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: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
they'll be able to reallocate funds into safer U.S. bond funds to insulate
themselves from any stock volatility right before retirement.


Right before retirement? How about stability well before retirement, which the current SS system allows for now? The reason is, if Bush has his way with SS and it is privatized, the investors will be able to do with your money as they see fit. The ease of private investors being able to scrape off the top will make Enron look like ticket fraud at Disney Land.




posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by TxSecret
....... WE ALREADY have private investment options.. Why privatize social security? ......


maybe because a persons ability to provide funds is not equal across
the Earnings spectrum, (executives, white collar, blue collar, service industry)

Also, many CorporateRetirement Funds which were tax-advantaged by those private companies
were then 'raided' during their 'merger-acquisition' transformations...
As a result, the Fed had to 'rescue' the working stiffs, providing
bailouts by the Federal PensionFund agency,
(at a fraction of the liability incurred by these companies/corperations)
which-of-course left the honest, small-guy-&-gals, paying taxes to recompense their never materialized, but 'promised' & supposedly secure? Company-Pension/Retirement Plan....

then again, this is just the 1st stage of a shake-up, transformation, of the old SS Sysyem.
The elites & upper executives, who play & manipulate the system of wealth&Income,,,although they don't need a SocialSecurityProgram-
-> Do Have To Appear to be a part of the common social-economic order and subject to the common tax burden of FICA. So, you can see, this is
a intricate Gordian-Knot situation, not likely to be resolved any time soon.







This link pretty much sums it all up:


www.new-enlightenment.com...


[edit on 30-4-2005 by TxSecret]


pretty good read,
thanks



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Good post St. Udio. I have to say I really feel sorry for all the bush backers. I mean you guys are buying into his ilk lock, stock and barrel. (Not to mention he's playing the religious right like the proverbial violin but wasn't that carl roves' "invention"?) This has nothing to do with me "bashing" anyone. I'm just calling things as I see it. To put you in perspective, I don't like to consider myself democrat either because I am pro-life and anti-abortion. You guys should consider me "independent". I'm deffinitely a democrat when it comes to fiscal responsibility however and I'm not EVER buying into this trickle down economic CRAP. Theres a reason for the social net and I'm not going to hold everyones hand as to why at this point. (Perhaps that's for another thread) But I will post a couple of excerpts from the link I mentioned earlier for all you folks (bush backers) who didn't read it.

"The impact of Social Security benefits on the lives of citizens and on local economies is incalculable. In 1995 Social Security paid $340 billion in benefits. Forty-two percent of American senior citizens are kept from living in poverty by their Social Security payments. Nearly one in five Americans receives Social Security benefits and ninety-five percent of Americans have the Social Security benefit protection program."

AND most inportantly:

American citizens need to remember President Franklin D. Roosevelt's reply when he was asked why he had set up Social Security as a worker contribution system: "We put those contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program." Unfortunately, FDR never conceived that a cabal such as is now in control of America would have the gall to LOOT Social Security for the benefit of the ruling PLUTOCRATS..



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 02:01 PM
link   
The conservatives explain that Bush wants to have a legacy. Something all second term Presidents do. Something positive to remember the President for the history books. The problem with Bush and his SS plan is that he has a credibility gap. People feel like they just can't trust him. Does anyone really believe that he woke up one day with a burning in his heart to help the American people with retirement, because he's just a nice guy? I think most people have a feeling he got woken up by a phone call from Wall Street. All politicians are crooked to a degree, so I'm not faulting Bush for being a little criminal. You have to be in order to get elected in this country, much less to be the President. That's just the way things work, it's a give and take. Sure, politicians put a little money in their pocket, but you are supposed to give some to the people too. I think Bush and his buddies are just getting a little to greedy. That has been the problem that marked his entire administration, hubris. If you want to make money, fine, but don't steal so much that it causes the American people death (his wars) or suffering (his Social Security plan).



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger
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?


Really?
Would those be the same fallacies that Clinton and Gore spoke of?
You need a tutorial on how many past demonrats, up to and including Bill Clinton, warned of looming Social Security crisis.

As for your grandmother, the national average for is $840 for approx. 47 million beneficiaries. Encouraging, huh? As for her having a retirement, please Kidfinger, enlighten us to the tens of millions who are not as fortunate as your grandmother and that have no retirement plan or benefits. Those same people who live from paycheck to paycheck and work 2-3 jobs.

