It's time to reconsider the Bush plan to fix our Social Security problem.

[techs]

First, let me see if I understood it. Bush wanted to give all workers under the age of 50 an amount equal to 25 percent of their Social Security tax payments. He would have then reduced the amount that Social Security would pay those people when they retired.
That's it, right?

Since the Bush plan EXCLUDES everyone in the Baby Boomer generation, how would that help the problem?

And can anyone tell me what the 25 percent of everyone under 50's SS taxes would be this year? And how much it would have been added up since Bush proposed his plan?
And since Bush says deficits don't matter, and since Bush has proposed, year after year, spending increases, and since the Republicans did the same, wouldn't this 25 percent just be added to the debt?
So by the time the Boomers were in full retirement swing, how much in interest alone would we be paying on the Bush SS debt payments?
Seems to me the Bush plan made the Boomer problem worse. Far worse.

I could also ask what would happen to those people who's retirement investments failed or did poorly? If their SS was below a certain level, wouldn't someone (read: taxpayers) have to help them out. Or face tens of millions of elderly, and/or sick people homeless.

I am the only one who has proposed a REAL plan to get us safely thru the Boomer years, without crushing taxes on workers and crushing US debt and worthless dollar.
For those who don't remember, I propose designating oil revenues be put into a combination of precious metals, lumber resources, and other tangible assets that do well, inversely to the value of our dollar. As the US debt climbs and the dollar falls, gold does great. And if the US has an economic miracle and the dollar is very strong, than we wouldn't need as much value in our assets.

So, tell me again, how did the Bush plan get us through the baby boom?

 

[StageLeft]

What are these oil revenues you speak of, will they be hoisted from private companies? Or from taxes; what happens to pay for things the revenues are already paying for?

The SS was a bad idea from the get go. It places the cart before the horse and the first round of recipients didn't have to do anything; they just started getting money with the promise that those who pay for them will have others pay for them later, like a parent giving allowance to his kid. The whole thing is fvcking ridiculous. SS needs to be a system in which one can select their investment vehicle and perhaps even their pay-in, with a certain minimum to ensure we don't get a bunch of old idiots who hit retirement and cannot work and have only $30/month coming in to support themselves.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
What are these oil revenues you speak of, will they be hoisted from private companies? Or from taxes; what happens to pay for things the revenues are already paying for?

The SS was a bad idea from the get go. It places the cart before the horse and the first round of recipients didn't have to do anything; they just started getting money with the promise that those who pay for them will have others pay for them later, like a parent giving allowance to his kid. The whole thing is fvcking ridiculous. SS needs to be a system in which one can select their investment vehicle and perhaps even their pay-in, with a certain minimum to ensure we don't get a bunch of old idiots who hit retirement and cannot work and have only $30/month coming in to support themselves.

Hoisted from private companies? When the US leases OUR land to private companies to drill for oil the US gets a percentage of the revenue. Are you saying we should just give our money to private companies
And as to the rest of your post, its just a rant about SS, not on topic at all. Apparently your plan to fix the Boomer problem is to rant against SS.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Too hard for you to go to the source documents?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/info...ng-socialsecurity.html

Some good analysis

http://www.heritage.org/Resear...cialSecurity/wm726.cfm

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Too hard for you to go to the source documents?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/info...ng-socialsecurity.html

Some good analysis

http://www.heritage.org/Resear...cialSecurity/wm726.cfm

Proves MY points.

 

[techs]

And amazingly people are still posting how we should enact Bushes plan and destroy the US economy.
The neo-cons just stick by their plan to borrow and spend, borrow and spend.

 

[fskimospy]

To be completely fair to Bush, he actually repeatedly admitted that his social security plan did nothing to address the long term solvency issues of the program. He was just saying that people would get more money from it this way. (while financing a huge debt and a payout to securities companies... shocking.) He was still a huge liar by omission as he would talk about the looming social security crisis and then pitch his plan, but he was more relying on his usual plan of tricking people too stupid to actually learn something about what he was doing.

 

[hellokeith]

Techs & Eskimospy,

Do you guys have some links/quotes that backup what you are saying?

I was against the Bush plan, but I'd like to see the "facts" you used to come to your conclusions. And like I said in the Baby Boomer SS thread, the Trustees report has far less "shocking" suggestions for long term solvency.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: hellokeith
Techs & Eskimospy,

Do you guys have some links/quotes that backup what you are saying?

I was against the Bush plan, but I'd like to see the "facts" you used to come to your conclusions. And like I said in the Baby Boomer SS thread, the Trustees report has far less "shocking" suggestions for long term solvency.

Would you ask us prove that Bush said Saddam had WMD? Where were you the last 7 years? This was only in the news for months on end. Just read the links that Shivetya posted that go right to the White House and the Heritage Foundation. Even THEY say it won't affect the current problem of the Boomers at ALL.
In fact, just the idea of borrowing an amount equal to 25 percent of the current amount paid by all Americans under 50 into SS and giving it to people should be clearly apparent to be insane.

 

[Genx87]

I love how the OP trolls his own thread and derails it into OT territory.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I love how the OP trolls his own thread and derails it into OT territory.

Hey, add something to the discussion.

