• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why are Libs/Dems Set Against Social Security Reform?

GTaudiophile

GTaudiophile

Lifer
I just know if Clinton were saying the same as Bush right now, the Dems would be on their feet!

What is so wrong will allowing me to invest in my own retirement account? It's BS I have to put $15K a year into the system and won't get sheit out of it!

 
Probably because it's just an excuse to run it into the ground and not to actually reform it? Or because if it's done by Bush he will mess it up like he messes everything up because he's an incompetent buffoon?
 
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I just know if Clinton were saying the same as Bush right now, the Dems would be on their feet!

What is so wrong will allowing me to invest in my own retirement account? It's BS I have to put $15K a year into the system and won't get sheit out of it!
Click to expand...

poor baby 🙁
 
Privatization has been tried, with proportionally greater assets and it has been an abysmal failure. The figures Bush used were pulled out of his ass. Gone by 2042? Assuming the end of the world, yes.

No one trusts Bush. Simply, he cannot be believed, especially when he uses figures as he does.
 
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I just know if Clinton were saying the same as Bush right now, the Dems would be on their feet!

What is so wrong will allowing me to invest in my own retirement account? It's BS I have to put $15K a year into the system and won't get sheit out of it!
Click to expand...

Topic Title: Why are Libs/Dems Set Against Social Security Reform?

Not true. Bush is putting in a system similar to a Lottery winner that doesn't get the option to cash out, it is annuity only. It's Bullsh1t and another tactic for the Rich only.

 
I'm not against reform, but I think privatization is a very bad idea. I also think, as others have pointed out, that the numbers and fears about social security that are being presented are wrong
 
Well, it all depends on how it's reformed. Have any specific details been put forth by Bush? Or are we still dealing with the abstract?
 
I really am starting to think conservatives just don't hear too well...or lack the ability to understand what they are hearing. Bush proposes his idea for Social Security, libs say they are against it, conservatives respond by asking why libs don't want to reform Social Security. Maybe I have the wrong kind of brain, but that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If anything, it would seem that libs simply think Bush's reform is a bad idea, not that reform in general is.

Once again I'm forced to ask why everything must be so two sided with you guys. There are more than two sides to most issues, there isn't just Bush's reform and no reform. I would think that is fairly obvious. I don't want Bush to reform Social Security any more than I want him to be President. That doesn't mean I don't think we should have a President or that Social Security shouldn't be reformed, I'm just not convinced he's the man for the job.
 
Not all democrats are, there are many that do support private accounts, because well they are the ones that have been proposing them since the 1990s.

Bush said everything is on the table, but also wants private accounts, phased in over time, to be apart of it.

Its not to much to ask, not to screw over me, and future generations.

Uh Bush didnt fix medicare of try to, he added a perscription drug benefit, that was well cheaper than the democrats proposed plan.

Fixing medicare/medicad, is alot more complex, and alot more costly than Social Security. Medicare/medicad is in a crisis, and will be catostrophic as the baby boomers get older.

Fact of the matter is.

Social Security is a huge problem.
Medicad/Medicare is an extremely huge problem.

Both will require SPENDING CUTS, and TAX INCREASES.

Minor tinkering, will NOT fix either, both need major reforms.

Private accounts, are the only FAIR way not to screw over future generations.

No I do not support the idea of taking a $2trillion loan out to start them, and Im pretty certain Bush has backed off that.
 
It's an extremely ridiculous notion that Bush and company can keep the stock markets from being such and volatile marketplace. On the other hand please give me my SS money so that I can invest in a private account and get raped by Wall Street.
 
Originally posted by: conehead433
It's an extremely ridiculous notion that Bush and company can keep the stock markets from being such and volatile marketplace. On the other hand please give me my SS money so that I can invest in a private account and get raped by Wall Street.
Click to expand...

Everything, Social Security is, stands against classical liberal thought. Future generations SHOULD have a choice on where atleast(if not all) part of their social security goes.
 
The maximum that you personally could place in SS last year was $87,900 x 6.2% with another 6.2% match from your employer = $5,449.80 for you and $5,449.80 for your employer. Medicare is an additional 1.45% and that's not on the table, so the $15,000 that the OP proposed each year is a stretch by any imigination. (Not counting Medicare which has NO cap that I know of)

I'm assuming that this new private account will not require employers to place any match to the system once people are completely on the private accounts and off of the governement "so called' guaranteed system.

I have several problems with the proposals as I know them:

I'm for private accounts with the following provisions:

I don't want to be limited to $1000 cap per year when I'm paying upwards of $5500 or more, not including a match of my employer of $5500 plus.

I also don't like the idea that the government is going to limit WHEN I can get to my money. If I have enough and want to retire early, why can't I?

Lastly, I don't want money borrowed in the amount of TRILLIONS just for private accounts. If we can shift to private accounts with the removal of CAPS or slightly lower benefits from current SS'ers, then that's fine, but NO NEW DEBT. For people who complain about the lower benefits, sorry, but the current generation of SS'ers helped by letting the government borrow wildly into the SS trust fund and now it's got to be repaid. I do agree that the younger generation(s) shouldn't bear the brunt of the fixing of SS without anyone else feeling the pain.

