Discussion in 'Green Room' started by Perris Calderon, Apr 29, 2005.
/read some of the text of what the president had to say and agree with alot of it
Good for you.
Bush's proposal does indeed have a coupla good ideas. The problem is that the entire idea he has is basically prolonging the inevitable rather than actually changing things so those that rely on SS are not receiving the short end of the stick.
His proposal will still lead to a collapse of the system but he will be able to prolong it for a bit longer. What is the point in spending trillions of tax payers money if the end result is STILL the same?
This is why even with some good ideas in there, the entire proposal itself is bogus. There is a very good reason there is a lack of support for his plan even amongst conservatives.
first of all, anyone that's already paid into their retirement fund which was administered by this country already has a contract that is not void and needs to be honored...unless the government would like to declare bankruptcy, it really needs to honor the contracts it makes with the citizens
whoever paid into social security needs to be guaranteed they get the return they were promised
those that are not in the workforce don't have a contract with this country, and whatever is changed needs to be changed from the future workforce, not the present one
second, the government needs to get the money back which was taken from our surplus...given out to wealthy people as if it were free to do it...this surplus was needed for just such issues as social security...now it's not there
as for the good points the president made, I'll post some of those later
I think we should also go to these countries we been helping out, and tell them that since we helped we shouldn't owe them money amymore. That would help lower the defecit. As for putting SSI money into IRA's and such, I can see that happening. I agree with that, it should actually give retired people more money to use when they need it. I can't see how anyone can live on $500.00 a month like ssi pays now .. No wonder so many retired people end up going back to work, or go on welfare.
Also, I am strongly hoping they pass a national sales tax. This will get rid of income tax. It will also be getting paid by the welfare bums ..
Perris, you obviously have not read up on the proposals or what is being used as a basis.
I will wait till a FINAL draft is made on the proposal because currently, anyone making 20K or more a year is considered "Higher Income" and I sure as hell hope you are not saying that giving them fewer benefits is a good idea
Bush's plan is really quite unrealistic, quite honestly. Social Security doesn't have a huge lump of money to pay for private accounts; the money we contribute today is paid out today. And with Bush's endless spending, we're starting to look like a maxed out credit card. We'd have to add $2 trillion to our debt to pull it off.
Secondly, national sales tax?! Are people crazy? To even make up the lost money from the income tax, we'd need a 52% national sales tax, which won't happen. Then, with current plans, we'll have a 23% national sales tax coupled with 6% state sales taxes. We'll be adding roughly 30% to all of our prices. Not even Canada is this insane! You're just asking for our economy to grind to a halt, because consumer spending is what drives this economy. Not Bill Gates. Not Donald Trump. If we stopped spending tomorrow, they'd be declaring bankruptcy.
Us average folk already pay little to no federal income tax, so that's really what this is: yet another attempt for the wealthy to stop paying taxes. Reckless, reckless, reckless. It stands to reason that those who make the most money should be paying the most taxes. And these people are still rich even after paying taxes. With that, the North should demand more of its state-generated income back, because we're funding the South and their low-tax, anti-union lunacy. The next time Florida has 5 hurricanes, they can pay for it themselves. After all, welfare is bad bad bad, so why should the North support the South?
I don't think anything should change for anyone that allready is in the workforce...these people have been promised a return and this government needs to honor the promises it makes to it's citizens...nothing less then what we were promised
I said I liked some of the ideas, I haven't looked into the details of implementation...obviously, 20,000 income can't be the threshold, and I need to see the final draft before I give a thumbs up on anything
in addition, someone needs to give me back the money he took from me when he gave it away to rich people...greenspan told us we would pay for that giveaway with our retirement investment and he was right
My solution to Social Security: raising the income ceiling to $200,000. Currently, only the first $85,000 of someone's income is taxed on Social Security. So if you make millions and millions of dollars a year, you're still only getting taxed on the first $85,000.
This would be the easiest way to make SS solvent, but Bush will do nothing to piss off his wealthy campaign contributors. They want private accounts, because then the financial world can make money off of it. Bad idea, because stock markets do go up, but they also go down. And with all the 401K hysteria of the 1990s, a lot of people lost their ass come 2000 and have to work longer just to be able to retire. Hence, our employment stagnation, as baby boomers are working a lot longer than they originally intended, and younger workers are underemployed or unemployed, as a result.
Oh and Bush's "income threshold" idea is DOA. Neither Republicans nor Democrats want to turn Social Security into any de facto "welfare" program, which is what his idea turns into.
this would be one method for this president to give back some of the money he gave to rich people after he took it from us
This may not be totally inline with this thread - but I thought it was just too funny to pass up!
Please click here!
