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

Social Security

A

Anonymous

Guest
Continuing to ignore the $10 billion a month being wasted in Iraq, the Bush Administration calls for tax increases and benefit cuts as the way to fix Social Security. This is another push that will not endear Republicans to the voters.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20957376/
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Tax cuts endear them to me.
Hey ff, your iranian buddy Abm;adlkfjla;sdjfjab's talking points in our media sound much like yours. You haven't been coaching him have you. I heard that he said the way for bush to gain voters for his party is to focus on katrina victims, quit losing thousands of American soldiers in Iraq, etc. You two have a lot in common. You got a beard?
 

Cal

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
Tax cuts endear them to me.
Hey ff, your iranian buddy Abm;adlkfjla;sdjfjab's talking points in our media sound much like yours. You haven't been coaching him have you. I heard that he said the way for bush to gain voters for his party is to focus on katrina victims, quit losing thousands of American soldiers in Iraq, etc. You two have a lot in common. You got a beard?
Good points!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
From a 2001 Article:

Beyond all of his policy promises, Bush centered his campaign on a sweeping pledge to reach beyond party lines and soothe the partisan hostilities in Washington.In the end, if Bush wants to make good on his hard promises, nothing will test him more than his pledge to build real bipartisan cooperation in a capital that's grown addicted to conflict.


Social Security: It was one of Bush's boldest campaign proposals; a fundamental restructuring of Social Security to allow workers to invest part of their payroll tax in the stock market.

With more and more Americans investing in mutual funds and 401(k)s, the idea of private investment accounts may grow more popular over time. But in a Senate divided 50-50 between the parties, the votes aren't there for it today. Only four Democrats supported the idea last year, and three of them have left the Senate.

Bush wants an across-the-board cut in income tax rates, including a big cut in the top rate for the wealthiest taxpayers, from 39.6 percent down to 33 percent.

A frequent rallying cry of Bush's on the campaign stump was his belief that "The federal government in peacetime has no business taking more than 33 percent of anyone's paycheck."

But reducing the top rate by so much -- particularly after a decade in which families at the top have done well enough to trade in the Cadillac for the Mercedes -- is a deal-breaker for Democrats.

And now we have a 9 TRILLION DOLLAR National Debt- that our kids and grandkids will be payin- a failing SS program that might not even keep its promises to the Baby boomers--let alone be around for those kids or grandkids....Even many of the most conservative economists (ex. Ben Stein) are saying that GW has to recognize the danger of this debt and rescind the tax cut- or add a war surcharge....
 

MoGal

Well-known member
I watched the Democratic debate last week and if those 5 are correct (Clinton, McCain, and 3 others) they were saying Bush has borrowed from the SS fund and put it into general revenue, the war, etc.... otherwise it would be solvent.
 

Cowpuncher

Well-known member
Mogal Says:

I watched the Democratic debate last week and if those 5 are correct (Clinton, McCain, and 3 others) they were saying Bush has borrowed from the SS fund and put it into general revenue, the war, etc.... otherwise it would be solvent.

Where in the world have you been? This has been done almost since the inception of the Social Security system in 1937.

Of course they borrow from the SS fund to fund the general fund deficit. I thought everyone knew that. If they didn't, the SS fund would be sitting there with trillions of dollars while the government was borrowing money like mad.


The hangup is that the SS fund gets a pretty low rate of return on the general fund borrowings. When GWB proposed lending the SS fund out in the private market at about twice what it is getting, he was castigated, vilified, criticized, etc, etc, etc, etc.

Even if the SS fund were to get market interest rates, it is too late. Time and time again, benefits were raised by congress and approved by the president without making any changes in the taxes paid. Both parties are equally guilty. When one party tries to solve the problem, the old goat lobby jumps in. They don't care if their benefits are coming at the expense to the younger generation.

If you want to know how this is all going to work out, take a look at Europe. When I worked in Belgium, SS taxes on employees and employers was about 43% of payroll.

I am one of the old goats on SS. I guess I could live with a reduced payment, but only if someone else suffers a bit too.

The government is using inflation to pay the national debt. While some say the Clinton years showed budget surplusses, the national debt increased every single year since 1945 except one or two years when Eisenhower was president when a small surplus was shown. Don't pay any attention to the annual deficits or surplussed, just look up the debt at the end of each year. I posted that once on this forum.
 

Texan

Well-known member
MoGal said:
I watched the Democratic debate last week and if those 5 are correct (Clinton, McCain, and 3 others) they were saying Bush has borrowed from the SS fund and put it into general revenue, the war, etc.... otherwise it would be solvent.
So...McCain was in the democrat's debate? Guess he finally came out of the closet, huh? :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
MoGal said:
I watched the Democratic debate last week and if those 5 are correct (Clinton, McCain, and 3 others) they were saying Bush has borrowed from the SS fund and put it into general revenue, the war, etc.... otherwise it would be solvent.

Mogal--its not just GW-LBJ moved the SS fund over into the General fund-and they've all been stealing from it for years--but this last time what burned the populace the most is they stole the money from the working mans wage and retirement fund- while giving the top richest class (+$1.25 million income) in the country the largest tax cuts - and running up a 9 Trillion $ debt- with no idea for how to pay for it-- probably leaving much of it for our children and grandchildren to pay...:roll: :(


It is worth pointing out this is the same Alan Greenspan who, back in 1983, personally headed up a predecessor Social Security Reform Commission for then President Ronald Reagan. At that time Greenspan also predicted a collapse of the Social Security system. His recommendation back then in 1983, as today in 2004, was to ‘save’ Social Security by a radical overhaul. In 1983 that was accomplished by sharply increasing the payroll tax paid by workers that funds Social Security. Greenspan’s 1983 recommendations were quickly adopted by Congress. And over the past 20 years, both payroll tax rates and taxable income levels have continued to rise, to the present 12.4 % rate today on earnings up to $87,900 a year. The direct result of this 20 year rise has been to generate a surplus of $1.46 Trillion dollars in the Social Security trust fund.


