posted on February 18, 2005 07:59:39 PM new
libra, instead of parroting the same thing you've said for 50-60 years why don't you do a little investigating/exploring on your own. Then maybe when you find the truth you may believe it.
posted on February 19, 2005 07:06:41 AM new
Cheryl,
I am glad there are people out there that are not rushing to accept Bush's proposal. He is trying to cram this down our throats before he has any of the details worked out.
The only way there would not be enough money going into SS would be when the next generation of kids is smaller than the last.
Bush has yet to answer the most important question of all: What happens to those people that have a personal account and have used up all their money? This is a very important question. I am sure he will not say "You are on your own now. It is your fault you did not plan well enough". If he did say this, nobody would buy into his "individual account plan". If he says the government will take of you, we will have the same exact situation we have now...more being paid out than what is contributed. It is a no win situation this way.
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 19, 2005 10:45:07 AM new
logansdad said:
He is trying to cram this down our throats before he has any of the details worked out.
Ugh....that would be WRONG too. He has offered HIS plan...and asked others to throw their ideas on the table for discussion. Stating that the only thing he won't agree to is raising taxes. He isn't the one who 'works the details out'....our Congress does that.
Bush has yet to answer the most important question of all: What happens to those people that have a personal account and have used up all their money? This is a very important question.
Because, for some reason, YOU refuse to READ that he HAS stated what protections they would have, in his suggested plan, doesn't mean he 'has yet to answer it'.
YOUR question really cracks me up though....especially since you keep harping on this one question. But if you'd READ YOU OWN link....the answer to why this wouldn't happen in the first place IS IN YOUR LINK.
I am sure he will not say "You are on your own now. It is your fault you did not plan well enough".
I agree....he wouldn't. I did - be thankful I'm not President/Queen. Just as those who don't plan for their retirement will and do have to rely on only SS to survive. And it's just barely enough to live on. But who's rescuing those who spend any funds they've saved for retirement and spent those funds? No one....it's called too bad...should have planned better. Now you have to suffer the consequences.
If he says the government will take of you, we will have the same exact situation we have now...more being paid out than what is contributed. It is a no win situation this way. Again....it would really be wonderful if you'd read your own link.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on February 19, 2005 06:51:00 PM new
"Because the—all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those—changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be—or closer delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the—like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate—the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those—if that growth is affected, it will help on the red."—
Bush explaining his plan to save Social Security, Tampa, Fla., Feb. 4, 2005
posted on February 19, 2005 07:03:24 PM new
Once again a neonazicons, just like bush, prove my point about what nasty, heartless aspholes they ALL are....
from the "queen" (of Torture) linduh..."""Just as those who don't plan for their retirement will and do have to rely on only SS to survive. And it's just barely enough to live on. But who's rescuing those who spend any funds they've saved for retirement and spent those funds? No one....it's called too bad...should have planned better. Now you have to suffer the consequences. """
I really hope and pray linduh that you get a catastrophic illness or have a horrendous accident with overwhelming medical bills as you age to find out just how stupid that statement was. This isn't because I'm nasty, it's because it will be the only way YOU will ever learn the truth.
By the way please send me your husband's SS check, you freeloading, unself-reliant moocher!
posted on February 19, 2005 07:29:48 PM new
Kinda muddleD????? What a complete idiot is our pres !
He doesn't understand it himself, the dork, but he sure wants to push it down our throats!
posted on February 19, 2005 07:38:16 PM new
The President was mentioning what some have offered as a way to change the SS system. Which method of caluculation they use will make a difference in cost.
taken from MSNBC
Change in benefit formula
When the Social Security Administration figures out a new retiree's initial benefit, it uses a formula based on the real (inflation-adjusted) growth in wages during that worker's career. First implemented in 1977, this is called wage-indexing and it means that the benefits Social Security has promised to future retirees will be higher in real terms than those paid to today's retirees - that is, they would be higher if the system could pay full benefits, which as of 2042, it won't be able to, according to the Social Security Trustees.
The Trustees predict a 27 percent cut in benefits in 2042 if no changes are made in the current system. In the coming decades, the Trustees predict, there will be too few workers, too many retirees.
