In a surprising Tuesday editorial that calls for President Bush to assert more leadership — because the “aftermath of Katrina poses a threat to his entire second term” — The Wall Street Journal editorial board characterizes Social Security reform as “impossible in the near term” but urges Congress to push for more oil drilling and permanent tax cuts. The tenacity the president has shown in arguing for his still-vague Social Security reinvention makes it hard to imagine him relenting now. But don’t count out his capacity to somehow link its urgency to Katrina.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
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
- donndublin on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- ProudMan on Too many exemptions
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/23
- donndublin on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
18 Comments
BushCo. is relentless on privatizing social security because he needs to repay his big Wall Street backers.
Hopefully, the N.O. disaster will show that sometimes we need a big gov’t to deal with big problems.
For more on why privatization is wholly unnecessary, see the very excellent op-ed piece that ran in today’s (Tuesday’s) Eagle, “SS doesn’t need Bush ‘fixing.’”
Ah yes, a great op-ed for repeating left wing talking points. Not addressed is the simple question, “Why is SS all they got?” These people depended on the government for their well-being. Strange, sounds like the dead people in New Orleans.
I realize this post sounds very harsh, but that is not my intention. I only want to draw attention to the obvious.
So you’re saying Bob Dole’s mom was a loser idiot?
Okay, dude, good luck in the market . . .
BTW, what did we have in this country BEFORE social security?
Answer–private accounts.
Hmmm, how did that work out . . .
Don’t you find it odd that the mother of a US Senator would survive only on SS? I’m only asking the obvious question, “What have these people done all their lives?” Didn’t they have income? Where did it go? Shouldn’t they have to use up all their earnings and assets before living on government welfare?
ProudMan, some people don’t make as much money as you do. After providing food, shelter, and education for my family, there just isn’t anything left. And some of us took a real beating in the stock market after President Bush was elected. I’m not saying it’s Bush’s fault, but it does seem a little strange that while Clinton was in office, I did ok….when Bush got elected, everything seems to have fallen apart. Funds and investments that I had depended on for retirement have really taken a beating over the past 5 years. If that’s an indication of what could happen with the president’s Social Security fixes, I’m saying “no thanks”.
Proud, it sounds to me like you’re saying, “I got mine, the hell with everybody else”.
Thanks a lot.
Good questions, ProudMan.
Yes, in an ideal world, no one would ever run into money problems–like catastrophic illness, loss of a house because of a flood or earthquake (not covered by insurance), loss of a job etc.
In an ideal world, people would be socking money into mutual funds, bonds and CD’s every month. The fund managers and the CEO’s would never commit fraud against their investors (like Bush’s close pal, Enron CEO Kenny Boy Lay).
But we don’t live in an ideal world, do we, ProudMan?
In 1928, if you hadn’t sunk your life savings into the stock market, you were a damn fool. Everybody was getting rich fast. Nobody wanted to be the last person to cash in.
Then October 1929 crashed the party. The stock market continued to decline for many years after that. People who had soberly invested their money, as well as the speculators, lost everything. Banks collapsed.
That was BEFORE social security.
Now people like you want to take us BACK to that.
Oh how I love it when people assume things. For all any of us know I’m the lowest paid person on here.
Galahad, I realize not everyone is always going to make it. But just because someone didn’t make it doesn’t mean it’s ok to come and take ‘it’ from me. SS would be a lot easier to deal with if it was a safety net, but that is not what we have today. Many people are (to their error) depending on SS for retirement income. Wasn’t FDR’s original vision just to keep people from starving/living on the street? To provide for the elderly who had not family to support them?
It’s politicians who mangled it into a ‘national retirement plan’.
“Oh how I love it when people assume things. For all any of us know I’m the lowest paid person on here.”
Somehow, I just don’t see that. It would mean you were fighting against your own interests.
Oops, this is Kansas where Republicans do that on a regular basis.
Never mind…..
No, Proudman, it wasn’t FDR’s original intent. The original intent was that everybody pays in, and everybody gets back.
SS is designed to provide you with about 40 percent of your salary (up to a max of about 2,000 a month currently).
The average retiree gets back more than he/she pays in after about seven years. You expect to live seven years after you retire, don’t you?
It’s really a pretty good deal. Guarenteed income for life, for everyone who paid in. No private program can guarentee that.
Actually tho, Proudman, you make a good point. SS is kind of a rip for lower wage earners.
If you make 35 grand a year say, ALL of your income is taxed at 6.3 percent for FICA.
If you make 350,000 a year, only the first 90,000 is taxed for FICA.
It’s regressive taxation.
If you want to “reform” SS, that would be the place to start.
Did I mention that I love it when people make assumptions about me?
Who said I’m a Republican?
I give up. Who said you were a republican? I sure didn’t. I love it when people make assumptions about what I said.
Well I did my research and I admit I was wrong, FDR did intend SS as a retirement package. I had always believed (not sure where that started) that SS started for only the very needy and grew to the monster program it is today. I didn’t realize our government was so left wing in the 1930’s.
I will say SS is taxed at the same rate for everyone. That is equal or flat taxation, not regressive.
That’s right, ProudMan. Gov’t used to be much more “left wing” as you put it than it is today.
That makes us liberals the real conservatives. We want gov’t to actually help everybody instead of just rich people.
I didn’t follow your last statement though–”SS is taxed the same for everybody.”
If you mean it SHOULD be taxed the same, I totally agree. However right now people who make big bucks don’t pay on anything above 90 thousand.
If I make 50 thousand, I pay 6.3 percent of all my salary. If I make 500 thousand, I only pay the equivalent of 1.2 percent on SS.
That’s a regressive tax.
I don’t include non-taxed items in my numbers. A practice I’m sure we would disagree on.
XXX,
In the future I won’t give you credit for any innuendo in your statements. My bad.
Obviously innuendo is another one of many things you don’t quite catch.
I love it when people make assumptions about whether I’m indulging in innuendo.