Bush Backs Soc. Sec. Bill Without Accounts

[zendari]

Text


WASHINGTON -
President Bush encouraged a Republican senator on Tuesday to offer
Social Security legislation that would not include private investment accounts. The White House said the president still was committed to allowing workers to invest part of their Social Security taxes.

Bush's nod to Utah Sen. Bob Bennett's plan comes as public polls show that most Americans do not support the president's handling of the Social Security issue. Congress has been deadlocked on it.

Bennett said that during a luncheon with other Republican senators at the White House, he told the president of his plans to introduce the bill as early as next week.

"He indicated that I should go forward and do that," Bennett said. "And I'm grateful to have him do that even though his own preference would be to have personal accounts included."

The White House said the president is encouraging all members of Congress to offer their ideas to make the Social Security system solvent.

"This in no way should be interpreted to mean that the president is backing off of personal accounts," White House spokesman Trent Duffy said. "He is not."

Since the beginning of his second term, Bush has been pushing to allow younger workers to create voluntary personal accounts funded out of their Social Security payroll taxes. Democrats accuse the White House of seeking to privatize the Depression-era program and have been unified in opposition to the idea.

"I've decided that the Democrats have made it clear that they will not back personal accounts," Bennett said outside the White House. "And in response to the president's position that let's try to get something done, I will be proposing a bill that does not include personal accounts."

Bennett said some Democrats have told him privately that they would support such a bill, but he is not sure how many will be on board publicly now that he's introducing the legislation. He said he is looking for Democrats to co-sponsor the bill, but he didn't have any to announce Tuesday.

"We've had a lot of interest," he said. "We have a lot of hope that we can use this bill to break the logjam and move forward on Social Security. We'll find out in the weeks to come."

Bennett said when he told Bush of his plans, "He just said, 'I like your bill.' Period."

White House press secretary Scott McClellan responded: "The president, as he has indicated previously, welcomes all ideas for moving forward to save and strengthen Social Security. Nothing has changed in terms of his belief that voluntary personal accounts are an important part of any solution."

Bush and other supporters of private investment accounts argue they are needed to modernize the program. Under current projections, Social Security will begin to pay out more in benefits than it receives in tax receipts in 2017, and the trust funds will be depleted in 2041. At that point, benefits would be cut to adjust for the reduction in available funds.

An Associated Press-Ipsos poll earlier this month found 37 percent of Americans support Bush's handling of Social Security, while 59 percent disapprove. Those numbers hadn't budged after more than four months of the president barnstorming the U.S. to sell his plan.



Meh, bad idea, but I'm sure the left will be happy that Bush is willing to compromise. Hopefully they will reciprocate in turn.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: zendari
Text


WASHINGTON -
President Bush encouraged a Republican senator on Tuesday to offer
Social Security legislation that would not include private investment accounts. The White House said the president still was committed to allowing workers to invest part of their Social Security taxes.

Bush's nod to Utah Sen. Bob Bennett's plan comes as public polls show that most Americans do not support the president's handling of the Social Security issue. Congress has been deadlocked on it.

Bennett said that during a luncheon with other Republican senators at the White House, he told the president of his plans to introduce the bill as early as next week.

"He indicated that I should go forward and do that," Bennett said. "And I'm grateful to have him do that even though his own preference would be to have personal accounts included."

The White House said the president is encouraging all members of Congress to offer their ideas to make the Social Security system solvent.

"This in no way should be interpreted to mean that the president is backing off of personal accounts," White House spokesman Trent Duffy said. "He is not."

Since the beginning of his second term, Bush has been pushing to allow younger workers to create voluntary personal accounts funded out of their Social Security payroll taxes. Democrats accuse the White House of seeking to privatize the Depression-era program and have been unified in opposition to the idea.

"I've decided that the Democrats have made it clear that they will not back personal accounts," Bennett said outside the White House. "And in response to the president's position that let's try to get something done, I will be proposing a bill that does not include personal accounts."

