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: Personal Accounts Tank in Polls, GOP Says

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Personal accounts are falling in polls according to Republican pollsters. The personal accounts which are the centerpiece of President Bush's plan to revise Social Security would place some of the money in private accounts and have less government benefits. The pollsters also expressed the political pitfalls in pursuing the President agenda on Social Security.
 



story.news.yahoo.com
WASHINGTON - The heart of President Bush's plan for Social Security, allowing younger workers to create personal accounts in exchange for a lower guaranteed government benefit, is among the least popular elements with the public, Republican pollsters told House GOP leaders Tuesday.

The pollsters also stressed the political stakes involved in pursuing Bush's plan to overhaul the Depression-era program, according to a memo circulated at a session in the Capitol.

Older voters consider a candidate's views on Social Security to be "as important, or in some cases, more important than issues like the war, health care and education," they wrote.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Kudos to Boxer, Pilosi and the rest of the misinformation Democrats for muddying up the waters enough to kill any chance of reform. The Republican members of congress will cover thier butts if they think they cannot get elected. Well when the system goes into the tank and people like me get short changed in thier benefits I can think warm an cozy thoughts about Boxer and Pilosi :shk:. Fixing the system now is going to be alot cheaper than fixing it later.

[edit on 3/8/05 by FredT]




posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 11:26 PM
link   
It's amazing how the Democrats can try and deny problems with the Social Security plan when they themselves were trying to reform it just years before...



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 11:30 PM
link   
While Bush was fiddling in Europe, the Dems were trying to burn down any hopes of saving Social Security here in the United States. Hopefully he will be able to turn the tide with his aggressive schedule of campaigning for reform in the coming weeks.



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
It's amazing how the Democrats can try and deny problems with the Social Security plan when they themselves were trying to reform it just years before...


Exactly, where are the Democratic party defenders? Really now, some of them are saying "what problem" :shk: a lame duck president was the best shot to change things from a realistic standpoint, It will be years untill such an oppurtunity changed. Even in the worst case scenario, the Bush plan would short benifits by a small amount, have more if the stock market stick to historical averages.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 12:09 AM
link   
Yes that is a great point. Aren't politics awesome? It doesn't matter what the solution is as long as you can either: A. Get it passed somehow; or B. Keep the other side from doing so.

And you all thought that electing Kerry would have caused grid-lock.

When nothing can get done when a party controls the House of Representatives, the Senate and the White House; something is wrong.

Vote 3rd party.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Come up with a better way to save it, and I'll support it.

This plan is a 2 trillion dollar Wall Street windfall, under the guise of social security reform, that doesn't factor in fluctuations and irregularities in the long term stock market. How many pension scandals do we have to witness, before we just take them out of the equation?

You have 50 to 70 years to come up with a new plan, because this one is toast.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 12:12 AM
link   


This plan is a 2 trillion dollar Wall Street windfall


Uhh it is???


False Attacks Over "Windfalls" to Wallstreet



New information turned up by FactCheck.org shows that the type of private Social Security accounts being proposed by President Bush would yield very little profit to the securities industry, contrary to persistent claims of a potentially huge "windfall" to Wall Street.

What we have discovered is that the model for Bush's accounts -- the Federal Thrift Savings Plan for federal workers -- actually paid securities firms a net total of only 16 cents for every $10,000 in workers accounts. The TSP had refused to make that information public -- until now. It shows that fees actually being paid to Wall Street are hundreds of times smaller than some critics had assumed.

For that reason and others we find that ads run in Louisiana by the liberal Democratic group Campaign for America's Future are grossly misleading. The group is accusing Republican Rep. James McCrery, who is chairman of the Social Security subcommittee and a supporter of Bush's private accounts, of "corruption" for accepting campaign donations from Wall Street, which it falsely claims will "profit most" from private accounts.

How is 16 cents for every 10 grand a "Windfall"??



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 12:16 AM
link   
I fail to see why people shouldn't be allowed to plan for their retirement the way they see fit. They work their entire lives for it, why shouldn't they call the shots?

What Bush is suggesting is the best way. Hate to tell people this, but privatization is inevitable.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000

How is 16 cents for every 10 grand a "Windfall"??


That's IF Bush sticks with the Federal Thrift Savings Plan. If investors are allowed to choose their investment funds, then Wall Street will see record profits.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by brimstone735

Originally posted by sardion2000

How is 16 cents for every 10 grand a "Windfall"??


That's IF Bush sticks with the Federal Thrift Savings Plan. If investors are allowed to choose their investment funds, then Wall Street will see record profits.


So you're assuming that bush is not going to stay with his Thrift Savings Plan and attacking based on that?
Being a be premature aren't we? Let's wait to see the final legislation and then make judgements. He has almost no say what goes on in Congress or the Senate, if it gets changed well everyone will either blame the Democrats or Bush thus obscuring the issue...



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 11:20 AM
link   
I just hate it when I am made responsible for more of MY OWN MONEY.