 

[theeedude]

SS will be bailed out from general revenues. Same way SS taxes are bailing out general revenues now. Not really an issue if you ask me.
Medicare needs to clamp down on costs even more, tighten the screws on big pharma.

 

[piasabird]

I refuse to reform SS unless it is completely seperated from the General Fund and forced to survive on its own. The government should at least get simple bank interest on their money. If you gave every child $5,000.00 at birth you probably would not need as high of taxes. The compounding interest should be enough for retirement.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: senseamp
SS will be bailed out from general revenues. Same way SS taxes are bailing out general revenues now. Not really an issue if you ask me.
Medicare needs to clamp down on costs even more, tighten the screws on big pharma.

Lock Box

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: hellokeith
Techs & Eskimospy,

Do you guys have some links/quotes that backup what you are saying?

I was against the Bush plan, but I'd like to see the "facts" you used to come to your conclusions. And like I said in the Baby Boomer SS thread, the Trustees report has far less "shocking" suggestions for long term solvency.

You want me to provide a quote that says that Bush DIDN'T say something? How do I go about doing that?

I guess the closest I could come would be factcheck.org's analysis of his proposal, and the admission during its briefing to the press that it would have a "net neutral effect on solvency", which means it would do nothing. They said that he and Congress would have to take that up at some point in the future... har har.

Nice "facts" in quotations though. Shouldn't you be making another anti global warming thread?

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: piasabird
I refuse to reform SS unless it is completely seperated from the General Fund and forced to survive on its own. The government should at least get simple bank interest on their money. If you gave every child $5,000.00 at birth you probably would not need as high of taxes. The compounding interest should be enough for retirement.

If you gave every child $5,000.00 at birth you probably would not need as high of taxes. The compounding interest should be enough for retirement


And the tooth fairy will give all young children health insurance.
Compounding interest? Lets see, if I put my money in the bank and get one percent less than the inflation rate, then after 65 years I have earned how much? Since I actually lose money due to inflation every year???

 

[Fern]

It's time to reconsider the Bush plan to fix our Social Security problem.

Why is it time to revisit GWB's plan?

Are you running out silly ideas to start threads (e.g., Tobacco & MMGW)

GWB's plan is dead. He couldn't get it passed when Repubs controlled Congress. Now that the Dems are in charge and expecting to win the Pres in '08 he will be unable to do anything about. In fact, he won't even try. There's no point to it now, it's a matter for the new candidates to propose ideas/solutions.

Fern

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: senseamp
SS will be bailed out from general revenues. Same way SS taxes are bailing out general revenues now. Not really an issue if you ask me.
Medicare needs to clamp down on costs even more, tighten the screws on big pharma.

Lock Box

These same Republicans who are opposing a SS lock box to stop SS funds being raided for general revenues will be supporting a Lock Box to keep SS from raiding general revenues when the tide shifts. Mark my words.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: piasabird
I refuse to reform SS unless it is completely seperated from the General Fund and forced to survive on its own. The government should at least get simple bank interest on their money. If you gave every child $5,000.00 at birth you probably would not need as high of taxes. The compounding interest should be enough for retirement.

LOL, weren't republicans bashing Hillary for even contemplating something along these lines?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
The SS was a bad idea from the get go. It places the cart before the horse and the first round of recipients didn't have to do anything; they just started getting money with the promise that those who pay for them will have others pay for them later, like a parent giving allowance to his kid. The whole thing is fvcking ridiculous. SS needs to be a system in which one can select their investment vehicle and perhaps even their pay-in, with a certain minimum to ensure we don't get a bunch of old idiots who hit retirement and cannot work and have only $30/month coming in to support themselves.

Totally agree. For perhaps the first time in history. :laugh: :thumbsup:

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I love how the OP trolls his own thread and derails it into OT territory.

Seems typical of threads from OP. Most are blatant trolls in the first place.

This is actually a good discussion to have, but OP is too concerned with placing blame and apparently his case of BDS so severe...

PS, OP, no one ever said Bush's plan was the be-all-to-end-all. But at least he put something on the table...until the Dems cleared the table. I don't recall a single alternative proposal...

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: senseamp
SS will be bailed out from general revenues. Same way SS taxes are bailing out general revenues now. Not really an issue if you ask me.
Medicare needs to clamp down on costs even more, tighten the screws on big pharma.

You blame it on Big pharma, but Big Pharma is only a minor issue with medicare. Read the CBO reports.

 

[Jhhnn]

The real answer to SS is exactly the opposite of what repubs have been doing for the last 7 years. They cut taxes and increased spending, then chose to go to war on borrowed money, as well. Bush's "plan" wasn't a plan at all, other than to divert SS contributions away from the govt and over to Wall St... just another form of looting...

The only way to be able to honor the commitments to the SS trust when they come due is for uncle Sam to be in the kind of financial condition where borrowing to honor them would be relatively painless... essentially transferring debt from the trust to outside investors. That, or going further, developing a true surplus to cover the obligations, which obviously won't happen...

Now's the time to raise taxes, while boomers are still working, at least to a level that will support current spending. Cutting spending would help, too, but the one thing that can't be cut is debt maintenance, currently $430B/yr, and climbing-

thanks for nothing, repubs...