• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

One Politician of Principle

Help Support Ranchers.net:

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
One Politician of Principle

by Keith Koffler on January 6, 2012, 11:45 am

One of the little moments that stand out from my years of reporting at the White House and on Capitol Hill involved Rick Santorum.

I remember it to this day, because it was so genuine and, given what eventually happened, poignant. It helps explain why the people of Iowa gave Santorum his shot.

This is not an endorsement. It’s just something from my personal experience I thought might interest you about Santorum.

It was 2005, and George W. Bush had launched his controversial drive to reform Social Security, in part by allowing future retirees to place a portion of their payroll taxes in personal accounts that could include investments in stocks.

The Democrats were pounding away at Bush and anyone who suggested they might support the idea, frightening seniors with accusations that Social Security was getting “privatized” and offering grim prognoses of innocent seniors’ savings getting wiped out in the market.

Santorum was engaged in a bitter reelection fight for his Pennsylvania Senate seat, and his support for Bush’s Social Security plan was killing him.

Pennsylvania is teaming with retirees, ranking behind only Florida and West Virginia in the percentage of people over 65, and Santorum’s stand in favor of the accounts was the gift to Democrats that kept on giving.

As the point man for my publication on Bush’s Social Security drive, I was on Capitol Hill one day to cover a press conference by a group of Republican senators touting some aspect of the plan.

Not only was Santorum supporting Bush, but he was actually trying to promote the plan by putting himself before the cameras. Normally in Washington, even when someone takes a politically difficult position, they kind of sneak on to the floor to cast their vote – preferably wearing a full body burqa – and then scurry back to their office and hide under the desk.

Santorum was duly asked by one reporter why he was committing political suicide. Actually, it was more polite, like, “Isn’t this going to hurt your reelection prospects?”

I expected some kind of nonsense claiming that everything was perfectly normal aboard the Titanic and that iceberg ahead was a welcome diversion to be marveled at and embraced.

Instead, he was kind of sheepish, looking down, smiling a bit. He said something like “I really can’t worry about the politics of this. It’s the right thing to do.”

He really did. And it was clear to everyone that he was serious, since the politics of it were so bad.

And then he went on the be defeated for reelection.

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/01/06/politician-principle/
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
George W. Bush had launched his controversial drive to reform Social Security, in part by allowing future retirees to place a portion of their payroll taxes in personal accounts that could include investments in stocks.

And aren't we lucky that didn't pass or exist when the Bush Bust hit- or retirees would have lost $Zillions more of their retirement funds than they did anyway...

I am so glad I saw the Bush Bust coming and took everything out of my Deferred Comp retirement plan before the Bust hit... I was penalized for early withdrawl- but it was a lot better than many that lost everything....But luckily they still had SSI to fall back on to survive... They won't live like they planned to in retirement- but at least they won't be starving on the streets...
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Oldtimer said:
George W. Bush had launched his controversial drive to reform Social Security, in part by allowing future retirees to place a portion of their payroll taxes in personal accounts that could include investments in stocks.

And aren't we lucky that didn't pass or exist when the Bush Bust hit- or retirees would have lost $Zillions more of their retirement funds than they did anyway...

I am so glad I saw the Bush Bust coming and took everything out of my Deferred Comp retirement plan before the Bust hit... I was penalized for early withdrawl- but it was a lot better than many that lost everything....But luckily they still had SSI to fall back on to survive... They won't live like they planned to in retirement- but at least they won't be starving on the streets...


2-4% of their SSI payments would have equated to "$zillions"? Once again, you listened to the Democratic fearmongering.......Maybe they should outlaw Pension funds too...... :roll:


I wonder if the losses would have been as great as what SSI will end up paying those that are just entering the workforce......read last quote......


Government bonds pay what interest? Investment income of 3% would pay back more than what SSI pays.....any body that was 20 yrs old in 2005 should have gone for the 2-4% of their SSI invested in Government bonds, invested over their working years......


People like you OT that believe in your "cult" and do not investigate or educate yourself are who are keeping the middle class "down". You claim that investment income/capital gains is what makes the "rich" rich and then you advocate for those less fortunate to not be allowed the freedom to benefit from the same system.......and want them to be locked into a meagre 3%, provided by a government run ponzi scheme......



Personal accounts reduce racial disparity of retirement

[During my 2005 trip] to a Nissan auto plant in Mississippi, many in the audience were African American workers. I asked how many had money invested in a 401(k). Almost every hand in the room shot up. I loved the idea of people who had not traditionally owned assets having a nest egg they could call their own. I also thought about how much more was possible. Social Security was especially unfair to African Americans. Because their life expectancy was shorter, black workers received an average of $21,000 less in benefits than whites of comparable income levels. Personal accounts, which could be passed along to the next generation, would go a long way toward reducing that disparity.

Democratic leaders alleged I wanted to "privatize" Social Security. That was obviously poll-tested language designed to scare people. It wasn't true. My plan saved Social Security, modernized Social Security, and gave Americans the opportunity to own a piece of their Social Security. It did not privatize Social Security.
Source: Decision Points, by Pres. George W. Bush, p.298-299 , Nov 9, 2010


Option to invest 2% to 4% of funds in "safe" stocks

After the 2004 re-election victory, the Bush administration began making the case for transformational change of Social Security. The president had drawn a line in the sand: personal or private retirement accounts had to be part of the solution. The idea was to create an option for people to invest in a small portion--2% to 4%--of their Social Security dollars into "safe" stocks, mutual funds, and other appropriate retirement vehicles.

It fit the president's oft-touted theme of "the ownership society"; it encouraged people to take control of responsibility for their own future; and it was fiscally responsible to solve a large, unfunded liability.

The discussion centered on two battles we would have to wage. The first would be to "educate" the public about the problems facing Social Security and the need to fix them. The goal of this effort was to create a crisis mentality. The second battle would be to shape the solution and make sure that personal retirement accounts were part of it.
Source: What Happened, by Scott McClellan, p.247-248 , May 28, 2008


Pres. Bush, like many before him, has proposed allowing workers below a certain age to take a portion of their Social Security contribution and invest the money in one of a series of privately held packages of stocks and/or bonds. These packages would require some certification or approval to prevent investors from being entirely speculative.

Over the long haul, it's clear that investments in the financial markets would produce far better retirement incomes than the current system. But that's over the long haul.
Source: The FairTax Book, by N.Boortz & Rep.J.Linder, p.132-133 , May 31, 2006

The President projects that the system’s trust fund will be depleted in 2042. After that, the system would have legal authority to pay only 73 percent of currently promised benefits -- and that figure would decline each year after, reaching 68 percent in the year 2075. The Congressional Budget Office doesn’t project trust-fund depletion until a decade later, in 2052, and figures that the benefits cuts wouldn’t be so severe, a reduction to 78% of promised benefits. But either way, even a “bankrupt” system would continue to provide most of what’s promised currently.
Source: FactCheck on 2005 State of the Union Speech , Feb 3, 2005
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
8,019
Reaction score
0
Location
Az.
with Miss Cleo's ((oldtimers) wonderful ability to foresee the future as he claims not wonder he can buy a $500,000 house on a lake :wink: One has to know that he used that wonderful ability to buy and sell stocks bonds and increase his portfolio hundred fold...

Since you are so good at predicting the future oldtimer can you tell us ALL when and what to invest in this month??? :roll: :roll: :roll:
 
Top