Republican congressional leaders are now telling President Bush that it’s time to find an escape route for his unpopular plan to partially privatize Social Security, The Washington Post reported in this article.
But Bush has stubbornly insisted on ignoring public opinion all along on the issue of Social Security. If the 62 percent of Americans who disapprove of the way he’s handling the issue couldn’t convince him to change course, I doubt a handful of lawmakers will shake him.
Posted by Melissa Cooley
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
- Blaidd_Drwg69 on Too many exemptions
- sursum on Open thread 11/23
- Raptor on Too many exemptions
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- Blaidd_Drwg69 on Too many exemptions
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
21 Comments
Gee – wonder where we would be if we had followed Al Gore’s advise and put that excess we used to have in that “lock box” ?
Somebody Please tell me why so many people have high regards for Bush?
This guy makes me uneasy about the American future.
I have high regards for George Bush because he exhibits leadership. He doesn’t worry about focus groups or poll numbers, but instead follows the course of action he believes to be correct. What makes me uneasy about the future of America is the fact that so many are always content to take the path of least resistance. An example of that is the sell out to Casino dollars for increased education funding.
I’m so wishing for a portion of Social Security to be privitize. The liberals have scared the social security reciepents into a dooms day scenario, if Congress allows for a volunteered privitized percentage of SS, but for the young workforce, we are hoping for it! I just wish more young people were involved in politics to counter the the political force of the retirees.
You know, Joe, nobody’s stopping you from investing your own money in the stock market right now.
The Dow Jones stood at a historic high of 11,060 in June of 2001, five months after W. took office. It now stands, four years later, at about 10,500.
So if you like losing money after investing for FOUR YEARS, then by all means, privatize SS under a Republican president and Congress.
As for me, I like the “security” part of social security.
I’m alreadying investing in the stock market, and have a 401(K)’s in there also. If I get the chance for a portion of SS too, I will take the chance.
You might like the “security” but I’m not going to eat cat food or live the last 20 years of my life in an assistant living facility. If you are relying on SS as your retirement, you will be a very poor person. SS is a retire supplement, not a full program.
Ask current retirees what they get from SS now! Might motivate you to be responsible with your own retirement, instead of the government program!
Right, I too am invested in 401k’s, and they really stink, don’t they? That’s what 5 years of W. and his Republican Congress have given America, a net LOSS in the Dow of about 5 percent over four years.
The NASDAQ is down an astonishing 60 percent from its high.
SS is intended to replace about 40 percent of a person’s working income. It has done this well for decades. One in five Americans rely on SS alone for retirement.
Bush’s plan will gut SS and massively cut benefits while enriching Wall Street firms at taxpayer expense.
Other than that, it’s a great idea.
Here is what Clinton said about Social Security:
“Trust Fund balances are available to finance future benefits…but only in a bookkeeping sense…they do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes or borrowing.” — President Bill Clinton in his Analytical Perspectives section of the 2000 budget.
Paul O’Neill, the one of the left’s favorite insiders, because he once mentioned that the government had contingency plans to deal with Saddam even before 9/11 (which ought to be seen as a good thing), has said: “We have no assets in the Social Security Trust Fund.”
For more of O’Neill’s remarks on the subject, see: http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/po494.htm
The private SS accounts idea is one of the best in recent years. There is nothing that says you have to invest in risky securities. There are high grade bond funds that outperform SS by a huge margin. Even ordinary CDs do that, too. None of the high rated bond funds I’ve seen lost money in the past five years.
Sure, some stocks tanked after 9/11, especially airlines and all the grossly overpriced junk in the NASDAQ. Of course it’s down 60%. Clinton did nothing to constrain the wildly irrational internet and technology stocks bubble.
There’s an old saying in the market — “Little piggies get to go back to the trough, but the hogs get slaughtered.” I learned this the hard way. NASDAQ investors have now learned it, too. Twister, you might see if this saying applies to the choices you made in your 401K.
My 401K went down, too, for a while. But now it’s as high as it ever was and still growing; but I’m in conservative stock funds. People should expect fluctuations and exercise patience as the market heaves and sighs. It’s the long run that counts; and in the long run, the market always wins. You have to look at ten years, not four.
One more point: down markets are your best buying opportunity. A young investor should be thrilled to see the market tank in his first few years of investing. If the market is flying high, you’re paying top dollar for stocks. It’s the down market that provides bargains. Smart investors buy stocks or stock funds to hold when prices are down. They don’t buy for the short term. Frequent traders just make money for their brokers. It matters not one bit that the market is down while you are still investing. You actually want it to be down while you invest , and to rise just as you retire.
For SS, it has been proposed that the private accounts should be limited to bonds, bond funds, or other highly conservative investments. This would be appropriate, because it would keep unsophisticated investors from getting fleeced, and it removes any concern that people may not get their full SS “entitlement.”
I can’t see any reason to be against the kind of ideas being advanced by Bush and O’Neill. The cost of doing nothing will be higher every year, and the democrats know it.
Okay, you really drank deeply of the kool-aide, Ms. Ireland, and I respect your ability to repeat the administration’s talking points (even better than Bush can say them actually).
