piesen

Maybe Im wrong about this but after listening to the Bush telecast Thursday I thinking that he is getting better at it meaning being on tv with out chocking on his words as much as he used too.
And I think I agree with him on the social security thing.
Awaiting.

Piesen

moosenose

If you side with Bush on anything, you must be evil.

/channelling the lunatic-fringe far left

piesen

This is amassing I thought I was going to get my skull bashed in for agreeing with bush on the SS thing

whocarz

Don't worry, the skull bashing will come soon.

__________________
If there exists anything mightier than destiny, then it is the courage to face destiny unflinchingly. -Geibel

Despise not death, but welcome it, for nature wills it like all else. -Marcus Aurelius

Come on, you sons of bitches! Do you want to live forever? -GySgt. Daniel J. "Dan" Daly

aswo

I dont really understand what has people so upset of his social security plans, cutting benefits for the rich and improving benefits to the poorer worker seems smart to me, and i dont see why VOLUNTARY private accounts is so offending. I personally would love to be able to pick how i save my money.

__________________
People who love people

Kadath

I only want to bash your skull in for misspelling "choking," "to" and "amazing."

The only thing I heard about the telecast was several stations cut it off early to return to regular programming, which makes me sad, but then, I clearly didn't think it was important enough to watch, so I guess I can't complain.

__________________
it's quiet in here

lurkette

I didn't see the telecast so take everything I say with a shaker full of salt.

From what I've read about the telecast - transcripts, commentary, etc., he might be getting better at speaking but he's not getting any better at thinking, particularly when it comes to foreign policy. He still thinks in pretty black-and-white terms and has an um...un-nuanced understanding of the issues involved.

I don't have any problem with scaling benefits based on income - I think it's probably necessary, and is in keeping with the spirit of the social security program: providing retirement benefits for those who need it. But I'm a commie and have no problem with wealth redistribution. I am torn about privatizing accounts - on the one hand, I don't have any illusions that I'm going to see a penny of my contributions to SS. It'd be nice to have some control over that money and invest it where I wanted, and KNOW that I was going to see some return. However, I already have a retirement account. I'm taking care of myself. If that money goes to help someone like my grandma pay her expenses now, and I never see any of it, I guess that's all right with me.

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

Cynthetiq

If the money is supposed to be earmarked for me, then I want my share of it. After doing someone else's retirement planning while they were already in it, it doesn't look like a pretty picture to me. I save a good amount on my own, but I do want every dollar and penny that I deserve from what I've put away either privately or forced via SSI taxes.

Call me selfish, but I don't get any many of the other services that I pay for from welfare, WIC, HUD, Medicare/Medicaid, Public Schools, and the like...

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Seanland

Yummy, that hits the spot...

I've noticed that he likes to blame his problems on everyone else too, which is really bugging me...

Redlemon

Well, Social Security has never been "your money". The first people to receive SS benefits didn't put any money into the SS system. SS has always been about the current workers giving money to the retired workers. There may be a solvency issue with Social Security, but pulling money out of the system will only make it less solvent.

Bush was being very general when he spoke of the scaled benefits; if you check more detailed reports, the cutoff for "well-off" versus "poor" is $20,000 a year. Above that, apparently you are doing well enough.

Also, from what I understand, you wouldn't have much flexibility in investing your "private" account; there would be perhaps 4 to 8 government-run funds that you could choose among. You would probably do much better with an IRA.

__________________
I can't read your signature. Sorry.

samcol

Pretty typical Bush speech and softball questions that we're used to hearing.
Social Security is depressing for me to say the least.

The only social security plan that I would support is one that has an option for people to opt out of it if they choose. No payment no benefits, let me choose how I want to retire. There are so many people short on cash that could really use the money now instead of later. I can't belive we allow our politicians to take money out of our checks with no guarentee of ever seeing it again. Our government's track record of handling money is appaling, yet that's who we trust our retirement with. I guess the only Social programs I support fully are for the VFW's, and these are the people that are tend to be shortchanged the most. So sad...

raveneye

I think SS has really become a non-issue, or maybe more accurately a deflecting issue . . . . polls have shown over and over that voters do not want the government to tinker with Social Security, and as a result few if any lawmakers are doing anything to promote Bush's proposed changes. Everybody seems to be taking the safe route and staying away from it. Politics being what it is, I really doubt that any of the current noise being make about SS is going to amount to anything.