Here's one "semi liberal - fiscal conservative" for private accounts, with the limits I've outlined above.

 
Originally posted by: Engineer
The maximum that you personally could place in SS last year was $87,900 x 6.2% with another 6.2% match from your employer = $5,449.80 for you and $5,449.80 for your employer. Medicare is an additional 1.45% and that's not on the table.

I'm assuming that this new private account will not require employers to place any match to the system once people are completely on the private accounts and off of the governement "so called' guaranteed system.

I have several problems with the proposals as I know them:

I'm for private accounts with the following provisions:

I don't want to be limited to $1000 cap per year when I'm paying upwards of $5500 or more, not including a match of my employer of $5500 plus.

I also don't like the idea that the government is going to limit WHEN I can get to my money. If I have enough and want to retire early, why can't I?

Lastly, I don't want money borrowed in the amount of TRILLIONS just for private accounts. If we can shift to private accounts with the removal of CAPS or slightly lower benefits from current SS'ers, then that's fine, but NO NEW DEBT. For people who complain about the lower benefits, sorry, but the current generation of SS'ers helped by letting the government borrow wildly into the SS trust fund and now it's got to be repaid. I do agree that the younger generation(s) shouldn't bear the brunt of the fixing of SS without anyone else feeling the pain.

Here's one "semi liberal - fiscal conservative" for private accounts, with the limits I've outlined above.
Click to expand...

Apparently no one listens.

Private accounts are voluntary and we arent(atleast in current plans) going toward total privatization of SS accounts..

You will eventually be able to put up to 4% into private accounts.

The rest + employers part go into the social security system which you would get the "guaranteed" benefits from.

So you have a private account(if you want) + benefits from the rest that you paid in.

 
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
considering that bush has already fixed the schools and medicare, and how excellent those turned out to be....
Click to expand...
:thumbsup:

The facts, including those from people far more educated on SS and finance than Bush, say that SS will go bankrupt decades SOONER if we use the proposed private accounts. The transition to private accounts is estimated to cost $2 TRILLION in the first year along.
 
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
considering that bush has already fixed the schools and medicare, and how excellent those turned out to be....
Click to expand...
:thumbsup:

The facts, including those from people far more educated on SS and finance than Bush, say that SS will go bankrupt decades SOONER if we use the proposed private accounts.
Click to expand...

Bush hasnt released his proposal.

The Stenholm(renamed) plan which calls for private accounts, doesnt bankrupt SS, its been throughly gone over time and time again.


Strictly adding private accounts wont solve the solvency problem. Everyone knows that, Bush isnt simply proposing private accounts to solve SS. Other changes will have to be made. People should really stop commenting on something that hasnt been finished, let alone released. Bits and pieces of Bush's plan have been talked about, not all of it, and it appears they are stepping back and away from the $2trillion in borrowing.
 
Investing your money in the stock market is gambling- pure and simple. Private accounts will lose more money than they would make under the present SS plan. I guess it's not enough for Dubya to help out his oil buddies, got to help out those on WS as well.
 
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Originally posted by: Engineer
The maximum that you personally could place in SS last year was $87,900 x 6.2% with another 6.2% match from your employer = $5,449.80 for you and $5,449.80 for your employer. Medicare is an additional 1.45% and that's not on the table.

I'm assuming that this new private account will not require employers to place any match to the system once people are completely on the private accounts and off of the governement "so called' guaranteed system.

I have several problems with the proposals as I know them:

I'm for private accounts with the following provisions:

I don't want to be limited to $1000 cap per year when I'm paying upwards of $5500 or more, not including a match of my employer of $5500 plus.

I also don't like the idea that the government is going to limit WHEN I can get to my money. If I have enough and want to retire early, why can't I?

Lastly, I don't want money borrowed in the amount of TRILLIONS just for private accounts. If we can shift to private accounts with the removal of CAPS or slightly lower benefits from current SS'ers, then that's fine, but NO NEW DEBT. For people who complain about the lower benefits, sorry, but the current generation of SS'ers helped by letting the government borrow wildly into the SS trust fund and now it's got to be repaid. I do agree that the younger generation(s) shouldn't bear the brunt of the fixing of SS without anyone else feeling the pain.

Here's one "semi liberal - fiscal conservative" for private accounts, with the limits I've outlined above.
Click to expand...

Apparently no one listens.

Private accounts are voluntary and we arent(atleast in current plans) going toward total privatization of SS accounts..

You will eventually be able to put up to 4% into private accounts.

The rest + employers part go into the social security system which you would get the "guaranteed" benefits from.

So you have a private account(if you want) + benefits from the rest that you paid in.
Click to expand...


Apparantely, you don't read. I said I'm for private accounts (completely - no guaranteed benefits) with the following provision above. I've said it since I was 22 (36 now), that I would sign away my SS rights if they would give me all of MY money to invest my way. Still feel that way. I didn't say that the current plan was going to go exactly as I described above, just ways that I would prefer it to go.

