It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: Many in GOP Wary of Presidents Social Security Plan

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Most political pundits view 2005 as the best chance for President Bush to revamp Social Security. However, he must now add increasingly wary Republicans to his list of those he must convince to back his plan. One Republican lawmaker went as far to say that there was nothing in it for members of congress. They might scuttle their own chances of being reelected if they supported the plan and gave opponents something to hammer away on.

 



story.news.yahoo.com< br /> WASHINGTON - If there will ever be a year when the political stars are aligned for President Bush to revamp Social Security, it may be 2005. But he still must persuade wary Republicans in Congress to follow his lead.

"To be crassly political, there's nothing in it for members of Congress," said Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Ill., predicting that supportive lawmakers would face television ads accusing them of gutting Social Security when they run for re-election. "It will be a very, very tough sell for the president."

LaHood, a moderate who coasted to re-election in November, is not alone. Of the 232 Republicans who will serve in the House next year, at least 125 to 150 will need "a lot of hand-holding," said Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., who said he supports Bush's push.

These include lawmakers from districts with many elderly voters, those facing tight re-election races and those who have yet to closely examine the issue, Foley said.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


So much for congress looking out for our needs. If he cannot convince his own party that the reforms that he proposed are needed, he may have to go for an incremental revamp as opposed to his grand change. No doubt he will have to use whatever is left of his political capital to push this one through. However, as the pundits have said, 2005 is the year. Beyond that it seems unlikely that it will ever happen.




posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Maybe the plan makes too much sense. Maybe there is too much danger of it actully working for Congress to support it. They would much rather have the issue as a stick to beat up the other party with during elections than see it get fixed any time soon.



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Its similar to the management at the hospital I work at. They only take action if there is an actual crisis. SS needes to be a year or so away from insolvency then they will have to take action, but not before.



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Social security is fine, will be for years, it's probably the best program we have. Giving our future to corporate America will benefit no one, except big business. A lot of people have been fooled into thinking privatizing is the way to go, but after some critical thinking, Bush's public relations battle is waning. People are starting to realize that to waste money, especially during our crippling economy,
trying to 'fix' something that isn't broken is not that good of an idea. Unless you are a CEO, then it's a great idea.



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 09:44 PM
link   
Social Security retirement (OASI) is in good shap. Its annual surplus will approach 300 billion per year, or nearly 40 percent above its outgo, by late next decade. It'll be 25 years before the cashflow turns red. See the table in the projections.

www.ssa.gov...

It's the healthcare (HI and DI) and disability (OASDI) that are running out of money. Bush implemented the new drug benefit (DI) which will quickly ramp up to a 200 billion a year program by 2020.



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by lchoro
Social Security retirement (OASI) is in good shap. Its annual surplus will approach 300 billion per year, or nearly 40 percent above its outgo, by late next decade. It'll be 25 years before the cashflow turns red. See the table in the projections.


Those numbers are all fine and dandy except for the fact that congress for years and years has used Social Security for its own bank as a way to make you believe that the government had balanced budgets, The US treasury holds what amonts to billions if not trillions worth of IOU's that can never ever be paid off in the future.

The SS administration is guilty of "voodoo" economics as well as several administrations and presidents going back to the early seventies when congress found another cash cow to milk for excess spending to buy more votes - this problem crosses party lines and is the big conspiracy of our time IMHO.

The obvious solution is to follow the example set by the Galveston, Texas government which opted out long ago with a private investment solution far far superior to SS.

I'll add link later.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 03:10 AM
link   
I think this sentence says it all, as far as opposition:

"To be crassly political, there's nothing in it for members of Congress," said Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Ill., predicting that supportive lawmakers would face television ads accusing them of gutting Social Security when they run for re-election.


And statements like this

Giving our future to corporate America will benefit no one, except big business.

are typical of the misinformed, knee-jerk reactions of those who have not done the research on the subject.

Btw, this may or may not be the link that Phoenix was referring to:
www.tppf.org...

[edit on 23-12-2004 by jsobecky]



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Btw, this may or may not be the link that Phoenix was referring to:
www.tppf.org...



Yes that is the information I was intending to link to, thanks for providing it jsobecky.

Phoenix



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Thank you, I was looking for that too. Galveston is the perfect example of what would happen to the US. Gut the lower and middle income earners and families while high income earners make out like bandits. Examine this issue. Really look into it. Don't be fooled into supporting something that will harm you. Thankfully, even the lazy conservative controlled media is waking up to how bad this really is. I guess after being embarrassed by supporting previous failed Bush plans, they are really doing their homework this time.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by curme
Gut the lower and middle income earners and families while high income earners make out like bandits.


curme can you elaborate on the thought process used in your claim and or how you arrived at your conclusion in relation to the Galveston program.

Are you not for a better return on yours and others investments for retirement? (Galveston used annuity not wallstreet so don't go there)

Are you not fed up with politicians stealing yours and others retirement funds to make the claim they balanced the budget like has been done with the current system? with no intention or ability to pay it back other than to charge the involuntary participants even more than was expected. You realize you or I would earn a long prison sentence for such a scheme do you not?

Are you not disturbed that your heirs have no access to your investment in case something untoward happened to you?

Do we want a retirement program or a welfare program?

Should we not have means testing so the well off do not take un-needed benefits from those more needy? Well off not meaning income but rather - large cash assets not counted as income against SS benefits.

I scratch my head in wonder at those who claim this current system is not broken, is not corrupt and all we have to do is plow more money into the black hole that it has become.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Thank you, I was looking for that too. Galveston is the perfect example of what would happen to the US. Gut the lower and middle income earners and families while high income earners make out like bandits. Examine this issue. Really look into it. Don't be fooled into supporting something that will harm you. Thankfully, even the lazy conservative controlled media is waking up to how bad this really is. I guess after being embarrassed by supporting previous failed Bush plans, they are really doing their homework this time


Galveston's government employees have the benefit of the county kicking in an extra 2 percent of their salary into their plan. Essentially, the other taxpayers are subsidizing their pensions. I don't think we could get an 18 percent FICA tax passed thru the Congress and the President, nor would it be good for the economy.

One or more of these plans fell into difficulty with the market decline in 2001, and was forced to raise the percentage of their employees' incomes would be placed in the pension plan by 1.8 points.

I think the earlier document by SS shows that the retirement program has sufficient time and surplus cashflow for the transition to privatization for Gen-X and Y provided that we tackle the problem with the other programs. Bush never should've passed the drug bill, especially when so few are signing up for the plan. Medicare and disability programs, in my opinion, should be funded through a small sales tax since they're operated on a continuing basis without the buildup of reserves. This would also reduce the FICA tax to 12.4 percent from its present 15 percent.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join