1. The cheap shot blaming CLINTON for the run up in the NASDAQ is really unwarrented. Can you imagine the hue-and-cry if Clinton had tried to do anything about it (which he had no legal authority to do)? You free-traders would have been furious: “big bureaucratic federal gov’t trying to protect people from themselves, interfering with the hand of the marketplace” etc. etc. This is a good example of Clinton getting damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t.
No, the NASDAQ debacle is exactly what it was, the free market system operating exactly as it does, enriching the insiders and screwing the little guy.
2. SS is not in crisis or going bankrupt. Well it is, but in the same way that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction, only in the fevered imagination of what Bush wants. The models that the Bushistas use to show a crisis show the economy growing by only 1.2 percent over forty years. Historically, it grows by 4-5 percent annually. If the economy really grows as slowly as the Bush people pretend that it will, SS will be the least of our problems–there will be massive unemployment, inflation, and investment meltdowns.
3. Privatizing SS will not “save” it. Even the Bush people have admitted this. They continually IMPLY that privatization will help (just like they imply that Iraq had something to do with 9-11), but when pressed on the issue, they admit that privatizing SS will in no way improve the funding shortfall. I can give you links if you want, but take my word for it, it’s true.
4. The facts–one fourth of the massive tax breaks that Bush gave the few richest people, like himself and Dick Cheney, in this country would have funded any real projected shortfall in SS for infinity.
Right now, only earnings up to 90,000 can be taxed for SS. That means if you make 36 million like VP Dick did working for Halliburton one year, 35 million 9 hundred and ten thousand dollars WEREN’T TAXED.
Just raising the cap to 200,000 would fully fund any projected shortfall for infinity, even using Bush’s bogus numbers.
*****
But I don’t blame the right-wingers for trying to destroy SS. It is a program that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that big government programs can make the average person’s life better; that’s why it’s the most popular government program ever created.
It virtually eradicated poverty among the elderly, despite the fact that three out of five rely mostly on SS for their income.
To people who refuse to feel any responsibility for helping their fellow citizens, it must be killed.
Twister,
I’ll respond if you manage to quote me precisely, stay on subject, skip the silly polemics, and get your information both correct and organized. I don’t respond to irresponsible, adolescent, semi-literate, loony left meltdowns.
PS: You should never argue with a lady.
Heh, nice “ad hominem,” but that’s what the right-wing does best, isn’t it?
Witness the Swift Boat attacks on John Kerry.
Twister, you started it by referring to Ireland as “Ms.” That was not just an assumption on your part, it was clearly your pathetic attempt to diminish him by calling him a girl. That tells us a whole lot about your biases and juvenile thinking. Ireland was right to say what he did to you. His referring to your rant as silly, irresponsible, adolescent, and all the rest was actually very kind. You misstated his points and peppered the rest of your rant with random, unhinged nonsense.
His remarks were ad hominem because you didn’t give him anything else to work with.
I thought E. Ireland was female from another post he/she posted. I regret the error. Most post was in no way meant to be insulting.
But, look, it just comes down to whom do you trust, Franklin D. Rooseveldt or George W. Bush?
Who has a record of making decisions that were in the best interest of the majority of Americans?
Who lifted millions of Americans out of poverty and paid down the national debt–and who saw the slowest job growth and worst performing equity markets since Hoover and has raised the national debt to 7.7 TRILLION?
So far just about every thing Bush has said that can be proven true or false has been proven false.
As candidate for Govenor of Texas, Bush said that SS would be bankrupt by 1988. FALSE
Saddam was linked to 9-11. FALSE
He has weapons of mass destruction. FALSE
He can attack the US within 45 by air. FALSE
Bush said he would never attack another country without it being in “our vital national interest, having a clear mission that we could win, and having with a clear exit strategy” (from his first debate with Al Gore, Oct. 2000). FALSE Where’s the “clear mission” for Iraq? Right now, Rumsfilled is getting grilled by Republicans on the Hill about how the heck we’re going to get out of Iraq. What’s the ‘exit strategy,’ George?
In an interview in Poland, Bush said “we found WMD’s in Iraq, we found them.” FALSE
“My tax plan will cut taxes to everyone who pays income taxes.” FALSE Many low and middle class families got no cut because of the a refiguring of exclusion from the child care tax credit. http://slate.msn.com/id/2083852/
“The vast majority of my tax cuts will benefit those at the bottom of the economic ladder.” FALSE Over 50 percent of the benefits went to the top one percent of income earners.
In the months leading up to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, Bush said “I haven’t made up my mind to attack.” FALSE
In fact, heavy bombing attacks and covert operations were already taking place. As early as 1999, W. told Brit Hume that he would “take him (Saddam) out.” The recently revealed Downing Street Memos show that Bush was “fixing facts around policy” instead of the other way around.
“I am going to work with Congress to establish fiscal responsiblity.” (First State of the Union address) FALSE In the first three years of the Bush administration, the federal gov’t grew by an astonishing 9 percent a year, almost 30 PERCENT! Clinton’s budget surplus almost instantly became a deficit, and we have run Reagan-like budget deficits ever since resulting in historically high national debt.
