremely high income people can afford to do so, like heart surgeons. Social Security allows all of us to get some benefits just like the wealthy. Anybody that would choose a Defined Contribution Plan over an equivalently funded Defined Contribution Plan is either wealthy or financially stupid.

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#42)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 10:19:16 AM EST
    I meant to say "over an equivalently funded Defined Benefit Plan". By the way, the Republicans are attacking Defined Benefit Plans for state employees in California, even though those plans are fully funded (unlike Social Security). So it's about 19th Century philosophy, not solving a 21st Cnetury problem.

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 10:33:55 AM EST
    No Help Social Security was a 20th century idea born out of the depression that was base on a philosophy of shared Social responsibility and Security for all working americans that was not only sound then and now but will continue to be as long a our republic exists!

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 12:21:40 PM EST
    Bushliar is an ENRON in bloody sheep's clothing, dancing around with dead bodies around his neck. SURE we bankrupted millions and forced them to work at 80! Big deal, they had it coming -- they shouldn't have put their money into their company's private retirement account. Now, ante up your OTHER insurance policy, the one that can't be ripped off from you unless it becomes your personal property. Then your med bills go out the roof when you choke and nearly die on pharmaceuticals that should be off the market, if not for the corporate profits involved. Forget suing the company to get your bills paid -- they're immune, like our mercs. Give us all your security, and then YOU BETTER BUY SOME DUCT TAPE, FOOL! Cause it's going to rain nukes on you if you don't. Well, if you do too. That's the beauty part. We don't really care.

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 12:50:13 PM EST
    Ed, what I meant is that the Republicans intend to return to 19th Century America, and meanwhile Social Security needs tweaking of cash flow now in the 21st Century. In the 19th Century there was basically no welfare, no retirement, no health insurance, etc. I personally favor lifting the $90,000 cap entirely, and taxing stock options, corporate executive loans, etc. For example, if Ovitz, fired from Disney after one year with a $140 million exit package, had paid Social Security tax on that, it would be equivalent to some 1500 people paying on their $90,000 salaries.

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 01:10:57 PM EST
    No Help Your'e right on! Thanks for the Help no help! (That was a Pun) Doctor Jerk What right does Gates have to Americas wealth! I think you deserve to lie with the anti Christ anti American Gannon, bushbag, coulter rugnipig Gang.

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#48)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 01:14:00 PM EST
    Doctor But there is nothing wrong with that. God bless Free speech!

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#49)
    by Dadler on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 01:16:25 PM EST
    bush admitted long ago that he doesn't understand poor people. his own words. this translates into he doesn't care about poor people, since concern REQUIRES understanding. this whole farce was an attempt to get a wall street pocket-stuffing program past the american people, masquerading as a social security "fix". thankfully it seems to be d.o.a.

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#50)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 01:48:28 PM EST
    whatever happend to the old strategy, if it ain't broke don't fix it?
    ...wall street pocket-stuffing program past the american people, masquerading as a social security "fix". thankfully it seems to be d.o.a.
    fingers crossed, hand over heart, standing on one leg, eyes closed, praying (agnostic, so just chanting) to whatever gods maybe, stop this madness.

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#51)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 02:43:05 PM EST
    Ed.... What right does Gates have to Americas wealth! I hate to be the one to have to explain this to you but... In America we are free to buy, sell, make money...etc. If you build a better mouse trap (or software) people will buy it and you can become rich... (AKA - the American Dream) and once you become rich, you have the right to hang onto your money and not have to give it all away to the poor. Understand now?

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#52)
    by Dadler on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 02:59:53 PM EST
    oUt..., i'm with you. trying to cross every crossable appendage, organ, tissue in my overfed body. but it does seem to be getting much worse press than that other bush enterprise which, oh that's right, is actually a violent, deadly, chaotic mess. with what look like rigged elections to boot.

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#53)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 03:11:12 PM EST
    dadler no doubt we need all the help we can get! you may have seen the GW as Anti-Christ, just thought it was a funny dig at GW, but now not so sure, he's just qualifying himself more and more, megido (armageddon) is in iraq or very darn close if i remember correctly. i'm still hopeful that flip-floping 10% of voters are paying attention. we'll really know where were headed in '06, repeating aforementioned position!

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#54)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 06:24:42 PM EST
    Bush is talking like a 'leader' but behaving like a politician. He refuses to take a position, which to a politician is akin to acting like a target. The complete opportunist never never never commits to anything that he can't lie about, retract, pretend never happened, or claim was 'taken out of context'. Bush wants to sell a pig in a poke to the public, and then remain free of blame when they are disappointed with what they find out later. This man grows more despicable by the day.

