In general, I dislike Bush's administation and policies. That being said, I don't disagree with the partial privatization of Social Security. I understand that this will not fix the shortfall that Social Security will face but I don't think it will hurt the system either. My question is why is Bush pushing so hard for a plan that doesn't even fix the problems that he cites? Why doesn't he propose somethng that will actually fix the problem and push hard for that instead? Why is he pushing for these changes to happen as soon as possible and why has this become a top priority of his? I would mostly like to hear from people that are supporting this policy.
Questions about Bush's Social Security Plans
- Thread starter ArmenK
- Start date
In a nutshell, one step closer to eliminating the program PLUS it makes his Wall Street buddies trillions of dollars.
Pretty sure Google works for finding talking points - don't need to ask questions in a forum to find them.
Bush's plan is reforms(any but payroll tax increases) + private accounts. Hes never said his sole plan was private accounts. Thats just what the democrats want to focus on, even though they were the ones that first floated the idea in Congress in the 1990s. The floated the raising the retirement age too. But the republicans are in power and now they staunchly oppose any changing of SS.
Talking points are what Bush regurgitated in Westfield, N.J. this morning. Darkhawk28 posted facts. Plus, Bush's plan will require $2 TRILLION in borrowing UP FRONT.
And Bush's scare tactics aren't working. People realize there is no imminent danger (Social Security doesn't have WMD).
And what's Bush's little 60 stop journey selling his snake oil costing U.S. taxpayers anyway???
How many "journalists" and "news organizations" is the Bush administration slipping taxpayer funded payola in an effort to sell us this latest turkey???
And who's making the money off this scheme?
Eliminate the cap on FICA income.
Problem solved.
Next problem.
They are to be debated, as said ad nausem since well the beginning of this push.
Increased retirement age for those currently under 50.
Removing the $80k payroll cap.
Etc
etc
etc
Democrats have selective hearing, the same selective hearing republicans have when dems are in control. Right now democrats wont let the issue be debated. And the republicans arent wanting to push anything throw during what will be a 4 year lame duck term for Bush.
The retirement age has already been increased.
Remove the payroll cap.
There, we debated. Problem solved. Next problem. Stop wasting millions on the town hall style campaigning disguised as debate. Every one of the 1,500 members of Bush's audience today in Westfield, N.J. were INVITED GUESTS -- invited by local Republicans. If you didn't have a ticket, you didn't get in.
What kind of "debate" do you call that?
It's campaigning with taxpayer funds. There is no debate. It's selling snake oil off the back of a wagon.
GroundedSailor
Platinum Member
- Feb 18, 2001
- 2,502
- 0
- 76
Maybe he's pushing so hard because he wants to give a windfall to his buddies on wall steet who are looking forward to a bonanza in commissions? Whether stocks go up or down they get their money.
The sad thing is that all this is riding on the backs of the poor who will least understand how to manage their private accounts.
The sad thing is that all this is riding on the backs of the poor who will least understand how to manage their private accounts.
I'm not getting your point. You say Bush's plan is reforms and private accounts but he has not laid out any specific reforms. Saying "I'm open to suggestions" is not much of a plan in my opinion. Also, his campaign mostly pushes private accounts, which dont solve the problem. So in conclusion I am back at my original questions: why focus on private accounts when they don't solve the problem and why be in such a hurry about it?
You have to understand that conservatives are ideologically opposed to any form of socialism that doesn't cut corporate America in on the deal. So they hate SS, and have from its inception. They have no intention of reforming it other than to destroy it.
So they're floating trial balloons, seeing if folks are dumb enough to allow them to do just that legislatively, or if they'll have to wait until they've bankrupted the govt entirely, which is the underlying problem with SS. Not demographics, but mounting and inescapable debt.
Their current initiative, however, provides a convenient smokescreen down the road, when they're forced to welch on SS to maintain other debt obligations... they can say they tried to save it, but the evil Democrats wouldn't let them...
Don't worry about my right hand going up your dress, little girl, look at what's in my left hand...