“The American people have given me a mandate, they’ve given me political capital . . . ” FALSE He won election the first time by LOSING the popular vote. He won election the second time with the smallest margin of victory in history. The most recent poll shows Bush’s approval at 42 percent with 51 opposed.
So chew over those facts, my friends. See if that gives you “anything to work with.”
The simple truth is that the more you really dig into the facts about how this administration works and who it works FOR, the more you see crony capitalism at its worst.
I have to admit, as a young American, I am terrified of what Bush’s plan for SS will do to this country.
I DO NOT think that privatization of SS will in any way help. Honestly, if I wanted to play the stock market, I would do it on my own. I certainly do not want to see any % of my retirement (other than the 401(k) that I can’t help) go into a market that has been on the downslide ever since Bush took office. How that man managed to get re-elected is completely beyond me.
This privatization of SS benefits has already been tried, in England, and failed miserably. Oh but the Bush administration doesn’t want you to know that, so they won’t mention it. The man is way too talented at dodging any substantial questions about anything that he does, probably because he knows he is lying to this country through his teeth, and doesn’t want to get caught. And we spent millions or billions of tax-payers dollars trying to impeach Clinton for having an affair? (And before anyone responds, yes, I know the point of the impeachment wasn’t the affair, but rather that he lied to the American public about the affair, but seriously people, Bush has lied about so many more important things, things that have cost the lives of thousands of American citizens, and what do we do? Re-elect him!!! Yay for the Republicans. NOT!!!)
I want my retirement money right where I paid for it to be – in my pocket when it is all said and done. Putting my money in the stock market risks losing even more than the possibility of running out of Social Security funds….. and a lot more quickly as well. I certainly do not want to have to work well into my 90’s in order to survive when Bush’s plan uses up all the retirement BENEFITS that I have worked 50 some years to recieve. The problem is that the people that are paying out social security are the people that are making pennies, so therefore they cannot pay as much, and yet, our millionaires will still recieve social security benefits when they retire, as if they need it…. If we want to save social security, lets take it away from the people who have no need for it, you know, the ones that could live off of the interest generated by their bank accounts, the ones that aren’t paying their fair share now, but expect to get their fair share later…….
Yes, Wendy, good points. We need to get this message out.
The one tiny quibble I have is with your last point–to exclude the rich from drawing SS. A lot of folks have looked at models that do that, and the problem is that it doesn’t save that much money for the program (because rich retirees are a very small percentage of all retirees).
What would make a HUGE difference is just taxing the rich a little more, like raising the “cap” that is taxed from 90 thousand to 200 thousand.
You do that, and there is no SS solvency problem, even assuming Bush’s worst case scenarios.
Mr. Twister,
I would be more than satisfied to see them pay more…….. I just think is is wholly unfair that they would be eligible for benefits that they didn’t in truth pay for.
but then, why would Bush want to raise that cap when it would mean more money out of his pocket?
Just ran across this quote from CANDIDATE Bush back in 2000.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june00/gop_...
GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: We’re in a tax debate here in this state and around the country. And let me explain my position as clearly as I can. First, unspent surpluses in Washington, D.C. will be spent, you mark my words, you leave money sitting around the table in Washington, Washington politicians will spend it.
Now, I believe there’s enough money. If you lockbox the payroll taxes, there is $2 trillion to make sure the Social Security system is safe and secure– $2 trillion.
I intend to lockbox the payroll taxes and spend them only on what they’re supposed to be spent on, and that’s Social Security. And by the way… (Applause)
********
Oops, that would be another LIIIIE!
Just ran across this quote from CANDIDATE Bush back in 2000.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june00/gop_...
GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: We’re in a tax debate here in this state and around the country. And let me explain my position as clearly as I can. First, unspent surpluses in Washington, D.C. will be spent, you mark my words, you leave money sitting around the table in Washington, Washington politicians will spend it.
Now, I believe there’s enough money. If you lockbox the payroll taxes, there is $2 trillion to make sure the Social Security system is safe and secure– $2 trillion.
I intend to lockbox the payroll taxes and spend them only on what they’re supposed to be spent on, and that’s Social Security. And by the way… (Applause)
********
Oops, that would be another LIIIIE!
twister, you don’t seem to know the difference between a lie, a mistake, a simple misstatement, or changing times; so your own credibility is in the tank. Nothing you say is believable.
Yup, there’s that “ad homenim” again. The right-wing is SOOO consistent.
So you’re saying that SS changed materially in the last four years?
How many times do you have to get lied to by this administration before you come to the conclusion that they’re a bunch of liars?
It is impossible to debate with people like Twister and Wendy who are ignorant of the facts, ignore reality, and maliciously distort the truth — people like Twister and Wendy.
All they want is more taxes to support an overspending government that already takes in more than it needs for Social Security.
They want to deny all people the right to truly safeguard their retirement and to invest a small part of it in bonds or bond funds that do not ever decline in value.
There is no risk of anyone losing their Social Security retirement in the Bush goal for Social Security reform. The only thing to be lost — the real issue for democrats — is Congress’ ability to spend all the Social Security money as it comes in.