Strange, a semi liberal comes out FOR private accounts and SS reform and still gets bashed even though the OP asked the question. geeeeeezzzzzeeeee!!! :roll:

I'm volunteering for a 100% private account right now. Where do I sign up?
 
How can we even discuss this if Bush hasn't released his proposal? I wouldn't mind if SS was reformed correctly, yet it remains to be seen if the GOP and/or Bush can pull that off.
 
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I just know if Clinton were saying the same as Bush right now, the Dems would be on their feet!

What is so wrong will allowing me to invest in my own retirement account? It's BS I have to put $15K a year into the system and won't get sheit out of it!
Click to expand...

Tough sh!t. Millions before you have for the past 50+ years, you will too and you will continue to. PSA's won't happen.
 
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Originally posted by: Engineer
The maximum that you personally could place in SS last year was $87,900 x 6.2% with another 6.2% match from your employer = $5,449.80 for you and $5,449.80 for your employer. Medicare is an additional 1.45% and that's not on the table.

I'm assuming that this new private account will not require employers to place any match to the system once people are completely on the private accounts and off of the governement "so called' guaranteed system.

I have several problems with the proposals as I know them:

I'm for private accounts with the following provisions:

I don't want to be limited to $1000 cap per year when I'm paying upwards of $5500 or more, not including a match of my employer of $5500 plus.

I also don't like the idea that the government is going to limit WHEN I can get to my money. If I have enough and want to retire early, why can't I?

Lastly, I don't want money borrowed in the amount of TRILLIONS just for private accounts. If we can shift to private accounts with the removal of CAPS or slightly lower benefits from current SS'ers, then that's fine, but NO NEW DEBT. For people who complain about the lower benefits, sorry, but the current generation of SS'ers helped by letting the government borrow wildly into the SS trust fund and now it's got to be repaid. I do agree that the younger generation(s) shouldn't bear the brunt of the fixing of SS without anyone else feeling the pain.

Here's one "semi liberal - fiscal conservative" for private accounts, with the limits I've outlined above.
Click to expand...

Apparently no one listens.

Private accounts are voluntary and we arent(atleast in current plans) going toward total privatization of SS accounts..

You will eventually be able to put up to 4% into private accounts.

The rest + employers part go into the social security system which you would get the "guaranteed" benefits from.

So you have a private account(if you want) + benefits from the rest that you paid in.
Click to expand...


Apparantely, you don't read. I said I'm for private accounts (completely - no guaranteed benefits) with the following provision above. I've said it since I was 22 (36 now), that I would sign away my SS rights if they would give me all of MY money to invest my way. Still feel that way. I didn't say that the current plan was going to go exactly as I described above, just ways that I would prefer it to go.

Strange, a semi liberal comes out FOR private accounts and SS reform and still gets bashed even though the OP asked the question. geeeeeezzzzzeeeee!!! :roll:
Click to expand...

I wasnt attacking you, but all proposals call for partial private accounts. And the remaining + employeers part goes towards "guaranteed" benefits.
 
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Originally posted by: Engineer
The maximum that you personally could place in SS last year was $87,900 x 6.2% with another 6.2% match from your employer = $5,449.80 for you and $5,449.80 for your employer. Medicare is an additional 1.45% and that's not on the table.

I'm assuming that this new private account will not require employers to place any match to the system once people are completely on the private accounts and off of the governement "so called' guaranteed system.

I have several problems with the proposals as I know them:

I'm for private accounts with the following provisions:

I don't want to be limited to $1000 cap per year when I'm paying upwards of $5500 or more, not including a match of my employer of $5500 plus.

I also don't like the idea that the government is going to limit WHEN I can get to my money. If I have enough and want to retire early, why can't I?

Lastly, I don't want money borrowed in the amount of TRILLIONS just for private accounts. If we can shift to private accounts with the removal of CAPS or slightly lower benefits from current SS'ers, then that's fine, but NO NEW DEBT. For people who complain about the lower benefits, sorry, but the current generation of SS'ers helped by letting the government borrow wildly into the SS trust fund and now it's got to be repaid. I do agree that the younger generation(s) shouldn't bear the brunt of the fixing of SS without anyone else feeling the pain.

Here's one "semi liberal - fiscal conservative" for private accounts, with the limits I've outlined above.
Click to expand...

Apparently no one listens.

Private accounts are voluntary and we arent(atleast in current plans) going toward total privatization of SS accounts..

You will eventually be able to put up to 4% into private accounts.

The rest + employers part go into the social security system which you would get the "guaranteed" benefits from.

So you have a private account(if you want) + benefits from the rest that you paid in.
Click to expand...

I understand now! The way to fix SS is to allow certain affluent younger Americans to NOT put money into it. Yep, that sure will fix itl

 
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I just know if Clinton were saying the same as Bush right now, the Dems would be on their feet!

What is so wrong will allowing me to invest in my own retirement account? It's BS I have to put $15K a year into the system and won't get sheit out of it!
Click to expand...

Tough sh!t. Millions before you have for the past 50+ years, you will too and you will continue to. PSA's won't happen.
Click to expand...

Except they will get money back. In 2042 its $.73 for each dollar put in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top