So they're floating trial balloons, seeing if folks are dumb enough to allow them to do just that legislatively, or if they'll have to wait until they've bankrupted the govt entirely, which is the underlying problem with SS. Not demographics, but mounting and inescapable debt.
Their current initiative, however, provides a convenient smokescreen down the road, when they're forced to welch on SS to maintain other debt obligations... they can say they tried to save it, but the evil Democrats wouldn't let them...
Don't worry about my right hand going up your dress, little girl, look at what's in my left hand...
shira
Diamond Member
- Jan 12, 2005
- 9,500
- 6
- 81
I say, first fix the SS funding issue. Even more important is to fix the Medicare funding issue.
When (and ONLY when) those changes are accomplished, should we address SS investment options. For example, if the stock market is such a great idea and will earn higher returns than T-bills (the current investment), why not just have the GOVERNMENT invest excess SS funds in the markets?
When (and ONLY when) those changes are accomplished, should we address SS investment options. For example, if the stock market is such a great idea and will earn higher returns than T-bills (the current investment), why not just have the GOVERNMENT invest excess SS funds in the markets?
I invest a fair amount of my after-tax income, have IRA and 401K rollover accounts, and picked the funds for my current 401k.
Partial privatizing sounded interesting at first, until I read what details were available on it. It read more like a second-rate 401k than real personal investing: you have a limited choice of funds, and the expense ratio on them is expected to be 66% higher than what I pay Vanguard for my VFINX fund shares (0.3% vs. 0.18%).
At least with a weak 401k you can eventually move the money to a real brokerage when you change jobs, and pick some good funds.
By the time a massive layer of bureaucracy is added to manage these personal accounts, at my expense, I expect the estimated 0.3% to double or triple like the medicare drug benefit, and will be surprised if the private accounts do enough better than T-bills to even break even.
Besides which, the personal accounts wont affect the year-2052 crisis. If it is really so urgent to fix SS now, why not promote a plan to fix it, then start pushing these private accounts which have nothing to do with the fix?
Partial privatizing sounded interesting at first, until I read what details were available on it. It read more like a second-rate 401k than real personal investing: you have a limited choice of funds, and the expense ratio on them is expected to be 66% higher than what I pay Vanguard for my VFINX fund shares (0.3% vs. 0.18%).
At least with a weak 401k you can eventually move the money to a real brokerage when you change jobs, and pick some good funds.
By the time a massive layer of bureaucracy is added to manage these personal accounts, at my expense, I expect the estimated 0.3% to double or triple like the medicare drug benefit, and will be surprised if the private accounts do enough better than T-bills to even break even.
Besides which, the personal accounts wont affect the year-2052 crisis. If it is really so urgent to fix SS now, why not promote a plan to fix it, then start pushing these private accounts which have nothing to do with the fix?
Karl Rove's plan was something like this . . .
1) Float "personal accountants" to continue the "ownership" society farce. Basically tell people they will get MUCH greater returns with nearly nonexistent (just don't mention it) risk.
2) While the lemmings are distracted, sneak in the part about having to "borrow" money to cover the transition costs . . . $1T if people are wary . . . $2T if they actually like the idea.
3) Totally avoid mentioning that the REAL plan to make SS solvent long-term is to cut everyone's benefits REGARDLESS of whether they participate in the private accounts and to change the indexing of SS benefits to reduce . . . the already reduced benefit.
I think the most daming aspect of this charade is how defenders claim we are "attacking" Bush's plan . . . but there's really no plan. Then they turn around and say there's such a great outcome from adopting Bush's nonplan plan. Not to mention how they cook the books; use worse case economic scenario to describe SS finances and use fantasy case scenario to describe the great benefits of partial privatization.
1) Float "personal accountants" to continue the "ownership" society farce. Basically tell people they will get MUCH greater returns with nearly nonexistent (just don't mention it) risk.
2) While the lemmings are distracted, sneak in the part about having to "borrow" money to cover the transition costs . . . $1T if people are wary . . . $2T if they actually like the idea.
