Bush to Consider Social Security Plan That Does Not Include Private Accounts
By Melanie Hunter
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
June 22, 2005
(CNSNews.com) -- President Bush is considering a proposal for Social Security reform that does not include private investment accounts.
http://www.gopusa.com/news/2005/june/0622_bush_socsec.shtml
Full Version: GOP still party of comprimise and new ideas
Interesting SPIN there, goper.
The correct interpretation is bush LOST on what to him was the most important aspect of his proposal.
So who is the sore loser now?
The correct interpretation is bush LOST on what to him was the most important aspect of his proposal.
So who is the sore loser now?
QUOTE (Thaiquila @ Jun 22 2005, 05:04 PM)
Interesting SPIN there, goper.
The correct interpretation is bush LOST on what to him was the most important aspect of his proposal.
So who is the sore loser now?
The correct interpretation is bush LOST on what to him was the most important aspect of his proposal.
So who is the sore loser now?
???? Do you percieve Bush to be "sore" over the issue? If he were, he would oppose any legislation that did not include private accounts, much like the Democrats who have refused to even consider any legislation that contained them.
And the government won. The money of yours they take out of every paycheck will continue to belong to them instead of the Americans who's check it came out of. MARK
Social security is a SOCIAL PROGRAM.
The money DOES NOT belong to you.
It belongs to society.
If you become disabled or reach retirement age, then you get the benefit.
It is a good system and it works.
Americans wisely rejected the private account scam scheme as the evil trick it was to dismantlle the very basis of social security and at the same baloon an already over the top federal deficit.
You want a private account? You can have it. 401k and IRAs.
The money DOES NOT belong to you.
It belongs to society.
If you become disabled or reach retirement age, then you get the benefit.
It is a good system and it works.
Americans wisely rejected the private account scam scheme as the evil trick it was to dismantlle the very basis of social security and at the same baloon an already over the top federal deficit.
You want a private account? You can have it. 401k and IRAs.
QUOTE (Thaiquila @ Jun 22 2005, 05:54 PM)
It is a good system and it works.
Sure, it works great as long as we keep increasing the percent of OUR money we put into it. MARK
QUOTE (dixon76710 @ Jun 23 2005, 01:20 AM)
Sure, it works great as long as we keep increasing the percent of OUR money we put into it. MARK
What the HEIL are you talking about?
There is no talk whatsoever of increasing the withholding rate for workers or employers!
Im talking about the 22 increases in the past without a single decrease that has kept it working so good. And decreasing benefits the amount of the current projected deficits will cause some to feel it is not working as "good" as it used to.
And I think with all the spin the facts are not coming out in the media. Bennett is essentially introducing legislation similiar to Bush's proposals, broken up into two bills.
"Bennett plans to introduce two pieces of legislation, possibly by the end of the week. One would establish private accounts and the other would seek to curb the growth in Social Security payments."
http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_2816241
MARK
And I think with all the spin the facts are not coming out in the media. Bennett is essentially introducing legislation similiar to Bush's proposals, broken up into two bills.
"Bennett plans to introduce two pieces of legislation, possibly by the end of the week. One would establish private accounts and the other would seek to curb the growth in Social Security payments."
http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_2816241
MARK
QUOTE (Thaiquila @ Jun 22 2005, 06:23 PM)
What the HEIL are you talking about?
There is no talk whatsoever of increasing the withholding rate for workers or employers!
There is no talk whatsoever of increasing the withholding rate for workers or employers!
QUOTE (Thaiquila @ Jun 22 2005, 05:54 PM)
Social security is a SOCIAL PROGRAM.
The money DOES NOT belong to you.
It belongs to society.
If you become disabled or reach retirement age, then you get the benefit.
It is a good system and it works.
Americans wisely rejected the private account scam scheme as the evil trick it was to dismantlle the very basis of social security and at the same baloon an already over the top federal deficit.
You want a private account? You can have it. 401k and IRAs.
The money DOES NOT belong to you.
It belongs to society.
If you become disabled or reach retirement age, then you get the benefit.
It is a good system and it works.
Americans wisely rejected the private account scam scheme as the evil trick it was to dismantlle the very basis of social security and at the same baloon an already over the top federal deficit.
You want a private account? You can have it. 401k and IRAs.
Sure!
I work for the money.
I earn the money.
All the blood, sweat, and/or tears that go into the money belong to me.
The money however, belongs to "society"
The government takes the money.
Maybe someday they give it back, maybe not.