Who Stole the $1.46 Trillion Surplus?

Over the last 20 years a Social Security surplus of $ 1.46 trillion was created and it’s again going broke, according to Greenspan, But with that much surplus, how can Social Security again be on the financial ropes? Is it because benefits were increased dramatically over the years? There have been virtually no significant increase in social security benefits the past 20 years. Could it be that millions additional ‘baby boomers’ were discovered hiding under the bed all these years, and will soon be retiring in the years ahead? Roughly the same ‘boomers’ who were born between 1945-1955, and were alive in 1983, are around today.

So where did all that money go? What happened to the $1.46 trillion Social Security Surplus?

What happened is the biggest financial scandal in U.S. history, the biggest swindle of American working class families, or any working class, anywhere in all of history. The magnitude of the scandal exceeds the $1 trillion bail out by American taxpayers of the corrupt Savings & Loan industry under Reagan and Bush I during the 1980s. The costs of the on going, three years of corporate scandals and rip-offs under George W. Bush are dwarfed in comparison.

The $1.46 trillion Surplus, paid for by workers to guarantee a minimum retirement, promised to them in 1983 in exchange for the record payroll tax hikes, has been sucked out of the Social Security Fund by administrations from Reagan to George W. Bush with the agreement of Congress! Not a penny of the $1.46 trillion remains in the Social Security trust fund. Only paper IOUs from Congress indicating the money is ‘owed’ to the fund.

Despite legislation passed in the early 1990s declaring a ‘lock box’ on the Social Security surplus, that entire surplus nevertheless has been permanently ‘borrowed’ every year and transferred to the federal government’s general fund to help reduce and offset chronic annual U.S. general budget deficits over the past 20 years. No sooner had politicians of both the Republican and Democratic Parties in Congress passed the ‘lock box’ resolution than they defied and ignored that same resolution.

Social Security’s surplus has been tapped every year to help cover accumulated general U.S. budget deficits totaling approximately $4 trillion dollars from Reagan through Bush—about $2.9 trillion of which have been due to tax cuts by Reagan and George W. Bush for the rich and their corporations, and the rest to pay for a doubling of military spending by Reagan in the 1980s, for the Bushes’ two Iraq wars, for Clinton’s war in Bosnia, and for the current War on Terrorism.

In other words, American workers and families have indirectly been paying with their wages and their retirement benefits for the Reagan-Bush tax cuts and wars of the last 20 years! If the $1.46 trillion ‘borrowed’ were restored to the Social Security Fund there would be a massive excess of funds today in the Social Security System—which could be used to help pay for a large part of the cost of universal health insurance for everyone in America!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Texan said:
MoGal said:
I watched the Democratic debate last week and if those 5 are correct (Clinton, McCain, and 3 others) they were saying Bush has borrowed from the SS fund and put it into general revenue, the war, etc.... otherwise it would be solvent.
So...McCain was in the democrat's debate? Guess he finally came out of the closet, huh? :lol:

Alan Greenspan said that Bill Clinton was the best conservative President he worked with..... :shock:
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Alan Greenspan said that Bill Clinton was the best conservative President he worked with.....

Man if that is true, no wonder there are so many troubles in this world. But since Greenspan said it, well it may mean something then again it might just be bologna
 

Larrry

Well-known member
I watched the Democratic debate last week and if those 5 are correct (Clinton, McCain, and 3 others) they were saying Bush has borrowed from the SS fund and put it into general revenue, the war, etc.... otherwise it would be solvent.

You mean you watched this and you believed what you heard. Would you be interested in some land in Florida or some lake property in Utah
 

MoGal

Well-known member
Sorry, I guess it was Edwards not McCain (anyway the one with a down south accent).

Baby boomers retiring. There are 77 million Americans born between 1946-1964. One-third have zero retirement savings. The oldest are 61. The only money they have is equity in a house (and they may not have that for very long if real estate prices go down 10-40% as some say it will).

Well, since I'm in that age bracket, I guess I'll just get less in Social security and more in my postal service retirement (since they so kindly deduct SSA from it and give you the difference).
But for those that don't have a pension to supplement their SSA, I don't think its fair to have a reduced benefit.... while congress pays nothing for their retirement program. Why didn't they borrow from their own retirement fund?
 

Brad S

Well-known member
Social Security is simply a flawed premis. There is no fixing a plan that presupposes each generation will be supported by a 4x larger next generation. We Should admit that SS is just wrong and bury it - payoff everyone over 50.

Tell your kids here's the plan, you are going to pay SS 15% of your income from 18 to 68 and retire on catfood if you're lucky. Anyone worrying about the kids is more worried about SS debacle than what it costs to stabilize the region that produces most of the world's oil

Bill Klinton was right, 1% return on money is the problem. Now if we are to believe Mr Greenspan that Klinton was a conservative president why the F$#@ did Klinton propose investing SS funds in the stock market? Yes that's pure unmitigated FU$%^&* COMMUNISM from our conservative president. Bush's plan to allow private investiment in lue of throwing away SS contributions.


Newt was the conservative influence Greenspan was referancing, but Al has been exposed as not so honest.
 
Top