Bennett said some Democrats have told him privately that they would support such a bill, but he is not sure how many will be on board publicly now that he's introducing the legislation. He said he is looking for Democrats to co-sponsor the bill, but he didn't have any to announce Tuesday.

"We've had a lot of interest," he said. "We have a lot of hope that we can use this bill to break the logjam and move forward on Social Security. We'll find out in the weeks to come."

Bennett said when he told Bush of his plans, "He just said, 'I like your bill.' Period."

White House press secretary Scott McClellan responded: "The president, as he has indicated previously, welcomes all ideas for moving forward to save and strengthen Social Security. Nothing has changed in terms of his belief that voluntary personal accounts are an important part of any solution."

Bush and other supporters of private investment accounts argue they are needed to modernize the program. Under current projections, Social Security will begin to pay out more in benefits than it receives in tax receipts in 2017, and the trust funds will be depleted in 2041. At that point, benefits would be cut to adjust for the reduction in available funds.

An Associated Press-Ipsos poll earlier this month found 37 percent of Americans support Bush's handling of Social Security, while 59 percent disapprove. Those numbers hadn't budged after more than four months of the president barnstorming the U.S. to sell his plan.



Meh, bad idea, but I'm sure the left will be happy that Bush is willing to compromise. Hopefully they will reciprocate in turn.

I'm happy Bush is willing to compromise, especially when Democrats have not even offered any substantial plan of their own.

So much for Bush not paying attention to the polls. He's doing exactly to get better numbers - Dems don't have anything on Bush for this issue except that Bush's idea is bad.

 

[ntdz]

Good, I'm against the accounts IF they cost the $2 tril they are supposed to cost. I love the idea, but I don't believe it's worth the price for them.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: ntdz
Good, I'm against the accounts IF they cost the $2 tril they are supposed to cost. I love the idea, but I don't believe it's worth the price for them.

$2trillion now, $10 trillion later.

as they say, pay me now or pay me later.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ntdz
Good, I'm against the accounts IF they cost the $2 tril they are supposed to cost. I love the idea, but I don't believe it's worth the price for them.

$2trillion now, $10 trillion later.

as they say, pay me now or pay me later.

$0 trillion if they just raise retirement age and cut benefits, like they should.

 

[rockyct]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ntdz
Good, I'm against the accounts IF they cost the $2 tril they are supposed to cost. I love the idea, but I don't believe it's worth the price for them.

$2trillion now, $10 trillion later.

as they say, pay me now or pay me later.

Private accounts alone do not solve the solvency issue. So, it's $2 trillion now, and you still have to have a plan fixing the $10 trillion later.

 

[meanboom]

Originally posted by: rockyct

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ntdz
Good, I'm against the accounts IF they cost the $2 tril they are supposed to cost. I love the idea, but I don't believe it's worth the price for them.

$2trillion now, $10 trillion later.

as they say, pay me now or pay me later.

Private accounts alone do not solve the solvency issue. So, it's $2 trillion now, and you still have to have a plan fixing the $10 trillion later.

do you know how to solve time-value of money equations?
If you do you?ll see that a simple 3% increase in returns will completely fix social security.

2trillion now in private accounts turns into 14 trillion in 40years, which is about 10 trillion better than simple us treasury bonds.

 

[Jadow]

it really fux over workers under 40

Now we KNOW we will have to pay in as much if not more than our parents and grandparents and get LESS in return.

Private account would have allowed me to make a higher rate of return for for my invested portion which would make up for the lesser payment from the old SS system.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Jadow
it really fux over workers under 40

Now we KNOW we will have to pay in as much if not more than our parents and grandparents and get LESS in return.

Private account would have allowed me to make a higher rate of return for for my invested portion which would make up for the lesser payment from the old SS system.

Or not.

If you are so sure you'd do better in the market, what on Earth is preventing you from investing on your own?

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Jadow
it really fux over workers under 40

Now we KNOW we will have to pay in as much if not more than our parents and grandparents and get LESS in return.