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#55)
    by john horse on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 09:11:39 PM EST
    LCA, "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?" I don't believe there is a problem. According to the projections of the Social Security trustees and the Congressional Budget Office, if we were to do nothing the trust fund would be solvent for another 38 to 48 years. These projections are based on the estimated growth of the economy. What is important to note is that the date that the surplus is projected to run out keeps moving forward as actual performance data replaces the estimates. What this suggests to me is that the problem, is that the projections have been too pessimistic (if you want to be cynical about it, if doing nothing results in moving the date forward, then isn't this what we should be doing?). Regarding privatization, Bush himself has admitted that there is no connection between privatization and social security solvency. He favors privatization for philosophical reasons. As a matter of fact, privatization will create the very crisis that Bush is claiming he is trying to solve. In order to maintain current benefits and set up private accounts, the government will have to borrow trillions of dollars. It will also result in severe benefit reductions for younger workers. These radical changes are unnecessary. There are actual 3 projections of social security solvency. According to one of them, there is no problem with solvency in the future. I think as data becomes available that this is turning out to be the more accurate of the projections. However, I could be wrong. The point is that we have the time to figure this out and to take action as appropriate. The worse thing that we can do is to overreact and destroy something that has proven to work effectively. Why replace guaranteed benefits with a guaranteed gamble?

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#56)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 09:56:47 PM EST
    The notion that Social Security has future problems is based on a low estimate of future productivity; the notion that private accounts will save Social Security is predicated on a high estimate of future productivity. It makes Enron accounting look like Dick & Jane book-keeping.

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#57)
    by wishful on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 10:04:15 PM EST
    OK class, here's a multiple choice question for you. What does FICA stand for? a) Federal Insurance Contributions Act b) Federal Investment Contributions Act

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#58)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 12:55:07 AM EST
    Posted by wishful: "b) Federal Investment Contributions Act Great! So Bush's plan is to invest contributions in Treasury bonds? How does that change anything? Do you think, or just bowl with words?

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#59)
    by john horse on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 03:48:16 AM EST
    Paul, Speaking of treasury bonds, note the deceptive, misleading way that proponents of privatization portray treasury bonds depending on whether they are held by the Social Security Trust Fund or by individuals in personal account. Treasury Bonds held by the Trust Fund: "In reality, the money is loaned to the Treasury to pay for current government projects and programs. In other words, this money has already been used and the Trust Fund contains IOUs." (privatization proponent Allen Boyd) Treasury Funds held in personal accounts: (My privatization) "proposal allows younger workers the choice to invest in safe government bonds, the exact same way current Social Security dollars are invested today." (privatization proponent Allen Boyd) Notice in the former, these bonds are money that has already been spent and IOUs, yet when invested in personal accounts they are "safe government bonds."

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#60)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 06:08:52 AM EST
    John H - The SS security bonds are "special bonds," not sold to the public, and pay only 3%. In the peresonal account case, these are`real treasury bonds purchased by real investment firms that receive interest on a real schedule and are paid off on a real date. And, since the are real, they may be sold to other real people working for real investment companoes. And if the real bond market has gone up, a real profit may be made. Plus, the interest rate would be what the real market is at that time. PIL - Read above. wishful - Yes, and that is one of the problems. Brian Boru - And what, pray tell, does "future productivity" mean? That's gobble de gook. dadler - "bush admitted long ago he doesn't care for porr people..." May we have a link, or are you pulling our leg....again?

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#61)
    by wishful on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 06:43:19 AM EST
    Paul, FICA stands for Federal Insurance Contributions Act. Insurance was the original intent, worked well, is the current intent, and still works well. Also, someone at another site (can't remember where) postulates another reason that Bush is not offering a "plan". He has been and will continue to spend our money marketing to convince us that we should do what's NOT in our best interest wrt Social Security. The letter of the law in part says that this is not legal for pending legislation. So if he doesn't offer a "plan", there is no pending legislation. Of course if the whole text of the law is considered, what he is doing is still not legal, but he has some weaselly legal hacks working for him. They even found ways to make torture ordered by Bush allowable and legal. Not the leadership I want, but the leadership we have...what to do?

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#62)
    by pigwiggle on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 07:02:04 AM EST
    wishful- “FICA stands for Federal Insurance Contributions Act. Insurance was the original intent, worked well, is the current intent” Doesn’t it seem a bit strange to call something insurance when it pays out the same successful savings or no? Setting aside the SDI (something it seems you are intimately familiar with, my sincere condolences), a relatively small portion of the SS program; how can you justify calling it insurance when I will draw the same benefit if my retirement savings matures nicely or are otherwise wiped out entirely? I only ask because folks keep reiterating the insurance part of the name as if it should be revelatory. Rename it Minnie if you want to try and endear this program to me, but I won’t be fooled into thinking it’s my grandmother.

