posted on February 17, 2005 05:52:40 AM new
By LAURA MECKLER, AP
PORTSMOUTH, N.H. (Feb. 17) - President Bush is not ruling out raising taxes on people who earn more than $90,000 as a way to help fix Social Security's finances.
HEY MIDDLE CLASS YOU REALLY NEED TO WATCH REAL CLOSE AT WHAT THIS WHITE HOUSE IS DOING.
Once really informed the only person you need to trust is yourself.
posted on February 17, 2005 05:57:54 AM new
Since you posted this bigpeepa tell us just how are they going to pay all the baby boomers their SS if they are paying out more than they are taking in. This is not a new problem. This has been happening for quite sometime now not just during the Bush administrations.
posted on February 17, 2005 06:35:00 AM newGive us your solution for SS.
It isn't the lack of money going into the fund, the problem lies with more money being spent. My solution is to cut the benefits being paid out.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- Bush will fix Social Security just like he has fixed Osama Bin Laden and Iraq. Bush can't be trusted to run this country and you want to trust him with your retirement?
posted on February 17, 2005 11:27:45 AM new
Libra, I have thoughts about S.S. but I am sure people of your mind set wouldn't like them. Plus I am not or is anyone else on this board (like you) in the position to implement any for my or their ideas.
HEY MIDDLE CLASS AMERICA YOU NEED TO PAY REAL CLOSE ATTENTION TO WHAT THIS WHITE HOUSE IS DOING.
Once a person is really informed the only person they need to trust is themselves.
posted on February 17, 2005 11:44:26 AM new
logansdad, I would have said, the problem with S.S. lies with lies,deception and money being spent. Ha Ha. This White House is very good at both.
posted on February 17, 2005 12:06:00 PM new
Bigpeepa you DO NO KNOW my mind set.
Get over it. It is not only this administration that has done that but a couple before and probably before that.
Soon the babyboomers will be collecting social security and there will be more going out than in BECAUSE of what I think is partly due to NAFTA. The next reason is the disability that is being taken out of SS. No I don't begrudge the person who NEEDS SS disability what I don't like is the people that are collecting that can still work and some that are still working.
Plus I am not or is anyone else on this board (like you) in the position to implement any for my or their ideas. I didn't ask you for any thing that could be implimented all I asked was - give your solution for SS. You are so brilliant you must have some suggestions. You can meet with your congressmen in your area as I am sure they are open to suggestions especially from someone that knows it all. That's why congressmen are elected from areas so they can get suggestions.
_________________
[ edited by Libra63 on Feb 17, 2005 12:07 PM ]
posted on February 17, 2005 12:10:54 PM new
Libra, what does NAFTA have to do with this? I fully agree with you as far as people over a certain income level shouldn't qualify for SS. It should only be for people who NEED it. That would fix the whole problem immediately.
posted on February 17, 2005 12:11:04 PM new
Sorry bigpeepa I am already collecting SS and will until I die unless I live to be over a hundred and heaven forbid I better not live that long. What they do will not reflect on me at all. Don't be to sad. I really don't care if there is anything left for you but I do care about my daughter.
posted on February 17, 2005 12:15:20 PM new
Because of the outsourcing of jobs. I.E. mexico. No SS money coming from their. Illegal aliens, none their either. That is due to NAFTA.
posted on February 17, 2005 12:18:35 PM new
KD not to bigpeepa as he is mean and vindictive to me and has been since he has known I voted for Bush. He has said hurtful things to me also so I guess what goes around comes around. They call that Karma.
I am sorry you didn't like it.
posted on February 17, 2005 12:33:05 PM new
Libra, Mexico is the least of your worries compared to India and China if you want to talk about job outsourcing. NAFTA only covers Mexico and Canada and isn't a one time document. It's signed and amended by every President, so blaming NAFTA doesn't make sense.
You voted for Bush???
[ edited by kraftdinner on Feb 17, 2005 12:34 PM ]
posted on February 17, 2005 12:58:22 PM new
Lol Kraft! Libra!!! I cant believe you did that!!! You always tell everyone you dont disclose who you voted for and there you went and did it!! UGH!! ::shaking head:: Now what are we gonna do with you? You'll never hear the end of it, ya know!!
As far as peepa goes, I look at it this way, ,Libra, Somebody really cannot hurt you unless you ever had a modicum of respect for them to begin with. Its like crowfart, who can he/she really think they hurt?
...
[ edited by dblfugger9 on Feb 17, 2005 01:02 PM ]
posted on February 17, 2005 01:02:39 PM new
KD says: I fully agree with you as far as people over a certain income level shouldn't qualify for SS. It should only be for people who NEED it. That would fix the whole problem immediately.