I'll be honest and admit that I don't know all the ins and outs of the idea.
I don't think anyone does yet.

But it sounds very similar to a 401k. Take a small percentage of your SS money, and put it into a basic investment portfolio..The other larger percentage goes into the SS plan, is this correct?



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
I fail to see why people shouldn't be allowed to plan for their retirement the way they see fit. They work their entire lives for it, why shouldn't they call the shots?


I can tell you exactly why. There is a concept of "risk tolerance" in the investment science. If you are an aggressive investor, you tolerance is high, the higher the reward and the higher the risk.

Furthermore, I can tell you why the risk tolerance of the Social Security should exactly zero. That's because it's the nestest of the nest eggs, the stuff you'll you use when you are old and unable to get any other source of income to buy neccesities.

The privatization plan is akin to providing free buses to the would-be retirees to go to Vegas and handing out a part of their SS account, keeping the other part to yourself and in the process encouraging them to gamble.




What Bush is suggesting is the best way. Hate to tell people this, but privatization is inevitable.


This is a plot which will be disasterous for everyone. I do hope it fails.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 12:33 PM
link   
There are better ways of solving the problem without cutting benifits (which the Bush plan does) and does not create debt (which the Bush plan does)

Raising the age the benifit starts by a couple of years, and raising the tax by a small percentage.

Another thing is the old plan has GARUNTEED return, based on treasury bonds, which may not make a huge return in venstment, but you will know for sure it is there when you need it. WItht he Private accounts you ahve no such security or garuntee.

What is interesting is the social secuirty plan is failed to start, and Bush hasn't even figured out all the details. Now that public opinion is firmly against it, Democrats are now being blamed. Seems to me the GOP are sore losers

let me use a phrase you have been using in regards to the last election

GET OVER IT



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 12:45 PM
link   
factcheck.org...

Check out this article.

For a bit of balance check out this article that is critical of the bush position...

factcheck.org...

[edit on 9-3-2005 by sardion2000]



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Thanks for the link, looked at both.

I like wage indexing better than inflation indexing. The latter does not, imho, reflect the real price growth. And... if you don't believe me, check the
recent gas price history, and that of other things.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 12:56 PM
link   
I think one of the reasons that his plan for social security is going to fail is that he can't tie it to 9/11. I mean, if he doesn't have a scary spectre like terrorism, what has he got? Who is he? Without the ability the villanize dissent like before, people are able to have a more critical eye, and see his plan for what is really is.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 01:00 PM
link   
The cutting on benefit is what is not working, the reform will work for the younger generation, but the administration needs the money "now" So he is targeting the hardest group to sell the deal the 40 to 55 age group, we are the ones that already have money into the Social Security, and not enough time to build a retirement fund from Social Security.

That is the problem we are not biting into it.

If the administration only target younger generation until 40 to do the cuts and leave the over 40 with just a choice I will be all for it.

But reality strike is us the ones he is going to screw up because we have money in the pot.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

If the administration only target younger generation until 40 to do the cuts and leave the over 40 with just a choice I will be all for it.

But reality strike is us the ones he is going to screw up because we have money in the pot.


Right on the money, Marg


No pun


He's already screwed us up big time and he just won't let up.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 01:07 PM
link   

I can tell you exactly why. There is a concept of "risk tolerance" in the investment science. If you are an aggressive investor, you tolerance is high, the higher the reward and the higher the risk.


It is THEIR money. Why are you telling them what to do with it? If they want to take risks, they can. They're not hurting anyone but themselves. It's their choice. You can't tell adults what to do with their lives.


This is a plot which will be disasterous for everyone. I do hope it fails.


It's funny. The guy who made the plan, Roosevelt, didn't think privatization was a bad idea, but a necessity.


Raising the age the benifit starts by a couple of years, and raising the tax by a small percentage.


And then you just keep going down this cycle, and the problem only gets worse and worse, and other things start to suffer because of it. We've already seen this in Europe.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer

I can tell you exactly why. There is a concept of "risk tolerance" in the investment science. If you are an aggressive investor, you tolerance is high, the higher the reward and the higher the risk.


It is THEIR money. Why are you telling them what to do with it? If they want to take risks, they can. They're not hurting anyone but themselves. It's their choice. You can't tell adults what to do with their lives.


What planet are you from? You have to pay the federal tax, right? But that's your money, right? And why aren't you allowed to use drugs? It's your life, after all.

If you drive a car, you MUST get insured against liability. Just in case. Of course, by your logic, this is wrong -- you take a gamble with your nest egg if you are sued for damages, so why and who cares?

If you are a contractor, you typically are obliged to take out an insurance as well in case something goes wrong. It's not good enough if you promise to have some money in the bank to cover unexpected loss.

Not having the ultimate safety net will mean that a fraction of the population will be destitute. This we can't allow to happen.

There are how many people w/o medical insurance in this country? One example what happens when things in essential services go private. Now, if you don't have that insurance and your wife has a kidney problem (hopefully curable), what the heck do you do. Many working people cannot afford it.

Ahh..



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join