Why then does Bush continue to talk about it? Maybe because it's a safe topic and it keeps people occupied and arguing and distracted from other more important topics, like Medicare, which (unlike Social Security) really is an urgent problem, as is health care in general in the U.S. Bush's Medicare drug law is awful; it amounts to corporate welfare that hasn't done much besides increase drug prices.

So keeping Social Security in the spotlight seems like a pointless red herring that's doing little while distracting from the real issues.

raveneye

A couple recent polls showing public disapproval of Bush's plans:

guy44

Yeah, Social Security is the third rail of American politics and I think Bush made a huge error in making its destruction the centerpiece of his second administration. Few support him and he's losing every round on the topic.

Also, his plan is full of shit. 1) You don't actually get to invest wherever you want to. Only in a few, government-approved options 2) He's not raising benefits for the poor. Those stay virtually the same. He just cuts it for the wealthy and middle class. 3) Social Security is not and should not be a program just for the poor. It is a universal, defined-benefit program that ensures old-age financial security for everyone in the United States. It isn't about making sure poor old people can survive, although it does do that; the great thing about Social Security is that it ensures that every senior citizen in the United States, no matter the financial difficulties or medical emergencies or whatever that they face, can live at above poverty level in their golden years.

There are myriad other problems, those are just a few off the top of my head.

__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

piesen

Doh Thanks for pointing that out


Well ofcouse he could also raise the roof from is it in the 90ish to about a 140 K and that should help out alot if not cure it
I have one question though Where does middle (class) income start? and when are you rich

Amen

F-18_Driver

Just (semi) kidding:

Is your idea of wealth redistribution this:

<img src=http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SQAdA4oVNRQNeDlLUwkvOLITV4daDDTR9OFESZqhQXMQDorwMrlf0DBMC84pmtnOllqmXonoyBTSgn8nZoImO6NIMoxdDSDagFuy*!qdnJF2cy3qT9P8Og/avatar14013_1.gif?dc=4675520751094596558></img>========================><img src=http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0QgAdAwMUgaBoPZWO*oP*!gv8cdODWTDEJ7JeVE*pygX*w02NPgIQ0AfYXiuuX2SdfsLHqDgeOzTMfJ8cLI7U4LOGpg!BeZJRgT58*m90DkE/images.jpg?dc=4675520751813112772></img> (EVERYONE ELSE)

Or this:

<img src=http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0QgAdAwMUgaBoPZWO*oP*!gv8cdODWTDEJ7JeVE*pygX*w02NPgIQ0AfYXiuuX2SdfsLHqDgeOzTMfJ8cLI7U4LOGpg!BeZJRgT58*m90DkE/images.jpg?dc=4675520751813112772></img> (EVERYONE ELSE) ========================><img src=http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SQAdA4oVNRQNeDlLUwkvOLITV4daDDTR9OFESZqhQXMQDorwMrlf0DBMC84pmtnOllqmXonoyBTSgn8nZoImO6NIMoxdDSDagFuy*!qdnJF2cy3qT9P8Og/avatar14013_1.gif?dc=4675520751094596558></img>

I find the lower scenario is much more common among those who favor wealth redistribution.

Would it also be all right if some of that money goes to help my mother as well? Because that's the way the system is working now. In fact, in a few years, we're going to have two people contributing their money to support every one recipient.

Personally, I'd prefer a system in which I can choose my investment vehicle, AND pass the remaining funds on to my kids and grandkids, instead of giving it to the feds the instant I die.

They, of course, got themselves out of the SS system quite a few years ago.

Superbelt

I think Bush's new plan (not the privatization part though), in principle sounds ok. I want to hear more details, particularly to what happens to the Middle Class.
It seems odd how he's pushing for a progressive taxation system for Social Security now though.
I thought he was against social redistribution???
Because of that, I'm still leery till I see details.