Oh...so, in your opinion, we should collect these taxes from everyone and ONLY give to those judged needy?
Sounds like more socialism to me. Another redistribution of money from one group of people to another. I don't expect to see that ever happen.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on February 17, 2005 01:08:51 PM new
Libra - I agree with dblfugger's statement....As far as peepa goes, I look at it this way, Libra, Somebody really cannot hurt you unless you ever had a modicum of respect for them to begin with. Its like crowfart, who can he/she really think they hurt?
And I don't think the left has a leg to stand on....the clinton administration said the same thing about SS. The lefties just want to pretend this is only something President Bush believes needs updating. Heck...even FDR said, when the SS program was being set up, that the program should be privatized. And we're 40 years later than when HE projected it would happen.
Although I'm aware it will most likely never come about, I'd personally I'd like to see the whole program eliminated, totally over a period of years, while still paying SS benefits to those who have over a certain amount they've paid into the fund....and make a cash payment/settlement to those young people who have only paid into the program for a few years.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Feb 17, 2005 01:11 PM ]
posted on February 17, 2005 01:28:39 PM new
Linda, that's why it's called Social Security (ours is called Social Insurance). It's insurance that you'll have a bit of money to live on if you end up destitute. If you don't need it, you shouldn't use it, just like any insurance policy.
posted on February 17, 2005 01:43:44 PM new
"I really don't care if there is anything left for you but I do care about my daughter."
Then you should tell your daughter to start saving on her own now, instead of relying on the government to offer assistance.
Social security was not meant to be a retirement plan and be the only means of support for the elderly. It was meant to supplement their retirement.
OK So Bush wants to have individual retirement accounts. Fine. Let's say Average Blue Collar worker Joe does this individual retirement plan as Bush suggests. What happens to Joe when the money he set aside in his personal retirement account runs out and he still needs money? Would the government at that point say "Sorry Joe, your money ran out. You need to fend for yourself." Or would the government then at that point provide Joe with money?
If the later is true, I see Social Security being in the same situation as it is in now.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- Bush will fix Social Security just like he has fixed Osama Bin Laden and Iraq. Bush can't be trusted to run this country and you want to trust him with your retirement?
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- Bush will fix Social Security just like he has fixed Osama Bin Laden and Iraq. Bush can't be trusted to run this country and you want to trust him with your retirement?
posted on February 17, 2005 02:40:11 PM new
LIBRA, About your mind set. You are so transparent with your comments like the ones from you I am quoting below.
Libra said "I am already collecting SS and will until I die" and "Don't be to sad. I really don't care if there is anything left for you but I do care about my daughter".
People like you with your mind set differ from people like me. I care about my fellow man not just ME AND MINE.
Linda K, only people like you would want respect from people like you. I sure as hell don't want or need any of your kind of respect.
HEY MIDDLE CLASS AMERICA YOU NEED TO WATCH REAL CLOSELY AT WHAT THIS WHITE HOUSE IS DOING.
Once you are really informed the only person you need to listen to is yourself
posted on February 17, 2005 03:03:17 PM new
And then there is the 'other' side of the Galveston, TX Alternative plan.....an evaluation done of their plan during the clinton administration.
posted on February 17, 2005 03:28:32 PM new
Linda K, there you go again. Living in the past are ya. You really have to get current we are now living under the Bush White House not Clinton. Its this White House that is setting the future for the American people. You poor old thing always trying to cloud the issue with a lot of mindless BLAH BLAH by living in the past. Don't worry we will all be watching and keep you informed.
posted on February 17, 2005 03:47:38 PM new
No, bigpeepa....we're just discussing the options that might be sought to make the system more solvent.
You on the other hand...have a closed mind and don't wish to look at another system that IS working for those in TX who chose NOT to go into the SS sytems. Doesn't surprise me though....you've always been that way.
The dems are offering what? Raise taxes so we all get to pay more....cut benefits....or up the age requirements.
And as to your opening post....it was a democrat in Congress who proposed a bill to up the wage when SS stops being taken out of paychecks. Again...raising taxes.
What this President has done is put the SS subject on the table for discussion ...and said he is interested in ALL opinions EXCEPT one to raise taxes.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
edited to add the Cato link...which has a few good articles on this subject. Including Alan Greenspans endorcement of privatization of SS acounts.
http://www.socialsecurity.org/daily/02-17-05.html
posted on February 17, 2005 04:36:16 PM new
I thank God I don't think like you bigpeepa..
KD I only used Mexico as an example. They don't collect SS from the Mexican workers. How many jobs went to Mexico. Think of all the SS that we are not collecting because of that. If those jobs were still here it certainly would help.