Private account would have allowed me to make a higher rate of return for for my invested portion which would make up for the lesser payment from the old SS system.

Or not.

If you are so sure you'd do better in the market, what on Earth is preventing you from investing on your own?

The fact that the baby boomers are siezing the money I'd invest with.

 

[Jadow]

If you are so sure you'd do better in the market, what on Earth is preventing you from investing on your own?

where did I ever give the impression that I don't. I put 10% of my salary in a 401k AND max a rothIRA.

That doesn't change the fact that 12.4% of my salary is going into SS and I won't get anywhere near the return on that that I could on my own.

 

[Subbaculcha]

Raise the cap.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Subbaculcha
Raise the cap.

Raising the cap only solves about 1/2 the funding problem.

 

[Subbaculcha]

So that takes care of half with no pain.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So what DOES this legislation do? Exactly what does it fix and how?

Looks like a pig in a poke.

 

[oculus]

I'm happy Bush is willing to compromise, especially when Democrats have not even offered any substantial plan of their own.

So much for Bush not paying attention to the polls. He's doing exactly to get better numbers - Dems don't have anything on Bush for this issue except that Bush's idea is bad.

I'm not sure why Democrats are obligated to come up with an alternative plan. It's been argued, very well in fact, that social security is the least of our problems (long or short-term).

Just because someone has a plan doesn't mean it's a good one. Perhaps by only opposing Bush's plan, Democrats are just saying "SS is fine, and we're not going to let you skrew it up".

My personal opinion is that Bush's vague plan at least partially removes "security" from "social security" by making a portion of it grow and shrink at the whim of our stock market.

 

[BBond]

Several Democrats have come forward with plans. And those plans include raising or eliminating the FICA cap. But after asking for any and all ideas, Bush, true to form, tried to ignore all of them and instead increasingly stuck with his destructive, lose-lose plan (but a win-win for his Wall St. buddies).

Now, after wasting months and millions of taxpayer dollars trying to sell America his turkey of a plan, which Bush has now been FORCED to abandon in the face the reality of the situation, you people actually have the tumerity to praise him for compromising???!

Bwahahahahahaha

Even if Democrats didn't have a plan, and they do, no plan would be infinitely better than Bush's plan. Right now, if nothing at all is done, seventy percent of benefits will stil be paid out through Social Security's 75 year horizon. With Bush's plan we'd be lucky to have Social Security at all in 75 years -- but we would have a MOUNTAIN of new debt.

Does anyone besides me sense a theme here?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Jadow
If you are so sure you'd do better in the market, what on Earth is preventing you from investing on your own?

where did I ever give the impression that I don't. I put 10% of my salary in a 401k AND max a rothIRA.

That doesn't change the fact that 12.4% of my salary is going into SS and I won't get anywhere near the return on that that I could on my own.

And if you were disabled tomorrow, how would you deal with it.

If dead, dependents.

SS also takes care of those problems also, not just retirement.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: oculus

I'm happy Bush is willing to compromise, especially when Democrats have not even offered any substantial plan of their own.

So much for Bush not paying attention to the polls. He's doing exactly to get better numbers - Dems don't have anything on Bush for this issue except that Bush's idea is bad.

I'm not sure why Democrats are obligated to come up with an alternative plan. It's been argued, very well in fact, that social security is the least of our problems (long or short-term).

Just because someone has a plan doesn't mean it's a good one. Perhaps by only opposing Bush's plan, Democrats are just saying "SS is fine, and we're not going to let you skrew it up".

My personal opinion is that Bush's vague plan at least partially removes "security" from "social security" by making a portion of it grow and shrink at the whim of our stock market.

That is a load of crap, if you are going to complain about a solution then you better have your own solution.

And democrats or more specifically Clinton wanted to fix the SS problem before, why is it suddenly not a problem?

