I have not had time to investigate this yet so correct me where I am wrong... provide references please.
In 1995 one of President Clinton's campaign points was fixing Social Security. Of course, nothing was done. Since President Clinton never mentioned it after the elections I will presume that he had more important matters to attend to.
Eight years later and without any changes made the democrats say nothing is wrong with Social Security and attack President Bush for suggesting otherwise. They ridicule his plan to improve Social Security.
We can understand the reluctance of the democrats, and even some republicans, to give up control of "their" money (President Clinton's words, not mine). Since they absconded with the SSN funds so many decades ago for use in the "general" fund.
The "mainstream" media has consistently stated that most of America is against doing anything with the system.
Basically the plan President Bush is proposing would all individuals the OPTION of allocating up to 4% of what is paid into the system into a personal "savings" account. The money in this account would be part of the individuals estate and would be given to survivors upon their death.
The democratic leadership says that people can't handle their own money much less the Governments money and are against it. Of course, for this to be true the citizens of Galveston, Texas and Argentina would have to be more intelligent (about investing) than the average person.
The children of black males would be particularly helped by the estate feature. That is, if the study that suggests the average black male recoups very little of the funds they paid into the system because the average life expectancy is only 69. The mainstream media and democratic leaders do counter that IF a black male lives to 69 that they are likely to out live white males. I'm sure the children of those that die younger are comoforted by that fact. Some say these numbers are skewed because of the violence the black youths tend to be involved with. I can only say that statistics, while important, can lie.
So, recently a couple of polls were conducted. 56% of Americans are in favor of President Bushes plan. That is, until they hear the plan by other than the mainstream media and the democratic leaders. 84% of that group is in favor of his plan!
Remember, the President's plan gives everyone choices. They can stay fully in the current system or they can put some of the money into their own retirement account and manage it themselves.
Oops. Now, the democratic leadership realizes they are in trouble. So, they come up with a plan. With their plan everyone MUST have a retirement account which is managed by, who else, the Government.
Suddenly a private retirement account is a good thing. The democratic leadership still doesn't want individuals to have choices or control. At least they are consistent on some issues.
In 1995 one of President Clinton's campaign points was fixing Social Security. Of course, nothing was done. Since President Clinton never mentioned it after the elections I will presume that he had more important matters to attend to.
Eight years later and without any changes made the democrats say nothing is wrong with Social Security and attack President Bush for suggesting otherwise. They ridicule his plan to improve Social Security.
We can understand the reluctance of the democrats, and even some republicans, to give up control of "their" money (President Clinton's words, not mine). Since they absconded with the SSN funds so many decades ago for use in the "general" fund.
The "mainstream" media has consistently stated that most of America is against doing anything with the system.
Basically the plan President Bush is proposing would all individuals the OPTION of allocating up to 4% of what is paid into the system into a personal "savings" account. The money in this account would be part of the individuals estate and would be given to survivors upon their death.
The democratic leadership says that people can't handle their own money much less the Governments money and are against it. Of course, for this to be true the citizens of Galveston, Texas and Argentina would have to be more intelligent (about investing) than the average person.
The children of black males would be particularly helped by the estate feature. That is, if the study that suggests the average black male recoups very little of the funds they paid into the system because the average life expectancy is only 69. The mainstream media and democratic leaders do counter that IF a black male lives to 69 that they are likely to out live white males. I'm sure the children of those that die younger are comoforted by that fact. Some say these numbers are skewed because of the violence the black youths tend to be involved with. I can only say that statistics, while important, can lie.
So, recently a couple of polls were conducted. 56% of Americans are in favor of President Bushes plan. That is, until they hear the plan by other than the mainstream media and the democratic leaders. 84% of that group is in favor of his plan!
Remember, the President's plan gives everyone choices. They can stay fully in the current system or they can put some of the money into their own retirement account and manage it themselves.
Oops. Now, the democratic leadership realizes they are in trouble. So, they come up with a plan. With their plan everyone MUST have a retirement account which is managed by, who else, the Government.
Suddenly a private retirement account is a good thing. The democratic leadership still doesn't want individuals to have choices or control. At least they are consistent on some issues.
If not, which of the quetions in the poll did you think was misinformation? That only 57% know that putting money into a private savings account would be optional or that 84% of those under 55 would like the option to put money into a private savings account?
Facebook
Twitter