"Means Testing."

What a lovely euphemism. Basically, whenever you hear it, think socialism. Guess who wants to do it now? George Bush. The last man I expected it from.

How does he want to fix social security? Part of it now involves means testing. He wants the richer among us to get less money back from social security while the poor will receive more! WHAT THE HE11! I would not have voted for the man if I thought he was a closet socialist.

If someone can post why I shouldn't be against this, please do. I am particularly interested in what you conservatives/republicans think.

Don't misunderstand. I really liked his energy plan. I support many of his ideas. But when a "conservative" starts talking like a socialist, I'll call him out on it.

I think the way to look at the tripe bush is spouting now as POLITICAL DAMAGE CONTROL.

Do not believe it for one minute that bush is really for means testing for social security. I think you will find the most democrats and most Americans by far are AGAINST means testing.

bush is playing an interesting game now. He knows he has probably lost his campaign for private accounts and that he has correctly been criticized for having NO SPECIFIC PLAN for dealing with the fiscal problems of ss funding.

By coming out for such an unpopular idea as means testing, he might eventually gain some points in playing the democrats like violins and get them to eventually do more of what he really wants.

There does have to be some tweaking of the social security funding system, and hitting this ball from left field is a clever gamble.

However, I would still BET THE FARM, there will be NO PRIVATE INVESTMENT ACCOUNTS within the ss system. He has failed to make the sale. End of story.

The simple truth is that the vast majority of all kinds of Americans like ss EXACTLY AT IT IS NOW. As a set, defined benefit for old age and disability. Not as an asset. Making it an asset totally defeats the idea of a shared pool for society. Yes, there is a brewing demographic issue that will occur in the future. That is easily fixed with some tweaking, even Alan Greenspan says so, so let's get on with it.

As it is now, ss is NOT A CRISIS!

There are real crises in America such as a permanent underclass and 45 million Americans without access to health care. No wonder bush is ###### in the polls!

Welcome to the growing list of Americans and others who have finally figured out that Bush's dishonesty and incompetence is completely disconnected from any recognizable political position. Like a classic demagog, he uses any convenient issue or organization available to promote repressive, regressive, corrupt and destructive neotard policies. If it suits his self serving political agenda, he fraudulently poses as conservative, liberal, compassionate or socialist. For example, now that the image of his legacy is seriously at risk, he suddenly becomes concerned about conservation and energy. And the public isn't buying his phony proposals to destroy social security, not because the numbers do or do not add up, but simply because George W. Bush is more than ever universally recognized as a habitual liar. The only folks who don't know that are the ones who don't want to know it.

?????? What do you suggest?

Two choices, increase the SS tax rate that comes out of workers checks, or reduce benefits. (unless you want to supplement out of general revenue, Income tax has a means test as well)
I vote for reducing benefits. Reduce the monthly retirement check on those recieving the minimum payment, with no other income and they starve. Reduce the benefit of some guy with a $1400 a monh check because he has an additional $million a year in income makes perfect sense to me. MARK

He said-
"benefits for low-income workers will grow faster than benefits for people who are better off."
nobody gets "less", everyone gets MORE. MARK

I have heard that there are only two choices as you said. Either raise taxes or lower benefits. Given that choice, I would also choose to lower benefits over higher taxes.

What about reduced spending?!?! Why don't we stop spending all the money that we are taking from SS now? It would help. Why not cut other government spending to all those "necessary" programs? The only reason that private accounts would cost ANY money is because we spend all the SS money now. If we stopped that, implementing private accounts would be FREE. That's right, FREE.

It wasn't the rich that screwed SS. I would argue that, if it was any one particular person, it was LBJ. He, and Congress, saw a big pile of money in the trust fund and had to spend it. With the trust fund gone, SS was bound to get screwed. Same with Medicare...

SS wasn't set up to redistribute wealth. We have PLENTY of other programs that steal from the rich to reward the poor JUST BECAUSE they are poor. Not because they are trying to educate themselves, or working hard, etc. Income tax, welfare, and Medicare to name three. SS was different. It was a "safety net" for all Americans. Also, it was never meant to be the primary means of paying for retirement.

