Bush plan to cripple SS

Whether the date of exhaustion is 2042 or 2052 is of little consequence, Bush contends. "Payroll taxes going into the Social Security are spent. They're spent on benefits and they're spent on government programs. There is no trust," the president said earlier this month.

McGentrix
What do you think makes up the shortfall in the general revenues. Social Security collections. I assume you pay or paid into the social system. . In addition even thought the shortfall in Security Funds needed to pay the disbursements will be made up through the cashing in of the government bonds keeping the system solvent till about 2050. The problem starts at 2018 since as Bush said the government does not have the funds and will have to raise taxes to meet those obligations. And why is there a short fall in collections. Because of Bush's ill advised tax cuts

Baldimo
People who earn a wage pay social security.

As to the tax cuts having nothing to do with Social security you seem to miss the point. The surplus that was crowed about when Bush took office was not from general revenues. It was the surplus of Social Security collections opposed to pay out. That surplus disappeared along with the SS surplus. It has to be paid back. Bush says and he is correct it is all gone spent absconded with. It rests with the rest of the government bond the system holds. It is an obligation of the US government. An obligation the government will be hard pressed to fulfill without tax increases. They will only be harsher because of the Bush tax cuts. Unless Bush can find a way to stiff the SS recipients. One way is a cut in benefits. Which is what the Bush plan is all about.

You could actually end up owing quite a bit of money under the Bush plan... if the market collapsed...

Cycloptichorn

Ex-House leader: Social Security should go away

By GLENN EVANS

Saturday, February 26, 2005

TYLER - Former U.S. House Majority Leader Dick Armey said Friday that Social Security should be phased out rather than saved.

"I think if you leave people free to choose, it will be phased out by competition," the former Republican congressman from Lewisville told reporters before sharing a President's Day Dinner with the Smith County Republican Club.

Armey, who left Congress in 2002 after 18 years, said younger Americans already believe personal investments produce greater retirement savings than Social Security will.

"We now have a generation of people that are thoroughly committed to investing their hopes and futures in private IRAs (Individual Retirement Accounts)," Armey said. "People will always do better for themselves when they are free to choose from among competing options than if they are compelled. Most thoughtful people could do better."

He said Social Security must remain solvent long enough to ensure older Americans collect on their lifelong payments into the system. But Americans who are at least younger than 50 should be allowed to divert their Social Security payments into personal accounts, he said.

"If it is such a great deal, why does the government have to make it mandatory," he said.

He added there will never be a class of destitute Americans who neglected to do their own investing.

"That argument might make sense in terms of a Social Security that gave a good return," he said, adding the government takes 15 percent of Americans' income in the Social Security tax. "And then they have the audacity to complain that we working men and women don't save enough."

Armey called Social Security the foundation stone of Democrats' New Deal and Great Society philosophies. He said George W. Bush is the first president with sufficient party backing in Congress to propose diverting a portion of Social Security taxes to personal investment accounts.

"Ronald Reagan would have probably had the courage to move on this change, but he lived with only a Democratic party in Congress," he said.

Armey also said Republican ambitions to add amendments banning flag burning and gay marriage to the U.S. Constitution are unlikely to be fulfilled. He said organizations that backed the Equal Rights Amendment, a failed proposal to make it unconstitutional to pay women less for the same work, were well-organized and politically powerful.

"Sponsors of the ERA were the meanest people I've seen in Congress, and they were unable to do it," he said. "So I don't take amending the Constitution very seriously, quite frankly. It's a big job. It's not likely to happen."

Someone should remind Armey of the stock market crash of 1929. The great depression and for that matter the recession of the 90's. The jobless one we have allegedly recovered from. It is people like him that have lived off and milked the public teat that average citizen should fear. There are presently many including our president who are of the same mind. However, since honesty has not been a hallmark of this administration they would never come out and voice their intentions. Subterfuge is the order of the day.

Gold did you miss my post on the last page? Experts are saying SS would be twice what it is now with private account enacted in the 80's.

Kind of like 9-11, huh? There is no telling what impact it really had on our economy.

Well, of couse it's BS once you take it to the extreme that you have.

Quote:

Kind of like 9-11, huh? There is no telling what impact it really had on our economy.

Um, well, we can look at 9/11 and see the specifics as to where it hurt our economy. But, no, we probably can't have an accurate forecast as to where we would be financially if 9/11 hadn't happened.

Not that this is on topic, or anything. You've basicaly just pulled a 'well, Clinton did it too' response. Weak. I suppose your implication is that none of the current financial problems we're having are anyone's fault, becuase of 9/11, but that, is, of course, bullsh*t.

Cycloptichorn