3) Totally avoid mentioning that the REAL plan to make SS solvent long-term is to cut everyone's benefits REGARDLESS of whether they participate in the private accounts and to change the indexing of SS benefits to reduce . . . the already reduced benefit.
I think the most daming aspect of this charade is how defenders claim we are "attacking" Bush's plan . . . but there's really no plan. Then they turn around and say there's such a great outcome from adopting Bush's nonplan plan. Not to mention how they cook the books; use worse case economic scenario to describe SS finances and use fantasy case scenario to describe the great benefits of partial privatization.
GroundedSailor
Platinum Member
- Feb 18, 2001
- 2,502
- 0
- 76
Hit the nail on the head. The republicans have had their sights set on SS for a long time and for the first time in almost 70 years they feel they have a chance.
Many people have voiced concerns about social security. I was listening to the radio the other day and I heard a comment that went like this:
"Bush is undermining Social Security"
What is it about social security that is so sacred?
I think it is the Holy Cash Cow that our elected officials have been stealing from for years. One of two things need to happen or both.
1. Social Security needs to be removed from the general fund and needs to be maintained as a separate agency.
2. People need to offered some version of a private account.
My reasons for this line of logic is that Social Security is a separate tax that was suppose to be used for the reason it was established. Our government in its infinite wisdom has raped this fund and stolen the assets. Our government has proven it can not be trusted with this sacred trust. Our government should not be trusted to handle this sacred trust.
Given the current state of affairs, why would any sane person continue to trust the government which has stolen ours, mine, yours, and your children's Social Security Funds?
What is so wrong with giving a person a fund of their own and give them private ownership of their own money?
"Bush is undermining Social Security"
What is it about social security that is so sacred?
I think it is the Holy Cash Cow that our elected officials have been stealing from for years. One of two things need to happen or both.
1. Social Security needs to be removed from the general fund and needs to be maintained as a separate agency.
2. People need to offered some version of a private account.
My reasons for this line of logic is that Social Security is a separate tax that was suppose to be used for the reason it was established. Our government in its infinite wisdom has raped this fund and stolen the assets. Our government has proven it can not be trusted with this sacred trust. Our government should not be trusted to handle this sacred trust.
Given the current state of affairs, why would any sane person continue to trust the government which has stolen ours, mine, yours, and your children's Social Security Funds?
What is so wrong with giving a person a fund of their own and give them private ownership of their own money?
"Our government has proven it can not be trusted with this sacred trust."
Our government cannot be trusted......period...........
Our government cannot be trusted......period...........
SS is a tax on the poor man, rich people stop paying into it every year after they earn up to the cap.
These rich will sign up and draw SS regardless of how much they have, and how much they get will be based on their previous earnings.
After age 70 there are no income limits on how much you can make and still collect.
Bush wants to eliminate this megar income for the people that can least afford to invest, and certianly don't have the knowledge, willpower, or income to build a retirement nest egg.
How many low income people will be scammed by the free for all this would bring down on the working poor, while the Wall Street leeches get richer and richer?
These rich will sign up and draw SS regardless of how much they have, and how much they get will be based on their previous earnings.
After age 70 there are no income limits on how much you can make and still collect.
Bush wants to eliminate this megar income for the people that can least afford to invest, and certianly don't have the knowledge, willpower, or income to build a retirement nest egg.
How many low income people will be scammed by the free for all this would bring down on the working poor, while the Wall Street leeches get richer and richer?
See my post above. This is not going to be like an IRA where you can pick the best mutual funds and there is competition for the lowest cost of fund management. It will be a huge increase in government bureaucracy to manage the second-rate funds they offer you, to track contributions and assets, and to cut a second set of checks for people when they retire and start drawing from the fund.
The virtue of the current system is that at least it is fairly simple and has a lower cost of management. It also doesn't require spending $2 trillion now (or more!) to make the change. Given how the medicare drug benefit cost has now almost tripled why should we trust that it will "only" cost $2 trillion?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter