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.

 

NEWS: Opposition to Bush Social Security Plan Lining Up within GOP

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 05:51 PM
link   
President Bush will begin selling his overhaul of Social Security, but before he does, he will have to convince his fellow Republicans that voting for his changes won't end their careers. Republican leaders met Thursday with President Bush as he prepares to campaign for his plan.
 



story.news.yahoo.com
Before President Bush begins selling his overhaul of Social Security to Americans, he may have to convince fellow Republicans that voting for the changes he wants won't end their political careers.

Bush met Thursday with Republican leaders as he prepares an all-out campaign for his plan, which includes allowing younger workers to invest part of their Social Security taxes in the stock market.

The government estimates that by 2018, Social Security will be paying out more in benefits than it collects because as the bulge of baby boomers retires, the number of workers paying taxes to cover their benefits can't keep up.




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


We need to keep a close eye on this new plan. I don't trust Bush with our Social Security money. He is planning to let younger people invest their Social Security into the stock market. That would be good if, a large percentage of people came out ahead. This is more like gambling with our benefits.

[edit on 10-1-2005 by Banshee]




posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 08:38 PM
link   
I wonder if they will set regulations on who we can invest our Social Security with? If we will be able to invest in OTCBB, Pink sheets, or just Enron's?



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Just remember to understand all the facts about the proposal before jumping to conclusions. Things like

Only a small portion of your contribution will be eligible for investment

It is not a mandatory program; you don't have to invest if you don't want to. You can go on letting the government make your retirement financial decisions for you.




posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 09:20 PM
link   
First of all until this day the president has not yet to said how he is planning to pay for the inicial cost of his plan and how he is going to pay for it.

So people need to be very careful because is going to be a hidden agenda behing all these glorious reform.



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 09:47 PM
link   
I wouldn't put anything past Bush. He will figure out some way to screw us out of our social security benefits. He will raise the age that you can start collecting and/or the amount you receive will be lowered. The idea of being able to invest some of your social security benefits into stocks is just the icing to make the cake look good. Don't fall for it.



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 09:55 PM
link   
I agree that this must be watched and monitored closely. AS the story points out, bush will not be able to run again, thank GOD (unless he tries to change that, too) but the congress members will face voters again.

Is investing our ss money in the stock market a good idea? Many of us alive today, probably most, were not alive during the stock market crash...what is preventing that from happening again? I don't believe that it can not happen again. If it does then all ss money will be lost.

This seems like risky business to me and amounts to gambling. IF this thing happens to pass and it proves to be a disaster then the ones who elected him are going to reap the (loss of) benefits of doing so.

(Thinks about a dry drunk and wonders about gambling)


[edit on 1/10/2005 by Cherish]



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Every nation has found it hard to pay for Social Security. You people are the same ones who complain constantly about America's defecit, yet refuse any cut backs in spending. It's just a fact at this point that Social Security needs to be cut back, or the entire program will collapse.

That's all really besides the point. I know this may be a shocker to all of you, but there's this thing called capitalism. It's kind of proven that it works best at handling problems. The private sector could handle this a whole lot better then the government. It also gives the people who earn the money the chance to use it as they see fit. I don't know. That sounds kind of like freedom to me.

Liberals are the first to whine when it comes to things like the Patriot Act (no different then policies enacted by liberals in the past), yet are the first to suggest taking away the economic freedom people enjoy.



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Every nation has found it hard to pay for Social Security. You people are the same ones who complain constantly about America's defecit, yet refuse any cut backs in spending. It's just a fact at this point that Social Security needs to be cut back, or the entire program will collapse.

That's all really besides the point. I know this may be a shocker to all of you, but there's this thing called capitalism. It's kind of proven that it works best at handling problems. The private sector could handle this a whole lot better then the government. It also gives the people who earn the money the chance to use it as they see fit. I don't know. That sounds kind of like freedom to me.

Liberals are the first to whine when it comes to things like the Patriot Act (no different then policies enacted by liberals in the past), yet are the first to suggest taking away the economic freedom people enjoy.



What planet are you living on? You say, "Liberals are the first to suggest taking away economic freedom", where do you derive that information?



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 11:17 PM
link   
The higher the taxes, the less economic freedom one has. Go take a look at the liberal governments all over, and what Democrats in America want to do. They require high taxes.

The people don't get to decide how they should spend their own money. Instead a bunch of politicians decide what's best for them.



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 11:51 PM
link   
All they need to do is increase the tax and prevent governemnt from "barrowing" money from the fund.

