THE PLAN TO DO NOTHING
If you listened to the President string more than five words together in the last month, you've heard him talk about how Social Security is a ticking bomb. A bomb your grandma is sitting on. A bomb which will explode in about forty years, slaughtering all of our chances for retirement and forcing our children to work until they collapse, dead from exhaustion at 95.
You've also heard him talk about his plan to partially privatize Social Security. Of course, now he's stopped saying "private" and started saying "personal" accounts. In any event, he assured us that he has a plan.
Too bad the plan is not intended to defuse the bomb.
In a significant shift in his rationale for the accounts, Bush dropped his claim that they would help solve Social Security's fiscal problems — a link he sometimes made during last year's presidential campaign. Instead, he said the individual accounts were desirable because they would be "a better deal," providing workers what he said would be a higher rate of return and "greater security in retirement."
A Bush aide, briefing reporters on the condition of anonymity, was more explicit, saying that the individual accounts would do nothing to solve the system's long-term financial problems.
posted by Abe at 2/03/2005 08:08:00 PM
5 Comments:
I want a defense to your president. My understanding of social security is that not eveyone gets it. Its based on need, so if you have 50million dollars in assets and savings upon retirement, you would not be entitled to social security. I might be wrong and please correct me if I am. If this is the case, it has to suck for well to do folks and those who can afford to save for retirement. They pay into a system that never pays them out. With this new position that Bush has taken, I think we can all agree who Bush is looking after.....Right? Can somebody make a coherent argument besides the eff poor people, govt can't do everything, personal responsibility args. I leave you with this question. WWJD?
What say you Republicans??????? Signed, JC
Actually, 3GL, everyone does get it, even Bill Gates. But there is a phase out so that the payments to Bill Gates, when he retires after 65, will be less than those payments to someone who is under the poverty line.
One reform measure would be to make it entirely need-based, but that would alienate and penalize someone for being successful financially in his life. On the other hand, it encourages more risk taking by guaranteeing a safety net in case one does fall.
I suspect why this reform is not pursued is b/c it would not be popular among the rich and influential.
I am certainly no expert on SS, but I know there is a crisis coming soon. I know Bush has a plan to do something about it (and liberals would poo-poo it even if it was perfect- which it probably isn't) but all I've heard from the left is how bad Bush's plan is and that there IS NO CRISIS (even though Bill Clinton said there was back in '98.). What is the Democrat plan? Raise taxes and reduce benefits? Means test 1/3 of the country out of any benefits? Do nothing (which is apparently what they are doing now)? Enlighten me on the vastly superior plan you liberals have. I haven't heard it.
Thanks Law for your lesson. Rock, never use the term poo-poo on 2GL again, I have threatened to block you once, a use of poo-poo again will Pete Rose you from 2GL.
Very funny 2GL. I'm still waiting to hear the details of the great Democratic party's plan though. Be honest- there is only one plan- to demonize ANYTHING Republicans come up with while claiming there is no problem with SS. What was it that Clinton said about SS back in 1998?
Post a Comment
<< Home