Bush's plan to turn America into an ownership society

I'm looking forward to this plan. With some control I give MYSELF the option if I want to have $1000 a month when I retire or more. I would rather opt for the more option. Why are people against something that they can partially control themselves? Could it be that they would rather have a nanny state? If you chose to use the new plan and things go bad for you, then you only have yourself to blame and not the govt.

Believe me, I am not celebrating. As people who know me know, I am totally ambivalent in the matter of Bush. There are things about him that I like, others that I hate.

The point is, instead of politicizing this issue, why don't we all atttempt to understand what is happening, and how it might impact on us. A lot of people have been the prey of election year fear mongering. Now that Bush is president, what he will do, is what he will do. It is up to each of us to learn as much as we can.

Social Security is not something that can be changed instantly. It will take a lot of conferencing, negotiating, and compromising to hammer out a plan that will be acceptable to the Congress.

BTW, I was listening to the radio today. It was mentioned that right now the President is not even thinking about Social Security; right now his priority is simplifying the tax code.

We know all to well that the President is not thinking about Social Security. As long as I get what I'm rightfully entitled to when I retire, I don't care what they do.

You are very much part of the ME crowd aren't you?

What's a ME crowd?

The group that thinks of themselves first and screw everyone else

Ironic.

Just the fact that you made that statement shows that you don't know me at all and if I tell you what I really think about your stupid remarks, I'd get banned, so I'll let you use your immagination!!!

Alright guys, chill out. There is a lot of anxiety about this issue, and people are on edge. Let's not allow this to disturb our usual delightful personalities! :wink:

Which is precisely why I brought up the changes to top heavy rules. Sorry to be pessimistic, but when conservatives talk about simplification, they generally mean removing protections. Talk of simplification is almost funny after the convoluted complicated mess they just added to the tax code.

Most of the protections we have in place to the retirement/pension rules were put there because of specific past abuses. The most recent was Enron and the rules changes the administration put in to prevent reoccurrence. The problem then becomes after twenty years have passed and big business complains about being encumbered. The original reasoning is long forgotten, but human nature and greed have not changed.

Unfortunately Phoenix, it's getting harder by the day for me to chill out around here when I can't even express my opinions anymore without these abusers constantly putting words in my mouth, insulting me and making constant snide remarks towards me when they don't know me from a hole in the wall. I express my opinions and I do it to let people know who I am and where I stand and I'd like to be able to do that without these abusive $%^&*( contantly doing whatever they can to get a god damn rise out of me. I feel like I'm being stalked! I don't address people when I express my opinions because everyone has the right to their opinions whether I agree with them or not and all I ask is the same respect in return.

Anyway, I've had enough. I'm out of here!

It is difficult for me to understand all the emotion that this question has raised. It appears to me that some here are just reacting - and not reading and thinking.

Firstly Phoenix has posed a good and topical question. Whether we agree or not with the President's proposal, I think every serious person here will acknowledge that the changing demographics of the population have thoroughly undermined the assumptions build in to the social security system enacted in this country over 50 years ago, at a time when birth rates were much higher and life expectancy about nine years less. We may disagree about what should be done to rectify the situation, but no one can deny that the facts before us compell us to change something, tax rates, benefits or structure.

I also believe the cited NYT article gives a fairly reasonable version of the case against Bush's proposals. It proposes no specific remedy but makes the point that the Bush plan is just a ruse to avoid benefits reduction or higher taxes. That is a bit of a deception in that restructuring is the ONLY alternative to higher taxes or benefit cuts.

The point about the transfer of risk to the individual is valid. However the expressed nostalga about the old (and fast disappearing) defined benefit pension plans is a bit deceptive, The landscape is littered with defined benefit plans of defunct companies paying out only fractions of what was promised. 401K plans are indeed a better and fairer alternative, but they do allow for foolish people to ignore their future welfare.

I am inclined to believe that Social Security should be the ultimate safety net. That means retaining the present system but delaying the age at which one becomes elegible for benefits to (say) 70 years.This would still provide for a longer period of retirement (on average) than existed when the system was enacted. This is a value judgement on my part, and I remain interested in the possibilities for the Bush alternative and the views of those who favor it.

Unfortunately, Social Security has been treated as the ultimate piggy bank (by both parties).

I would welcome the ability to manage some of my Social Security contributions, but then I'm in the less-than-one-third of employees at my company that participate in the 401K plan.

I have no expectation of ever seeing any of the money I pay to Social Security, however. The current system depends on a pyramid effect of a large number of workers supporting a relatively small group of beneficiaries. As life expectancies increase (not to mention the Boomers retiring) the pyramid will collapse.

I will continue to hope for the best while preparing for the worst and making sure that I will not be a burden on my kids.

It seems like many Bush supporters are categorically supportive of absolutely everything Bush has done, while many Bush detractors are instinctively critical of everything on the Bush agenda. It's a shame. Georgeob is clearly right about this plan; it deserves more than a knee-jerk reaction.

Social security is in a crisis, and although some poster have rightly pointed out that many people are simply too short sighted to control their own "ultimate safety net," it would be naive to say anything different about the government. After all, the current Social Security crisis has resulted from political short-termism--no one wanted to touch the political bomb of Social Security, and so we have let it die a slow and painful death (while borrowing incessantly from it to help it along).

Although the Federal Government is clearly a better risk-bearer than private citizens, I think that problem will be offset by the fact that people can adjust the riskiness of their portfolio according to their needs. The Federal government has no way to personalize our Social Security, and a one-size-fits-all retirement plan is clearly sub-optimal.

Besides, what is the alternative? Let it stay as it is? I support georgeob's suggestion that we increase the age at which one becomes eligible, but fighting the AARP is nearly impossible, and they wouldn't stand for such a change. In any event, we need to do something. Bush's plan is worth consideration.

I haven't gotten the new NYer yet.. I always get it about five days after it comes out online. Alas, I like the printed page in front of my face, a vestigial influence from the years before.

But, I look forward to this one...

I haven't gotten the new NYer yet.. I always get it about five days after it comes out online. Alas, I like the printed page in front of my face, a vestigial influence from the years before.

But, I look forward to this one...

I haven't gotten the new NYer yet.. I always get it about five days after it comes out online. Alas, I like the printed page in front of my face, a vestigial influence from the years before.

But, I look forward to this one...

I haven't gotten the new NYer yet.. I always get it about five days after it comes out online. Alas, I like the printed page in front of my face, a vestigial influence from the years before.

But, I look forward to this one...

I am also of the belief that Social Security should be the ultimate safety net. If we let the people control their own investment options, some most certainly will lose out, and they will be a burden for the rest to bear. Just as with the medical crisis, as more people lose medical insurance, the hospitals cannot refuse treatment. They merely pass on the cost of the uninsured to the insured.

It bothers me though that as we are aware of a crisis ahead, the congress still cannot resist adding to the benefit and exacerbating the problem.

Just a few years ago the law was changed so that those at full retirement age (65 at the time) were able to draw full benefits while still working and no earned income limits. Prior to that change you had to pay back one dollar for every three earned above a certain income. While a good deal for those working, it was not a good time to be enhancing the benefit.

The same for the prescription drug act. Not much bang for the buck and no means to fund it. It looks more and more to me as though "starve the beast" is the plan.

Ah, sigh, it should bother you all that you might be without, at some point. The lack of understanding that that could happen to you is scary to me.