It's a SOCIAL PROGRAM!
Yes, if you don't like it, give up your citizenship!
It is part of living in a semi civilized society.
It is part of living in a semi civilized society.
QUOTE (Thaiquila @ Jun 23 2005, 12:54 AM)
It is a good system and it works.
It is a "ponzi scheme" a massive fraud against the american people. Your SS taxes go right into the general fund not a SS trust as it was intended.
Lies and deception....ummm?
QUOTE (bob @ Jun 23 2005, 03:07 AM)
It is a "ponzi scheme" a massive fraud against the american people. Your SS taxes go right into the general fund not a SS trust as it was intended.
Lies and deception....ummm?
Lies and deception....ummm?
Well, if that is how you feel, then you think all governments are ponzi schemes, and you are a blasted anarchist! Fie on such rubbish.
The recipients are getting their checks. Many of them need the money to survive. The system is working. There is no crisis.
Yeah? Why allow private citizens to earn and keep their own private money in private accounts the government can't steal from?
NONSENSE! The nanny state knows better! Run along now, Freedom is Slavery, don't ya know!
NONSENSE! The nanny state knows better! Run along now, Freedom is Slavery, don't ya know!
QUOTE (Ben-T @ Jun 23 2005, 04:11 AM)
Yeah? Why allow private citizens to earn and keep their own private money in private accounts the government can't steal from?
NONSENSE! The nanny state knows better! Run along now, Freedom is Slavery, don't ya know!
NONSENSE! The nanny state knows better! Run along now, Freedom is Slavery, don't ya know!
Are you actually this STUPID in real life????
Why?
Because there wouldn't be enough money!
The deficits would be backbreaking.
IT IS A SOCIAL PROGRAM!
Not everyone ever gets back a penny.
That is BY DESIGN!
It works.
A huge percentage of people DIE before they are old enough to collect, and of course only a small percentage become disabled before retirement age.
Private accounts are available ALREADY for you now ... 401K, IRA, private savings. Go for it!
QUOTE (Ben-T @ Jun 23 2005, 11:11 AM)
Yeah? Why allow private citizens to earn and keep their own private money in private accounts the government can't steal from?
NONSENSE! The nanny state knows better! Run along now, Freedom is Slavery, don't ya know!
NONSENSE! The nanny state knows better! Run along now, Freedom is Slavery, don't ya know!
What the difference between freedom and selfishness ?
I think it is a novel idea. Although it's only a patch on the problem.
Some of the opponents are saying it is just privatisation of SS in sheeps clothing. Please tell me how much risk there is in T-Bills. Please tell me what's wrong with having YOUR MONEY that YOU PAID into YOUR SS ACCOUNT being there in T-Bills in YOUR NAME when you need it. Tell me what's wrong with, If you don't need all of YOUR MONEY to have YOUR MONEY be a part of YOUR ESTATE to be passed to YOUR HEIRS. Someone tell me what's wrong with the idea that, The surplus money that YOU EARNED and YOU PAID into YOUR SS ACCOUNT can not be used for anything else.
Some of the opponents are saying it is just privatisation of SS in sheeps clothing. Please tell me how much risk there is in T-Bills. Please tell me what's wrong with having YOUR MONEY that YOU PAID into YOUR SS ACCOUNT being there in T-Bills in YOUR NAME when you need it. Tell me what's wrong with, If you don't need all of YOUR MONEY to have YOUR MONEY be a part of YOUR ESTATE to be passed to YOUR HEIRS. Someone tell me what's wrong with the idea that, The surplus money that YOU EARNED and YOU PAID into YOUR SS ACCOUNT can not be used for anything else.
Simple answers for your simple mind, Boh.
1. Yes, the idea is clearly driven by an ideological distaste for the very idea of social security. These right wing fanatics consider such programs socialism and their quite open agenda is to WIPE OUT every trace of the GREAT SOCIETY started by the mythic Franklin Delano Roosevelt (a hero if there ever was one).
2. The money put into private accounts would be locked up and NOT AVAILABLE to pay current recipients, thus ballooning an already over the top deficit.
3. Social security contributions are not a surplus. They are your participation in the SOCIAL system. If and when you need it, you get your benefit. If you never qualify, the money helps your fellow man. Warm and fuzzy.
4. Private accounts are already available if you wish and you should wish: 401K, IRA, taxable accounts.
Enjoy, because the people don't want this scam from bush and he has LOST. Hurray for one victory anyhow.