I has not kept up with inflation and will only get worse as the dollar drops.

But the real problem is Bush has surrounded himself with so many yes men that no one is sure how to do it without bankrupting the government.



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 07:06 AM
link   
To all: Do you feel more secure having the government take care of your money? For a group of people that are always saying how they don't trust the government, I find it ironic that when presented with the opportunity to manage SOME of your SS contributions, you shake in your boots.

For your information, this plan is not mandatory. You don't have to particpate in in if you don't want to. You can go ahead and let the government continue to make your decisions for you.


from Ycon

I wouldn't put anything past Bush. He will figure out some way to screw us out of our social security benefits. He will raise the age that you can start collecting and/or the amount you receive will be lowered.

FYI, many of these proposals have been on record for YEARS, including raising the retirement age and/or reducing benefits. Most proposals have come from your friends the Democrats.

from Cherish
Is investing our ss money in the stock market a good idea? Many of us alive today, probably most, were not alive during the stock market crash...what is preventing that from happening again? I don't believe that it can not happen again. If it does then all ss money will be lost.

The stock market is much different today, with many automatic safeguards designed in to prevent another Black Monday. But your statement "all ss money will be lost" is incorrect, because you can only invest a small portion of your SS contributions anyway. And remember, it is voluntary to participate.

Here's another point in favor of the proposal: you can pass your profits on to your heirs. You can't do that today.

If I would have been allowed to invest my SS contributions into a simple savings account when I started working, I would have been able to retire a millionaire. This is a step in the right direction.



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 07:14 AM
link   
What is Bushes social security plan?


Every poor person in the US has to give him half a months salary while he is inbetween jobs?

Or if Bush is short of cash he has the right to invade a house (or small defenceless country) and take what he needs?

Thats a great plan, worthy of an enlightened mind like his



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 07:17 AM
link   
Yes, you don't have to participate, but the deal is that with the "reform" the government is planning to keep you paying the amount of social security tax, but with a twist, when is time for you to pay, the government is cutting your social security earnings and will not match the cost of living like is doing now.

Where is that money going? the one that they took but you will know received, well supposedly is for the deficit.

Like I said this is your money and they are going to get you one way or another.

Bottom line, the government wants money and is going to get it out of you without increasing taxes but rather cutting to SS earnings at the end of your working years.



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 04:47 PM
link   

All they need to do is increase the tax and prevent governemnt from "barrowing" money from the fund.

I has not kept up with inflation and will only get worse as the dollar drops.

But the real problem is Bush has surrounded himself with so many yes men that no one is sure how to do it without bankrupting the government.


If it were that simple, nations like Canada and Germany wouldn't be struggling to afford their current social programs.

The taxes will just keep going up as a bigger and bigger pot is needed. This eventually leads to slow growth in the economy, and higher unemployment. This means you end up having to pay even more. It's always going to keep getting worse until it collapses.



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Disturbed deliverer, you remind me of my fat brother-in-law who is forever whinning the old republican mantra, " tax and spend Democrats," and goes out of his mind when cities like DC vote not to use taxpayer money to build sport stadiums.

There has never been an option to paying taxes, except of course for your good old capitalist corporate thieves. The republican party would just as soon they didn't pay any taxes. Maybe you should s--t in your front yard and save your sewage tax.



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Taxes can't be gotten rid of, but they can be minimalized. The private sector can handle many of the things the people turn to the government for far better.

What I'm saying is proven, not some rhetoric. Go take a look at all of the nations used as examples. They all have higher debts (compared to size of GDP) than America, high unemployment (about double), and lower standards of living.



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 05:48 PM
link   

First of all until this day the president has not yet to said how he is planning to pay for the inicial cost of his plan and how he is going to pay for it.


Ain't that the truth? Considering he's about to ask Congress for 100 billion more dollars for the war built on a lie, and he's gotten us into the biggest defecit in US history, one does have to wonder.....


Great president you re-elected folks!!!


(I say you, cause I sure as hell didn't vote for him...)

[edit on 11-1-2005 by Gazrok]



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 06:13 PM
link   
America's debt has bsaically always been going up. The claims that he's had given us the highest deficit ever is just ridiculous. Not to mention there were factors out of his control. Any president would have had to increase spending big time after 9/11. Not to mention that 9/11 was a huge hit to the economy, costing over a million jobs in just a single day.

And calling the war a lie is ridiculous. The intelligence agencies all around the world agreed with the CIA. To call it a lie would be absurd. Were the French agencies lying, too?



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join