If you pay into SS the amount your supposed to, the government cannot stop someone from collecting it. I guess I don't understand the reasoning. Because people have saved their money and are living comfortably that they don't deserve to collect the SS they paid into it?
posted on February 17, 2005 06:04:29 PM new
I know all you anti Bush democRATS will hate this but what the heck. (P.S. Roosevelt was a democrat if you have forgotten)
Roosevelt saw need for personal accounts
Said Social Security would require such reform by about 1965
Democrats appealing to President Franklin Roosevelt in their opposition to President Bush's proposal to offer private Social Security accounts may have to turn elsewhere for inspiration.
In a Jan. 17, 1935, address to Congress, Roosevelt, the originator of the federal retirement system, looked into the future and saw the need to move beyond the pay-as-you go financing and eventually establish "self-supporting annuity plans," noted Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund.
"For perhaps 30 years to come, funds will have to be provided by the states and the federal government to meet these pensions," Roosevelt told Congress.
But after that, he said, it would be necessary to move to "voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age."
Roosevelt proposed that "the federal government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."
Fund quoted a top Republican member of the Ways and Means Committee.
"What Roosevelt was talking about is the need to update Social Security sometime around 1965 with what today we would call personal accounts," he said. "By my reckoning, we are only about 40 years late in addressing his concerns on how [to] make Social Security solvent."
In his recent State of the Union address, President Bush argued that without reform, Social Security will go into the red by 2018 and be bankrupt by 2042.
"With each passing year, fewer workers are paying ever-higher benefits to an ever-larger number of retirees," he said.
The president has proposed that younger workers be allowed to invest a small portion of their income in tightly restricted personal retirement accounts. In the first year the maximum investment would be limited to $1,000 a year, with an increase of $100 each year thereafter.
But last week, Democrats sought to dramatize their fight against President Bush by holding a news conference at the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial.
Noting that he represents Las Vegas, Democratic Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada has called Bush's proposal a "dangerous" plan akin to gambling.
posted on February 17, 2005 06:17:12 PM new
The poor neocons bought the FDR hoax hook, line, and sinker.....again...do a little more studying, maybe look up what his grandson has to say about it. don't be afraid you'll find out something different and ya know, ya just might find out something diferent! HE was NOT for privatization.
posted on February 17, 2005 06:21:11 PM new
Bush is not open to raising payroll tax. That would be hurt the low income group. what he did say he was open to increasing the max of S.S. which is about $90,000 to max pay which is taxed at about now 6% rate to all payrolls no matter the amount..
The Democrats want to limit the payroll tax at 200,000 increase and increase S.S tax 9 to 20% of that rate. What this will do is increase the Max payout on S.S. Of those making over 200,000 and decrease those making less than 200,000 S.S. payout at retirement. Which would be more than 70% of the country. Those that make the max S.S. now would loose approx. 3 to 14% of what they get now. Those about to retire and future retirement would loose much more By increasing the taxable rate of retirement + S.S. from 32,000 to 55,000.
Any way you look at it the poor are S.O.L.
The Best plan would be is to remove the S.S. Payroll limit & every body pays. Decrease the pay roll tax by 3% for those making less 90,000. Call in all the I.O.U's and remove S.S. from the General fund. Increase S.S. payout to those at the bottom end 70%.
Fred
Some of the fig. above may incorrect by 2 or 3 percentage points.
posted on February 17, 2005 06:21:21 PM newhave a closed mind and don't wish to look at another system that IS working for those in TX who chose NOT to go into the SS sytems.
If the link you provided Linda is referencing the TX plan that was used as an example in my link, I would not say it would be working 100%. If you are single and a low wage earner or married social (low, middle or high wage earner) security would provide more benefits than the individual retirement accounts did.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- Bush will fix Social Security just like he has fixed Osama Bin Laden and Iraq. Bush can't be trusted to run this country and you want to trust him with your retirement?
posted on February 17, 2005 06:24:06 PM new
I see now of those that are in favor of Bush's plan have answered my question about the personal retirement accounts:
Let's say Average Blue Collar worker Joe does this individual retirement plan as Bush suggests. What happens to Joe when the money he set aside in his personal retirement account runs out and he still needs money? Would the government at that point say "Sorry Joe, your money ran out. You need to fend for yourself." Or would the government then at that point provide Joe with money?
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- Bush will fix Social Security just like he has fixed Osama Bin Laden and Iraq. Bush can't be trusted to run this country and you want to trust him with your retirement?
posted on February 17, 2005 06:28:56 PM new
Linda, if you think of it like car insurance, hopefully you'll never need it. If people that are above a certain income level and don't need it, it shouldn't bother them. It would totally fix the system.