Ooh, and F-18. As I expect to have a household income of 80K within 2 years, I'm fully ok with Superbelt=====>$ Everyone else.
That's the price you pay to keep an economy afloat and see to your less fortunate brothers.

Manx

My take on Bush's SS plan is that it is yet another method of deferring costs. In this case, the plan effectively translates into a marginal tax increase spread out over 40 years for the upper and middle classes. That is the trade off for Bush. The benefit is that he converts the system to privatization - which will nicely line the pockets of the upper class he just marginally increased taxes for, thereby more than offsetting that tax increase. While the middle class remains slightly screwed.

It's par for the course. Rob from the middle, give to the top, then turn around and claim you're helping everyone (and in this case, laughably, that you're increasing benefits to the lower class when you're actually not changing benefits to the lower class).

From what I gather, the present SS system falls to 75% coverage in 2040ish while Bush's system "provides" 60% - 70% coverage in 2040ish.

And here I always thought "fixing" something meant making it better.

guy44

No, I think Bush's SS plan is an attempt to destroy the program. By making it essentially another welfare program - which is what will happen if you severely reduce benefits for middle and upper classes to negligable levels - ideological opponents will find it easier to kill the program. Like Paul Krugman said, programs for the poor often turn into poor programs, because there is no organized constituency behind them. Then, SS can be killed, because the poor don't have any power or influence.

I'm not opposed to private accounts - as long as they are add-ons. Keep SS, adjusted with a higher cap and paid for with reductions in Bush's tax cuts, and offer add-on private accounts to individuals. Which is, more or less, what Democrats have been proposing for a decade.

__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

F-18_Driver

I've heard that same sentiment many times. Right up to the point where the government starts taking away what you worked for. Then everything changes, once you realize you've put in the effort to improve your life, but because of taxes, you can't buy a house, replace your POS car, or a few other things. Oh, and kids tend to come along about then.

99% of the time, anyway.

I have no problem with your helping your less fortunate brothers. The only problem I have is when I'm forced to help those of YOUR choosing.

Congrats on the $80k though. My mother is certainly less fortunate than that, so in the spirit of SS, let's go ahead and start sending her your money.

I'll get right to work printing up IOUs, so it will be EXACTLY like SS.

Redlemon

There was a fascinating interview on Marketplace (public radio) regarding the history of social security. I can't track it down right now, I think it was last week, but from memory, the interviewee was crediting the social security program with preventing another Great Depression. Perhaps someone else can fill in the details, I don't remember them.

__________________
I can't read your signature. Sorry.

Cynthetiq

I agree with that... I'm tired of them taking more and more of my paycheck to pay for "others". But that's just what I have to do...

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

lurkette

Actually it's the first. Ratbastid and I make above the median income for a family of 4, let alone for 2 people. All of our basic needs are met and beyond that everything else is gravy. I don't mind paying taxes (I do mind how they're spent by the government) and I don't seem to have a problem with other people who need it getting "my" money. A flatter social gradient - relative equalization of resources - actually ends up being better for the society as a whole in terms of education levels, public health, and general standard of living. I.e., the more unequal a society is, the worse its citizens fare ON AVERAGE in terms of education, health, etc. (See Developmental Health and the Wealth of Nations: http://www.acscd.ca/acscd/public/dhw.../acscd-dhwn-21)

Edit:

Actually, on second thought the scenario I prefer includes the above (lurkette===> everyone else) but is more like ridiculously wealthy===>bypass lurkette who's doing just fine===>everyone else. The stupidly unequal distribution of wealth in this country is not healthy for us in the long run. You get to the point where wealth and therefore power are concentrated in the hands and serving the interests of a very very small group of people, and it's no longer a democracy unless you can fool the country into thinking that voting=democracy. The global distribution of wealth is not great either.
http://www.lcurve.org/

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

thingstodo

I agree....I want what I worked to earn. Otherwise, we just live in a communist society if there is distribution of wealth. I don't know what else you can call it!

__________________
If you're wringing your hands you can't roll up your shirt sleeves.

Stangers have the best candy.

Zeld2.0

Pet peeve but communism is far from just distribution of wealth, socialism is probably a better term!