This is an interesting debate, in 20 years the life cycle of the baby boomers will be on a downward trend. Not to be morbid, but the sustainable rate of mortality will be higher than the net birth rate. Of course looking at maintaining a higher standard of living for elderly, would mean lowering drug costs and raising the infrastructure that supports this nation, but we all know Bush would'nt do that, now would he?
and don't forget that the social security fund has been raided by congress many times to pay for their pet projects. If even part of the money was paid back the fund could also be solvent again. A person would be taking chances on the stock market or oney market with the private fund but then would be taking a chance if left for congress to raid time and again.
now that is a point I haven't seen anywhere else...excellant!..rep coming
also an excellant point
all the president has to do is give the frigging money back from who he stole it from, and BING...no more issue
but the real point here is that his own economic advisor told him in no uncertain terms that the free money give away is a bill that would with the money the middle class invested toward their retirement
look, I have no problem with tax incentives, however, when the bill is called for that give away, the peoiple that the money was given to are the people that need to pay the bill
however, in this grand republican scheme, take money from people that need it, give it to people that don't need it, and then take more money from the people you took it from in the first place
this is the idea behind "supply side" or more appropriate what Bush senior called the strategy; "voodoo economics"
The baby-boomer theory is not really correct though, the problem is that when social security was instated, people didn't normally live up to and past their 80's. There used to be something like 17 workers for every 1 person on SS, now there is barely 3, imagine in 20 years that will be down to about 1:1. What I really don't understand is the 2 trillion dollars this would cost? Why? People who have paid into social security get their money back, if you want to invest the money, you can, it is voluntary. The uber-liberal AARP is blocking this for no reason whatsoever, if you are 50 now, this would have no affect on your benefits. If you remember, the esteemed Clinton had tried to pass the exact same plan. The Dem's blocked it then, and they will block it now. The reality is, it is broken, and needs to be fixed before it becomes a huge problem. My grandparents live off of SS, and they get like $444 a month, hardly a lot of money, imagine if they had money invested in the stock market, in a safe plan, where the markets went over 1000% since 1970. So, from 1970 -> 2000, you would get on average 33% a year. Due to the magic of compund interest, a $1000 investment in 1970, would be worth over $5,000,000 today.
The only real problem with the stock market is there is no safe plan, every prospectus that you would get upon investing money states this at the beginning. There is no safe investment when it comes to the stock market. Look at the index yields during the Clinton years, you would have made a killing during that presidency, but you would have lost most of it during the firslt 4 years of the Bush presidency. There is no sage investment that any experts agree on, so how can the average person make a competent decisino to invest? I agree that this is something that is broken, but unless everyone is on the same playing field, this will reward older people, who have had a higher income and know a little about investing.
And the next time the north declares a "Snow Emergency" and need millions of tons of salt.. I'm in Jacksonville, FL (notice you are from Monroe, MI... 75% of my family lives in your city) I understand your thinking, but there are disasters that happen all over the world. FEMA is being investigated right now for fraudulent payouts last year. Hopefully that will resolve some of the issues with spending. Heck, we sent more money across the seas to the vicitims of the Tidal Waves than we sent to FL...
I have worked disaster relief before, and I can honestly say that the American Red Cross is one of the first responders in any event, Earthquakes, Flooding and Hurricanes. Not many people know or fail to make the distinction, but when a donation is made to the American Red Cross that money stays in the US. Disasters happen, but for us to take the stance that it is only regional and not really our problem is misguided. Any disaster, anywhere affects us, as a nation and as a people. This is a truly an altruistic group, and yes even they have their problems. There are scores of people who take advantage of grief stricken people in disaster sites, yes FEMA also get's called out for people who have scammed the Feds. FEMA is one arm of the federal branch that does good, don't attack them for the profiteers and gougers who take advantage of it.
well, this thread went off topic, so let me bring it back on.
I agree with some of the principles of the presidents speech, however, I don't think anyone, even republicans (well, the ones that aren't wealthy) would blindly accept what the president says will happen with his "plan" and what the president "says" he will do versus he will actually do.
this is the very same administration that brought social security to ruin... we need to at least wait untill we get a look at the actual and final plan.
what's proposed with his form of personal investment is another method of giveing my money to the wealthy investment management industry
it will also create capitol for big bussiness to play around with at no recourse if they missmanage the money they are playing with
anyone remember enron?
big bussiness love the prospect of having my money to play around with...it's like going to las vegas on my credit card as far as they're concerned
on the other hand, I have no problem with some form of personal investment plan
there is an excellant plan of personal investment already in place...ira and keogh...the idea of personal investment towards our retirement is already there and it's working very nicely
if the president wants to increase amount of money an individual of lower income is allowed to invest tax free, (this would only be for people below a certain income, not a tax shelter for people that don't need one), that would be an excellent plan
however, creating a new money management industry in itself would just be another method Bush found to give my money to rich people, and I don't have anymore to give...sorry.
here's the very first thing that needs to be done to get social security solvent;
I want my friggin money back
I want the president to get the money that he has stolen from my retirement fund and put it back where it belongs...bing...I want him to get that money from the people he gave it to...bing
I don't want him to get it from me
that's number one...and then we can talk about other fine ideas
I have a contract with this government. This president has no business reneging on the contract that I have with the administrations before his...who is he to default on commitments this government made?
the only people that fewer benefits can be paid to then what was promised are those people that have not contributed yet...those that have not entered into the social security contract...or a pro rated refund to those who just entered
.everyone that has entered into this socail security contract has the right to get what they were promised by this government and this president has no bussiness to default unless he plans on declaring bankruptcy for America, I expect my contract to be fulfilled
easy to do too, get the money you gave to rich people and give it back...bing.
then, we can talk about better courses of financial investment for social security....in my mind it will not entail creating a new industry in money management