Democrats know SS is on a crash course but cant let party politics go and make any kind of compromise. Right now the dems are on the hotseat with this issue because the republicans have offered a plan without private accounts and the democrats are balking.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: BBond
Several Democrats have come forward with plans. And those plans include raising or eliminating the FICA cap. But after asking for any and all ideas, Bush, true to form, tried to ignore all of them and instead increasingly stuck with his destructive, lose-lose plan (but a win-win for his Wall St. buddies).

Now, after wasting months and millions of taxpayer dollars trying to sell America his turkey of a plan, which Bush has now been FORCED to abandon in the face the reality of the situation, you people actually have the tumerity to praise him for compromising???!

Bwahahahahahaha

Even if Democrats didn't have a plan, and they do, no plan would be infinitely better than Bush's plan. Right now, if nothing at all is done, seventy percent of benefits will stil be paid out through Social Security's 75 year horizon. With Bush's plan we'd be lucky to have Social Security at all in 75 years -- but we would have a MOUNTAIN of new debt.

Does anyone besides me sense a theme here?

What is the democrats official plan?

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Jadow
If you are so sure you'd do better in the market, what on Earth is preventing you from investing on your own?

where did I ever give the impression that I don't. I put 10% of my salary in a 401k AND max a rothIRA.

That doesn't change the fact that 12.4% of my salary is going into SS and I won't get anywhere near the return on that that I could on my own.

And if you were disabled tomorrow, how would you deal with it.

If dead, dependents.

SS also takes care of those problems also, not just retirement.

And that return he claims to be able to get on his own could very well be a loss. There are, as millions learned over these last few years, no guarantees in the stock market.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: zendari


Meh, bad idea, but I'm sure the left will be happy that Bush is willing to compromise. Hopefully they will reciprocate in turn.

Newby-type question: What does "meh" mean? I see it used a lot, but Googling on acroynms and blogging terms doesn't turn up anything.

 

[Jadow]

And if you were disabled tomorrow, how would you deal with it.

I have Long term disability insurance that pays 65% of my salary. it costs $8 dollars a month. It's called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BBond
Several Democrats have come forward with plans. And those plans include raising or eliminating the FICA cap. But after asking for any and all ideas, Bush, true to form, tried to ignore all of them and instead increasingly stuck with his destructive, lose-lose plan (but a win-win for his Wall St. buddies).

Now, after wasting months and millions of taxpayer dollars trying to sell America his turkey of a plan, which Bush has now been FORCED to abandon in the face the reality of the situation, you people actually have the tumerity to praise him for compromising???!

Bwahahahahahaha

Even if Democrats didn't have a plan, and they do, no plan would be infinitely better than Bush's plan. Right now, if nothing at all is done, seventy percent of benefits will stil be paid out through Social Security's 75 year horizon. With Bush's plan we'd be lucky to have Social Security at all in 75 years -- but we would have a MOUNTAIN of new debt.

Does anyone besides me sense a theme here?

What is the democrats official plan?

Read this .pdf.

Just search "Social Security".

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BBond
Several Democrats have come forward with plans. And those plans include raising or eliminating the FICA cap. But after asking for any and all ideas, Bush, true to form, tried to ignore all of them and instead increasingly stuck with his destructive, lose-lose plan (but a win-win for his Wall St. buddies).

Now, after wasting months and millions of taxpayer dollars trying to sell America his turkey of a plan, which Bush has now been FORCED to abandon in the face the reality of the situation, you people actually have the tumerity to praise him for compromising???!

Bwahahahahahaha

Even if Democrats didn't have a plan, and they do, no plan would be infinitely better than Bush's plan. Right now, if nothing at all is done, seventy percent of benefits will stil be paid out through Social Security's 75 year horizon. With Bush's plan we'd be lucky to have Social Security at all in 75 years -- but we would have a MOUNTAIN of new debt.

Does anyone besides me sense a theme here?

What is the democrats official plan?

Read this .pdf.

Just search "Social Security".

Do us a favor and link it. You made the claim now back it up.