To avert insolvency, some analysts have suggested switching to price-indexing of initial benefits, which would save hundreds of billions of dollars, but also would mean smaller-than-promised retirement checks for future retirees.
To lessen the pinch of switching to price-indexing, Greenspan suggested to Graham that he use a hybrid: wage-indexing (and thus relatively generous benefits growth) for low-income workers, and price-indexing, (less generous benefit growth) for higher income people.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on February 19, 2005 07:43:17 PM newI really hope and pray linduh that you get a catastrophic illness or have a horrendous accident with overwhelming medical bills as you age to find out just how stupid that statement was. This isn't because I'm nasty, it's because it will be the only way YOU will ever learn the truth.
Yes it is crowfarm because you ARE nasty.
Now, where is Kiara, KD, logansdad, bigpeepa or Helen. Do you think crowfarm is the ultimate one now wishing sickness on someone. Do you agree with her? If you agree post something and if you don't agree then come in and say something.
Are you that hateful crowfarm, saying something to someone you do not know. Everyone has their right to post but posting threats like that is horrible.
posted on February 19, 2005 07:49:18 PM new
also taken from MSNBC...another offered suggestion:
WASHINGTON - An army of one, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, is trying to save Social Security as well as President Bush's concept of private accounts.
This week, Graham claimed to have found one solution to the problem of paying for the transition from the current pay-as-you-go system to a personal accounts system. Graham would raise the "cap" on earned income that is subject to the 6.2 percent Social Security tax. Currently the first $90,000 of a worker's earned income is taxed.
Graham touted the idea of a "donut hole" in the Social Security tax. Graham hasn't worked out exact numbers yet. But as a purely hypothetical example, the Social Security tax would apply to the first $90,000 of income, the next several thousands of dollars of income would be exempt, but then the tax would resume on all income above $300,000.
The "donut hole" would let upper-middle class Americans off the hook, yet would force higher-income people to help pay the cost of transitioning to private accounts.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, subjecting all earnings to the Social Security tax would raise more than $1 trillion over ten years, which is approximately equal to the initial ten-year cost of the transition to a private accounts system.
No need to borrow?
"Raising the cap is one way to generate more revenue without having to borrow the transition costs," Graham told reporters this week. "I've come to the conclusion that it is not responsible to borrow the transition costs and pass them on to future generations."
But a tax increase on workers in the range of $300,000 and above may lead them to forego cash income and instead seek non-cash compensation from their employers, thus foiling Graham's intent, by denying the government revenue he seeks.
The idea of raising the cap has long been a favorite of Democrats who have argued that high-income Americans ought to bear more of the Social Security burden.
It was only two months ago that Democratic leader and AFL-CIO president John Sweeney proposed raising the cap. "Congress could make the highest wage earners pay their share to Social Security by raising the cap on earnings subject to the payroll tax," Sweeney suggested on Dec. 16. Upper-income folks "would hardly notice it," said Roger Hickey, co-director of the Campaign for America's Future, a Democratic-allied advocacy group.
But after Bush indicated Tuesday he was open to raising the cap on earnings, Democrats pounced, with Senate Minority Leader Sen. Harry Reid, D- Nevada, mockingly saying Bush would incur the wrath of conservative crusader Grover Norquist.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on February 19, 2005 07:54:58 PM new
I see nothing's changed with CF's posts. How sick...and her hatefilled statement has nothing at all to do with privatizing/changing SS benefits.
She needs help, big time.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on February 19, 2005 07:59:50 PM new
I see linduh's bushworshipping has blinded her to her own nastiness....."Just as those who don't plan for their retirement will and do have to rely on only SS to survive. And it's just barely enough to live on. But who's rescuing those who spend any funds they've saved for retirement and spent those funds? No one....it's called too bad...should have planned better. Now you have to suffer the consequences. ""
This is just as nazi-nasty as telling a single mother that it's "Fantastic" that she has to work 3 jobs!
Now, little miss self-reliant, how much is your husband's SS check that you steal from the taxpayers?
posted on February 19, 2005 08:05:53 PM new
Well you are right about Mary Mornin but she is happy and she was talking with the President and now she knows her SS is safe.
You do not know her situation, neither do I, but her jobs cannot be all full time or she would never sleep. Can you add 3 full time jobs = 24 hours, besides a mentally challanged adult child at home.