Whether you wish to admit it or not, which Clinton, Gore, and now Bush have and are indicating, eventually there will need to be a bail-out of Social Security. You had better get onboard now and pay what it is going to take to "fix/correct" it or you can simply keep doing what your doing now [blowing it off/passing the buck] and let your kids or grandkids worry about it. You think the trillions that are being suggestively deemed required now are 'outrageous', just wait, cause for your kids or grandkids, the price tag will be far, far more.

But hey.....no biggie, right?
The Democrats know there is a problem, but the matter here is not one of simply wanting to not recognize it; its that they won't because of one person: Bush.
Btw, the Democrat's are suggesting exactly what to "fix" Social Security? Nada.
I'm sure of one thing though, when, and it will, this issue is brought up again in 2008+ by a Democrat, you'll be "onboard" then, won't ya?




seekerof

[edit on 30-4-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Seeker of.. Come on guy.. Gore and Clinton didn't mention 'privatization' did they? The spoke of 'overhauling" SS but no privatizing.. There IS a difference. I will NEVER be on board.. democrat or republican.. for "privatizing" SS.. Like I said earlier.. WE ALREADY HAVE PRIVATE INVESTMENT OPTIONS.. What part of that don't you guys understand? Social Security is just that...A SOCIAL program. ! It was meant to be a Social program. Saying you want to overhaul SS by "privatizing" it is moronic. Privatizing SS is effectively "getting rid" of it which republicans have been trying to do for 70+ years. Republicans just can't STAND social programs but put quite simply, we have to have them. Why? I'll start buy asking YOU guys this question.. Why do we have to have a social net???

And when you say:"eventually there will need to be a bail-out of Social Security. You had better get onboard now and pay what it is going to take to "fix/correct" it or you can simply keep doing what your doing now [blowing it off/passing the buck] and let your kids or grandkids worry about it"

I'm not buying in to that one bit. Didn't bush say something like this?

" Dubya has a long history of lying about Social Security. When he ran for Congress in 1978 he lied that unless people were given personal investment accounts Social Security would go broke by 1988!

(See: "Years Invested in Social Security Plan," Los Angeles Times, 1/30/05)"

1 % percent of the population controls 80% of the nations wealth. I think it's time we told that 1% to sit down, pay your taxes and shut up.. You wouldnt' be rich if it wasn't for the rest of the "cash flow society" I'm sick and tired of people wining about SS going bankrupt when there is plenty of money "out there" to fund it. If we can just keep this moronic, greedy 1% out of it it will be just fine.

Another site you should check out:

www.responsiblewealth.org...


[edit on 30-4-2005 by TxSecret]



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Here we go agian




Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by Kidfinger
Bush is using logical falacies 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?


Really?


Yes, really.


Would those be the same fallacies that Clinton and Gore spoke of?


Are we speaking of either of those people?



Those same people who live from paycheck to paycheck and work 2-3 jobs.


I AM one of those people. I realize that it is NOT the governments place to provide me with a complete retirment package when I retire. I will have done other economic investments by then which will help with my retirement. The money I am giving to SS comes back to me in the form of a little help when I will probably need it most. I am glad it is there and I would not have it changed just because some of Bushes cronies have found a way to get rich of another government/corprate scam.



you can simply keep doing what your doing now [blowing it off/passing the buck] and let your kids or grandkids worry about it. You think the trillions that are being suggestively deemed required now are 'outrageous', just wait, cause for your kids or grandkids, the price tag will be far, far more.


Looks like Bush isnt the only one using logical falacies.




Btw, the Democrat's are suggesting exactly what to "fix" Social Security? Nada.


Democrat's are not putting anything on the table because there is nothing to fix.



I'm sure of one thing though, when, and it will, this issue is brought up again in 2008+ by a Democrat, you'll be "onboard" then, won't ya?

seekerof

[edit on 30-4-2005 by Seekerof]


No, I will not be on board then either. Nor do I think will my fellow Democrates running for office. If they do have a change of mind on the subject it will still not influence my position. SS isnt broken. Get your hands off please.



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 09:16 PM
link   
God neocons are disgusting. When ever they encounter the truth they say it doesnt matter because Clintion didnt do anything about it so its automatically his fault. You people are the masters when it comes to passing the buck!