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#63)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 07:10:56 AM EST
    You guys still don't get it, bush is setting up social security for the big fall in years to come. stop with the bull and see it for what it is.

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#64)
    by wishful on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 07:49:58 AM EST
    "...pays the same successful savings or no..." This part of the SS program for which FICA pays is more akin to an annuity, which my investment guy puts in the same general category as insurance because of the defined benefit. It assures at least a base income according to its terms, whether my other investment are a personal boom or bust. If you want to give your SS benefits away because you don't need them, then by all means, donate them to someone less fortunate. My regards to Grandma Minnie.

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#65)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 08:05:19 AM EST
    When Bush said he considers the "haves and have mores" as his base, that shows indifference to the poor, no Jim?

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#66)
    by pigwiggle on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 08:21:11 AM EST
    “It assures at least a base income according to its terms, whether my other investment are a personal boom or bust.” But is this ‘insurance’? I can voluntarily purchase the same bonds that back the SS trust as a means of funding my retirement. Does this then make my retirement savings an insurance plan instead of a retirement plan? No; in the colloquial sense, and the most literal as well, insurance is a guarantee against loss; not simply a guarantee. I think for a more transparent discussion of SS we need to untangle the issues of wealth transfer, subsidies for under funded retirement, survivor benefits, and what is in essence forced savings. “If you want to give your SS benefits away because you don't need them, then by all means, donate them to someone less fortunate.” Generally speaking my generation will, but not voluntarily. In addition to negative returns on SS contribution (if current law is unchanged), we are charged with paying back the debt taken on the treasury for spent SS trust fund dollars. My parents generation has barrowed trust fund money to pay for all kinds of general fund expenditures, with apparently little thought to how the coming generation will pay for this. Of course it will be paid back, I won’t see a single legal paycheck in my life that doesn’t reflect this. And likewise, they needn’t fear about their SS benefits either. Sweet deal, that.

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#67)
    by wishful on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 09:10:14 AM EST
    "...negative returns on SS contribution..." That is not necessarily so. It depends on how long you live to a large degree, doesn't it? And doesn't it also depend on how long your spouse lives, and the fact that your spouse can collect for the rest of his/her life on your record, even if he/she didn't work. That could be a return well in excess of anything you could have done in stocks and/or bonds, even at an average ror of over 10 %. Others will never even begin to get back out of the system what they put in. That is how it is similar to an insurance policy. We all pool money (those who earn wages of up to about $90000/yr), and then we and our spouses are all guaranteed some income for the rest of our lives no matter what. We can't do this on our own, partly because we don't know how long we and our spouses will live. Well, that, and the fact that our resources are limited. For those making enough (significantly more than $90000 is my guess), they don't need to pool resources for guaranteed benefits in retirement--they can self-insure. By that I mean, they will invest their considerable yearly disposable wealth and then be able to draw down for the rest of their lives upon retirement, and still have an inheritance to leave their heirs. That's because they have it. Those that don't have it, long ago decided on the SS plan. It is a good plan and should be saved, including its original intent. It does what insurance is supposed to do--limit risk on any individual, and sppread it among a larger group. Insurance is for those who don't know the specifics of the future, but know that they may be the one with the misfortune to suffer the tribulations of life, while not being independently able to weather the storm. People know there is strength and security in numbers. Individual ownership does not solve this for people of mosest means, as in Bush's ownership society. Social Security must be saved, not morphed into something else or destroyed outright.

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#68)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 09:55:25 AM EST
    wishful: "They even found ways to make torture ordered by Bush allowable and legal. Not the leadership I want, but the leadership we have...what to do?" No, really all they did was offer a lame excuse. These guys are still guilty, and still culpable. And we need to fight for JUSTICE. Join the people in your community marching tomorrow, Saturday 19 March. All over the world we will be again calling for justice, and the restoration of Iraqi sovereignty. Iraqis are not personal playthings of the Master Race, or that pipsqueak Bush who isn't fit to knock on Gerald Ford's bathroom door, much less a real president. They can write tracts exempting themselves from the laws, but they have no laws exempting them from their crimes. Revelation, and Judgment -- NO Redemption, as befits tyrants. The SS controversy is a 1) rightwing ideologue wishlist item; 2) an attempt to cover their tracks while they set up 3) further illegal, immoral, antidemocratic WAR on innocent civilians.

    Re: Bush's Social Security Non-Plan (none / 0) (#69)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 08:52:16 PM EST
    Did the math on Bush years ago, Doc. You can't be too stupid to know the truth, so you're just a liar. Given Bush's crimes, a traitor.

    Bush's Social Security Non-Plan | 67 comments (67 topical)