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.

 

Bush's desperate attempt to ditch social security:

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 01:25 AM
link   
I really don't like bush very much but now that hes trying to ditch social security. (Or really just open it up for all his industrie/stock market crony friends) I'm really ticked off. Hasnt' this man done enough damage? One question you guys really need ask yourselves. WE ALREADY have private investment options.. Why privatize social security? OH, it's going bankrupt.. (oh PUHLEEZE) Bush is such a moronic puppet whose strings are being pulled by the top feeders who want even more money from the bottom. Why can't he just come out and say that he want's to get rid of yet another social program so more money can go to the top. In fact, republicans have just been like desperate little roaches when it comes to social security. This link pretty much sums it all up:


www.new-enlightenment.com...


[edit on 30-4-2005 by TxSecret]




posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 06:24 AM
link   
The Monkey should not even open his mouth, he has no real plan to fix social security, just empty words, and his attempted "fix" will cost billions of dollars.

If there are "billions" of dollars to "fix" something that isn't broke, why not just give
all that money back to everyone instead of stealing it out of each and every pay check?



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 07:00 AM
link   
How is it not broken?....Too many people depend on SS when its just supposed to be a suplement after retirement...Bush's plan makes its more like a 401k system...I dont understand why people wouldnt want to be in control of where they invest their money...whats wrong with that?...You'd all rather the govt hold your money....collect interest on it...while you still get the same fixed crappy amount upon retirement?...Or are you saying the typical American is stupid and doesnt know how to invest (or cant tell the difference between a conservative or aggresive fund)?...Just admit it...youre anti-Bush...and will argue anything he supports...



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 07:00 AM
link   
didn't he fix medicare last year, costs were way above what they told us, and then well, it chopped a few years off the life expectancy of that program?



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 07:30 AM
link   
Social Security is a joke. Private accounts are a great idea for many people. Don't want to invest in private accounts? Guess what? You don't have to.

Democrats obviously don't like the idea, because you are taking control from the government, and giving it to the people.

The AARP hates the idea also, even though the organization itself has millions of dollars, from member dues in the stock market.

People using their own money, forcibly taken from them, to better their retirement, and the AARP and Democrats are against this? Go figure.



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 07:33 AM
link   
Bush is trying to save Social Security by making it a workable plan that leads to long-term savings and asset growth. The current system is nothing more than a glorified pyramid scheme which would be illegal if it wasn't run by the government.



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 07:40 AM
link   
I guess Democrats think that getting $220 a month is a liveable wage to retire on....



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 07:41 AM
link   
Social security is NOT 'broken' and it does not need Bush to fix it. THe fact is, Bush is using the baby boomer population as an index to what the future population will be. The problem Democrates have with this is the baby boomer population is a swell in our population that will soon shrink drastically in size. American citizens are having less children. Gone are the families of 8 to 15 siblings. Most families now have 2 or three children at the most. The demand for SS will drastically drop over the next 20 years due to the drop in child birth.

Bush is using logical falicies to promote a plan that does nothing more than make his 'investors' rich. Besides, Bush couldnt fix a broken model even if it was a snap together model. Why in the hell does anyone actually think he could fix Social Security?



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 07:44 AM
link   
Even if you are correct and the population will some how drop...wouldnt you want to be in control of your own money?



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by BasementAddix
Even if you are correct and the population will some how drop...wouldnt you want to be in control of your own money?


I am fine with Social Security in the current form. I look at my SS tax as a secure investment that while not intrest inducing, will still be there for the supplement that I will need.

Someone said They guess Democrates are OK with $233 a month. That is another myth. My grandmother collects SS and she gets around $900 a month. That is a nice little supplement to go with her retirement plan from Brown Forman.



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 07:51 AM
link   
But by letting us control how our SS is doled out...we could have 1) that nice little supplement by putting SS in conservative funds....or 2) have more then a supplement by doing some decent investments over 30 years...atleast we'd have that option...which we dont now...



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Bush is trying to save Social Security by making it a workable plan that leads to long-term savings and asset growth. The current system is nothing more than a glorified pyramid scheme which would be illegal if it wasn't run by the government.


What is had become is just another tax used to help keep the government spending, and spending, and spending!!! A tax presented to the american people with a false promise.
a crutch for the spendthrifts of congress to use to hobble our country along just a few more decades! and then, even that wasn't enough!!! They had to borrow more!!!
Any changes to social security should include provisions that forces our government to start walking on it's own, without those crutches! as welll as measures designed to increase the pay scale at the lower end, since hey, chances are that two parents, working at jobs paying $7 bucks and hours are more than likely going to end up on some kind of social service program or another and their's a significant percentage of the population that is on one of these programs. It's rediculous to think that people who don't even earn enough to live will be able to save for anything?? And, then when people do save, they should have the choice as to who or what they should be investing in, not have it so that you can invest in this small group of options here, that were probably chosen as to who was the highest bidder to the RNC campaign piggy bank!