Another thing this latest move by Bush was masterful. Setting up a system that purports to keep full benefits for the poor but increasingly cuts back on benefits the more money you make is genius. Not only does it create an impetus for people to abandon social security for private accounts it makes it seem as if this scheme is actually a progressive plan. They can say that because the democrats are against Bush's plan they're the ones who are anti poor not the republicans. I am awed by their conniving political machinations. These people are devious.



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 10:24 PM
link   
What Bush is really doing is wanting to cut SS because he blew a fortune on a bogus war and he has no idea how to pay for it. You can cut SS when you stop spending $300 billion foolishly.



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Wow, so, say I put a hundred dollars under the mattress, well, some where else, not much room with my porn mags and dvds. Ok, I put 100 dollars into a shoe box every two weeks. Now, according to Bush's plan the government is going to come into my house, beat me into a coma, then give me a penny for every thousand dollars I have saved up. Gee, thanks.

And as someone said, how do you put more water in a pool by taking it out???? Doesn't make sense.

Now, if say he stopped invading countries for oil and put that money into SS, no problem. When the baby boomers are gone, the influx of people will be gone.

Also, what is there to fix? Why do you think it is going bankrupt? Because Bush said so? he also said Iraq had WMDs, was connected to 9/11, and was a threat to the US, all 3 were wrong.



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 11:17 PM
link   
Keep talking fella's:
Social Security's Financial Crisis

The archives go all the way back to 1979.
No problem? Does not require a "fix"? Does not require reform?
Might want to read what they were saying about it in 1979...

If privatization is a problem for you folks then thats fine, but to deny that Social Security is not in need of a "fix" or reform is dangerous. But again, no biggie right? I'm guaranteed my SS benefits. I guess that leaves my children and grandchildren the ones holding the bag and paying the price for a future "fix" or reform, huh?




seekerof



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
I guess that leaves my children and grandchildren the ones holding the bag and paying the price for a future "fix" or reform, huh?


Just checking the post before I hit the sack. Seekerof, your children and their childen, and their childrens children will be fine. They will have their benifits as well, providing Bush doesnt get us all killed first. As I explained before, Bush's call for privatization stems from the baby boomers collecting more than what is going in. The fact is, famillies are much smaller now than 20 or 30 years ago. Once this latest generation of population swell has passed, the drain on SS will fall and the order of SS will be restored. I only wish the best for your family and their following generations. I hope their is something for them to help them through what can be a time of economic occlusion. As long as Bush can keep his fingers out of the pot, even you great great grand children will be recieving benifits. That really is a good thing.



posted on May, 1 2005 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Just get rid of Social Security. TX go get a job work hard and save up for your retirement. Leave my money that I worked for to me. K thanks.

I dont care if lazy useless people rot starve and die. Its not my job to work for you or anyone else security or poverty. Sure I can help disbaled people no problem there. But if your lazy or just an utter moron whom didnt work hard and was not smart enough to save for your old age the good ridance. Ill be on my boat not worrying about you starving to death because you were to stupid to work hard and save.

I am not saying the american hard workers can help people in certain circumstances but to help idots and lazy people is not why I am working hard right now to ensure me and my faimily continue to live a good life till its end.

If you dont want to get smart and work hard then see ya in the next life. Maybe you will be smarter there.

Not my job to support you or anyone with money I worked hard to get unless I chose to do so. In a free society I should not be forced to work for others.

Its legalized stealing is what it is.


X



posted on May, 1 2005 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Oh boy.. ANOTHER sad knee jerk response from another narrow minded hard line conservative.

You still have not answered my questions.. Why do we HAVE to have a social net? And do you really know what social security really is? (I'll give you one hint, it's not for "lazy useless people".. It was never meant for that so to say that is ignorant. Why don't you silly conservatives just get rid of ALL social programs and then see what happens.

SS is also not legalized stealing,you have as much right to the money in SS as anyone else contributing to it. (At this point at least)

Stop being a moron and do your homework. I'm not going to lecture you at this point but I will point you to one source that will help you understand why SS was set up in the first place. Maybe once you understand this your bad case of "narrow minditis" will improve.

www.ssa.gov...



posted on May, 1 2005 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by TxSecret
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)


Exactly! He's trying to open it up so the new middle man (his cronies) will profit. It's as simple as that. Currently, there is NO middleman. It is pure T BU#! DO NOT FALL FOR IT, America!



posted on May, 1 2005 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Originally posted by TxSecret
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)


Exactly! He's trying to open it up so the new middle man (his cronies) will profit. It's as simple as that. Currently, there is NO middleman. It is pure T BU#! DO NOT FALL FOR IT, America!