Now, there is one less incentive in the US to work. That incentive is a comfortable retirement. If we keep going down this road, I'll quit my job and let all you hard workers take care of my every need. He11, I can already get my Viagra, emergency room care, unemployment, welfare, food stamps, extra-low-cost housing, etc at yall's expense. Might as well add retirement to the list. (I'm being sarcastic, but please understand my point: we are providing to many incentives to stay poor).

Roadster: Please do not welcome me to a group of people I most certainly have not joined.

TQ: If we left social security alone, left it the exact same way that it is now, eventually no one would get a check. There is no money in a trust fund. The government owes itself that money. They have to raise taxes or cut benefits (OR CUT SPENDING) to pay for it. SS will be in crisis in a few years.


I appreciate all the comments. I hope people will make more.

Sooo your OK with benefit cuts as long as the old lady living off of a $600 a month ss check feels the bite of the cuts along with American millionaires?
And what do you think this would accomplish? Under current welfare regs she would likey get a corresponding increase in welfare. Accomplishing absolutely nothing other than increasing administrative costs.
And spending of the trust fund is irrelevant to the underlieing problem. Nothing more than an accounting gimmick used to make the deficits appear smaller. It has no effect whatsoever at all on the solvcency of SS. Replinishing every cent of it today would have no effect on aliviating the problem. MARK

Spending of the trust fund is very relevant I would imagine. We all know the dates, they are constantly being revised but these are fairly accurate.

2018: when we start spending more than receiving.
2042: when SS goes "broke"

However, because the trust fund money is already spent, there is no savings. Therefore, the SS goes broke in 2018. That is when taxes must raised, benefits cut, or spending cut. It wouldn't have fixed the problem, but it would have helped to actually save that money. Another interesting thing is the interest we "earn" on that money. How does $0 gain interest? It doesn't; as you said, its just an accounting gimmick. The taxpayers pay that so-called interest.

Yes, the granny should feel the same percentage "bite" as the "rich" man. That is, the man who made at least $85,000 a year and maxed out the system. Besides, the poor person would receive less of a cut in actual dollars than the rich. The rich man is no more at fault for the insolvency than the poor granny. I don't think he owes more just because he is rich, either.

I would rather see her welfare go up. I would be happy to take all the inherent welfare out of all of our systems and give bigger welfare checks. That way, we can easily see how much it is costing us. Also, we would only have to reform one system to deal with the poorer among us.

-People don't deserve a check just because they are poor.
-People don't deserve to pay more just because they are rich.
-Legislation should make sure everyone has the same opportunity, not the same result. (that’s all you JohnL)

I hate all the bad that the 14th amendment has caused, but if I have to fight fire with fire I will. Equal protection of laws doesn't mean that rich people pay 30% of their income to the government and the poor pay 0%. Nor does it mean that the poor should get a higher percentage return on SS than the rich. It means that everyone should pay the same percentage in taxes, and that everyone should see the same percent return on SS.

And, according to Fortune Magazine, 2011, The date when the SS problem begins to harm the American Economy.

That caught my ear too. This has been a great idea so far, wtf is he doing tryin to ruin it?

???????? It earns interest. There are only two options with any SS surplus. Loan it to the government so it earns interest, OR store large bags of cash in the government vaults. No other options.
And their wont be any need to do ANYTHING in 2018 OTHER than begin to tell the truth as to the size of the debt. NOTHING else is required. Lets say in 2018 ss takes in 1 billion less than it pays out. 1 billion in new government securities will be isssued with the proceeds used to pay off the securities held by the social security trust. It will be like an individual using his visa to pay off a $1000 bill on his mastercard. the person is still $1000 dollars in debt. He is no better or no worse than he was in debt to matercard. NOTHING HAS CHANGED. His only problem is that his mastercard bill went to the office so he doesnt have to tell his wife. The visa bill goes to his home and his wife is going to learn about the $1000 debt that previously he was able to hide from her. BUT IN FACT, his real financial position is IDENTICAL to his previous position. MARK