1. Yes, the idea is clearly driven by an ideological distaste for the very idea of social security. These right wing fanatics consider such programs socialism and their quite open agenda is to WIPE OUT every trace of the GREAT SOCIETY started by the mythic Franklin Delano Roosevelt (a hero if there ever was one).
2. The money put into private accounts would be locked up and NOT AVAILABLE to pay current recipients, thus ballooning an already over the top deficit.
3. Social security contributions are not a surplus. They are your participation in the SOCIAL system. If and when you need it, you get your benefit. If you never qualify, the money helps your fellow man. Warm and fuzzy.
4. Private accounts are already available if you wish and you should wish: 401K, IRA, taxable accounts.
Enjoy, because the people don't want this scam from bush and he has LOST. Hurray for one victory anyhow.
QUOTE (Thaiquila @ Jun 23 2005, 06:51 AM)
Simple answers for your simple mind, Boh.
1. Yes, the idea is clearly driven by an ideological distaste for the very idea of social security. These right wing fanatics consider such programs socialism and their quite open agenda is to WIPE OUT every trace of the GREAT SOCIETY started by the mythic Franklin Delano Roosevelt (a hero if there ever was one).
I disagree with this. As it is run now, it is pretty close to socialism with a lot of pilphering added in.
Charity example: When one gives money to a poor person.
Robbery example: When a poor person puts his hand in your pocket and takes some of your money without your consent.
2. The money put into private accounts would be locked up and NOT AVAILABLE to pay current recipients, thus ballooning an already over the top deficit.
Only surplus money, eg money that wasn't going to be given to them anyway but instead used for something else
3. Social security contributions are not a surplus. They are your participation in the SOCIAL system. If and when you need it, you get your benefit. If you never qualify, the money helps your fellow man. Warm and fuzzy.
Some of it is surplus. Right now there is more going in than going out.
You get all the warm fuzzies you want with your money and your lifes work, but don't dictate to me how I should donate to society.
4. Private accounts are already available if you wish and you should wish: 401K, IRA, taxable accounts.
Yes I know. I have made a wonderful life change based on some those things, although under the worst investment circumstances in my lifetime. It still worked and I am not nearly old enough to get Social Security
Enjoy, because the people don't want this scam from bush and he has LOST. Hurray for one victory anyhow.
buzzer sound Huh uh, I'm sorry but that's incorrect.
1. Yes, the idea is clearly driven by an ideological distaste for the very idea of social security. These right wing fanatics consider such programs socialism and their quite open agenda is to WIPE OUT every trace of the GREAT SOCIETY started by the mythic Franklin Delano Roosevelt (a hero if there ever was one).
I disagree with this. As it is run now, it is pretty close to socialism with a lot of pilphering added in.
Charity example: When one gives money to a poor person.
Robbery example: When a poor person puts his hand in your pocket and takes some of your money without your consent.
2. The money put into private accounts would be locked up and NOT AVAILABLE to pay current recipients, thus ballooning an already over the top deficit.
Only surplus money, eg money that wasn't going to be given to them anyway but instead used for something else
3. Social security contributions are not a surplus. They are your participation in the SOCIAL system. If and when you need it, you get your benefit. If you never qualify, the money helps your fellow man. Warm and fuzzy.
Some of it is surplus. Right now there is more going in than going out.
You get all the warm fuzzies you want with your money and your lifes work, but don't dictate to me how I should donate to society.4. Private accounts are already available if you wish and you should wish: 401K, IRA, taxable accounts.
Yes I know. I have made a wonderful life change based on some those things, although under the worst investment circumstances in my lifetime. It still worked and I am not nearly old enough to get Social Security
Enjoy, because the people don't want this scam from bush and he has LOST. Hurray for one victory anyhow.
buzzer sound Huh uh, I'm sorry but that's incorrect.
QUOTE (Thaiquila @ Jun 23 2005, 12:04 AM)
Interesting SPIN there, goper.
The correct interpretation is bush LOST on what to him was the most important aspect of his proposal.
So who is the sore loser now?
The correct interpretation is bush LOST on what to him was the most important aspect of his proposal.
So who is the sore loser now?
Wrong again Mr. Spin. Bush just wants to help us by fixing this problem however he can ASAP, even if it means sacrificing his brilliant idea, FOR NOW anyways.
Him being able to show us that there was a problem with SS is a big victory in itself.
Meanwhile, you party still has NOTHING to offer, besides their automatic subconcious desire to raise taxes/
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.