Get over yourself crowfarm you are going to have a miserable 4 years. It's not going to go away....
_________________
posted on February 19, 2005 08:28:02 PM new
You are right, Libra, on people having more than one job. One must take into consideration how many actual hours they're working....not just use the 'three' jobs to mean/assume they never sleep.
--------------
My son is another example of having more than one job. Has a regular 40 hr. work week and then also earns money from publishing books, doing website set-ups, hiring himself out to help/repair/teach, in-home, people who aren't computer literate and is also establishing his own marketing business. He doesn't have to do all this...he does it so he can have his wife stay at home to raise their own children...he can save for his families future.
Boy....something must be wrong with him - and the above mentioned woman who works three jobs. He could just sit back and not worry about educating his children...let the government pay for that....don't work a job that has benefits...just let the government pay for that....need day care...don't sacrifice income to have your wife stay at home to raise the children...no put her to work and let the government care for your childen. Don't spend money feeding them breakfast and lunch either...the government will feed them too. And he could choose to become dependent on the government to take care of most of HIS responsibilities....like some liberals here seem to think when they mention all the 'poor' people who have to work, some at more than one job. Or have to work past retirement because they didn't prepare for their own future.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on February 19, 2005 08:33:02 PM new
Such boiling rage at the less fortunate and inner self loathing (probably because she gets SS that doesn't belong to her because she isn't very self-reliant.)......so sad.......
posted on February 19, 2005 08:43:15 PM new
Crowfarm, How do you know what Linda gets. I honestly think her husband was not old enough to collect SS and she certainly isn't so maybe you had better change your story. Get the facts. And if he was maybe the reason you are angry is that there might not be enough left for you. Wouldn't that just be to bad.....
posted on February 19, 2005 08:51:00 PM new
Oh...what? So now CF is telling everyone what my financial situation is...when she/he has absolutely NO way of knowing anything about it. typical of him/her.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on February 19, 2005 08:57:51 PM new
What are you trying to say:libra, why isn't linduh telling you can speak for herself? This makes no sense at all.
I don't have to butt-out. You seem to be in everyones face lately. I will post what I want to and you can't tell me anything different. The last time I looked I belonged to Vendio and I can use their services.
_________________
posted on February 19, 2005 09:50:04 PM new
Libra63, you asked where I was. Lets see here. It seems I remember awhile back you have made nasty statements. So now you are so thin skinned about what crow says to you or was it to your buddy Linda K. LOL. If need be I will gladly copy and paste or quote some of your and Linda's statements to show how lady like you both are.
Crow likes to say what she thinks and if ya all don't like it don't read it. Crow is more often right than wrong in my book. We all make mistakes don't we libra. Its seems like you let me get under your skin and you really shouldn't. While you are very transparent I really mean you no harm. I just enjoy playing with you by pointing out how often you and the guy you voted for are wrong.
kiara, I love your post, must be the teleprompter broke down on our leader that day. Heck I never even went to College and I can speak better than that. Maybe I should start thinking like Geo and become a hero in my own mind. Then I could run for President. The first law I would make is make it legal to boo and yell at each other in the congress like they do in England. That way I could give the republicans the finger if they started yelling and booing me. Can't ya just see how much fun we would all have. They would yell I would give the finger, they would boo and I would really get mad then and take off my cowboy boot to throw at them.
[ edited by bigpeepa on Feb 19, 2005 09:57 PM ]
posted on February 19, 2005 10:25:03 PM new
So what crowfarm posts it is great with you. But when 12 posted that about maggie's daughter everybody jumped all over him. It sure is a double standard in this discussion board.
BIGpeepa you can post what ever you like. Go for it. All I know is that you are a big blow hard. It is an open discussion board. Do we all make mistakes. According to crowfarm she does nothing wrong. The epitomy of english and spelling.
Yes I did ask where you were along with your other cronies. I thought maybe after what crowfarm said about linda that maybe you think she crossed the line, but with the MIND SET of the left they would think nothing about it. After all you did vote for a traitor...
_________________
This topic is 6 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new
He has offered HIS plan...and asked others to throw their ideas on the table for discussion. Stating that the only thing he won't agree to is raising taxes. He isn't the one who 'works the details out'....our Congress does that.
?