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by BasementAddix
But by letting us control how our SS is doled out...we could have 1) that nice little supplement by putting SS in conservative funds....or 2) have more then a supplement by doing some decent investments over 30 years...atleast we'd have that option...which we dont now...


Nor have we ever had that option. Why is it that no one cared about those options untill Bush said Social Security was 'broken'? Social Security was fine untill the day that Bush attacked it.


If he gets his way and 'fixes' it, I sure hope he does a better job than fixing Iraq, or Osama BL. Lord knows how well those got fixed.



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
What is had become is just another tax used to help keep the government spending, and spending, and spending!!! A tax presented to the american people with a false promise.
a crutch for the spendthrifts of congress to use to hobble our country along just a few more decades! and then, even that wasn't enough!!! They had to borrow more!!!


This is exactly what personal accounts do. By placing the money into individual trusts owned by the contributer, the government can no longer use it as a slush-fund.



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 08:21 AM
link   
"they should have the choice as to who or what they should be investing in, not have it so that you can invest in this small group of options here, that were probably chosen as to who was the highest bidder to the RNC campaign piggy bank!"

maybe they changed this part of it...but, ya know, the way bush is making those iou's that the Social Security trust fund soun worthless, I don't think I want to invest in that. and well, the way the corporate tax accountants, ceo's, and uppermanagement schemed their books in order to inflate the values of their stocks (alot of their pay was in stock options), well, I don't trust them either! alot of reitrement accounts lost money last time the market dove which only adds to the problem we are discussing now. ya, see, alot of people already saved, they about got wiped out by greedy ceo's and such!

Maybe, I think the best I can do is invest in realestate, buy a large track of land, throw up a few houses, and either rent them out or maybe let my kids live in them in exchange for them helping me out in my old age? I've had dreams that I was walking down the street, and well, passing houses with for sale signs on them, priced rediculously low, although they were all empty, so, well, one look at the housing bubble kind of tells me that if one has a little money to invest, well, realestate might be a good deal real soon.....at least enough to provide yourself and a few other families homes to live in. at least then you don't have to worry about having a roof over your head.

besides they'll still be taking over 50% of the money you are now contributing and still having their slush fund, won't they? They'll still be borrowing out the butt to do whatever it is they do with the m oney, won't they.... they'll still have close to 50% of the population that needs money added to their income each month just to get by won't they? If you drop the safety net on them, won't that force the businesses to increase their wages, or watch their employees starve, or go homeless, or whatever.....what will that do to the stock values??
seems to me, the only assett that is sure to retain it's value is land, since when the house of cards finally collaspes, no one can kick you off of the land you own, you can use it to grow a garden and raise chickens whatever, and gee, trade the excess eggs, or firewood for blankets or whatever you might need to life.....



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 08:36 AM
link   
There's a huge danger in allowing people to control their own social security funds. For every person that successfully invests their funds there could be 3 or 4 that will make bad investments, or even get scammed out of their money. Do we let those people starve in the streets? No, we have to feed and house them from a fund that's already been raided and won't have the resources anymore.

If there's a stockmarket crash (that never happens right?), it might be only 1 in 10 that can still support themselves. What happens then?

There's a reason it's called social security.



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 08:41 AM
link   
It's not like people will be investing in Internet stocks, junk bonds or commodity futures. They'll have a choice of several broad based equity and bond funds that are appropriate for a conservative retirement fund. As people get closer to retirement, they'll be able to reallocate funds into safer U.S. bond funds to insulate themselves from any stock volatility right before retirement.



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Who's going to manage those funds? Did they have Enron and WorldCom in their portfolios? Bet they did..



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Who's going to manage those funds? Did they have Enron and WorldCom in their portfolios? Bet they did..


I don't think these stocks were ever exactly considered blue chip, but even if they were in such funds, they would have been a very small part of the total portfolio and not have had a serious effect on the fund's value.



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Besides there's one thing no has ever bothered to explain. Bush says that SS is in danger because proportionally less people are putting money into SS for every person taking money out. How exactly do private accounts solve that? How does putting less money into SS make it more financially solvent? I mean look at it this way SS is a pool how to does taking water out of the pool add water to the pool? It seems like Bush is doing nothing to fix SS and everything to create a new investment area for the rich. Doesnt any one else get suspicious when people say "its your money!" and then go on to say that since its my money I should have the "freedom" to invest it in their enterprises. Yeah its my money but it seems like you want to make it your!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join