The only thing simple in all this is Democrats don't want people to have power over THEIR money. Under this plan If you don't want to invest in the market, you don't have to. Once again...simple.



posted on May, 1 2005 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Carseller4


The only thing simple in all this is Democrats don't want people to have power over THEIR money. Under this plan If you don't want to invest in the market, you don't have to. Once again...simple.


Better read the plan agian carseller. Bush wants to keep taking money out of your check and put it in another fund. Money will still be withheld from your income. You will just be able to choose one or more of a few companies that all happen to be contributors to the administration. Can anyone say conflict of intrest?



posted on May, 1 2005 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger

Originally posted by Carseller4


The only thing simple in all this is Democrats don't want people to have power over THEIR money. Under this plan If you don't want to invest in the market, you don't have to. Once again...simple.


Better read the plan agian carseller. Bush wants to keep taking money out of your check and put it in another fund. Money will still be withheld from your income. You will just be able to choose one or more of a few companies that all happen to be contributors to the administration. Can anyone say conflict of intrest?


Wrong! If you choose not to participate, nothing will change from the current system.

www.whitehouse.gov...

As we fix Social Security, we must make it a better deal for our younger workers by allowing them to put part of their payroll taxes in personal retirement accounts.


Personal accounts would be entirely voluntary.
The money would go into a conservative mix of bond and stock funds that would have the opportunity to earn a higher rate of return than anything the current system could provide.
A young person who earns an average of $35,000 a year over his or her career would have nearly a quarter million dollars saved in his or her own account upon retirement.
That savings would provide a nest egg to supplement that worker’s traditional Social Security check, or to pass on to his or her children.
Best of all, it would replace the empty promises of the current system with real assets of ownership.


If you think it is a bad idea...don't participate. Let the government continue ripping you off!

No wonder this plan is getting a bad rap. I would have considered Kidfinger up to date on current events, but I guess not.

[edit on 1-5-2005 by Carseller4]



posted on May, 1 2005 @ 09:24 PM
link   


Wrong! If you choose not to participate, nothing will change from the current system.

No your wrong and if you cant see that your blinded by your zealotry and are quite frankly a traitor to what America stands for in my opinion.
Its common sense there is a finite amount of money being put into social security. Meaning in other words we're not pulling money out of a hat and putting it into the communal fund. The problem, according to the commonly accepted sources is that due to the Baby Boom more people will be collecting money then will be putting in. Its a problem of proportion. Not enough money is being put in.

By creating this sliding benefits plan Bush has created an incentive for people to flee social security if you dont get full benefits then whats the point of participating when you have other options right? So the upper middle class and the rich will take advantage of the private accounts option anddrain their money from Social Security. How does draining money out add money to the program?! yes less people will be using the program but by extension that also means less money is being put in. Proportionally nothing changes and nothing is being fixed!! I mean its basic math two thirds is the same as four sixths. God am I missing something here is there some advanced economical theory I'm missing here or are we all being had?!

Please stop talking about "my money" and how I should be "free" to do what I want with it. Your not talking about economic freedom for me your talking about economic freedom for you. Your talking about me giving you my money so you can make a profit off of it and maybe Ill make a profit too. Your talking about creating a situation that forces me to abandon my government program for your privately run program. I mean thats what your doing by decreasing the amount of money I get from the government you artificially make your program more enticing. It's like opening a lemonade stand then urinating in my water bottle forcing me to by your product saying that I "choose" to buy your product and that I was free to keep on drinking my contaminated water.

There used to be a rant here but I deleted to try to maintain a friendly atmosphere. It would be a shame for this thread to degenerate into a slug fest between Capitalists and anti-capitalist ATS forces. Lets just say I dont think very highly of you Capitalist profiteers. Use your imagination......



posted on May, 1 2005 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Boogyman, Its nice to see someone who can see behind the curtain of this administration. You get my way above for that one.



You have voted boogyman for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.



[edit on 5/1/05 by Kidfinger]




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join