Skip to comments.
Bush Social Security Plan Proves Tough Sell Among Working Poor
Washington Post on Yahoo ^
| 4/18/05
| Jonathan Weisman
Posted on 04/18/2005 5:55:37 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-31 next last
To: NormsRevenge
2
posted on
04/18/2005 5:59:13 PM PDT
by
VU4G10
(Have You Forgotten?)
To: NormsRevenge
Sorry, but there's is no such thing as "working poor".
THere's alot of people that make anywhere from 30,000-100,000 that live paycheck to paycheck. Cry me a river. Either your stupid or not. If your smart, you want to try something new and maybe have a social security when your older. It doesn't hurt to try something new.
3
posted on
04/18/2005 5:59:35 PM PDT
by
1FASTGLOCK45
(FreeRepublic: More fun than watching Dem'Rats drown like Turkeys in the rain! ! !)
To: NormsRevenge
It's only a tough sell to the ignorant, and to people who don't even want there to be a private sector. Namely the democratic party.
4
posted on
04/18/2005 6:01:12 PM PDT
by
SoDak
(hoist that rag!)
To: NormsRevenge
"Brenda Ellis's day begins at 6:30 a.m., when she rousts her 11-year-old son, Imani, from bed, hustles him into the kitchen for breakfast and to the school bus by 7. Tianna, 13, and Dikia, 17, quickly follow."Obviously, investing in a private retirement account would solve her problems.
5
posted on
04/18/2005 6:05:25 PM PDT
by
ex-snook
(Exporting jobs and the money to buy America is lose-lose..)
To: SoDak
I agree. Outside of complete opt out, why not have our money in our name only? The arguments on this are a no brainer if you understand the issue(s).
My dying mother still would not admit that socialism is GOD AWFUL even as she waited for SS disability to approve her "claim". Well, six months later, it didn't happen.
Amazing how I differ from my family.
6
posted on
04/18/2005 6:08:32 PM PDT
by
Raffus
(Thanks to all Veterans for their service to our Country.)
To: SoDak
It is a tough sell to the stupid and lazy who would rather have next to nothing than to ever have to think about it and take responsibility for themselves.
7
posted on
04/18/2005 6:09:33 PM PDT
by
Blood of Tyrants
(G-d is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
To: NormsRevenge
Sorry I missed it in the article ... where's Dad ?
8
posted on
04/18/2005 6:12:46 PM PDT
by
ikka
To: ex-snook
It wouldn't do much today, but in 25 years it would be the difference between living below the poverty level (and if you relied on SS for your entire retirement, you screwed up royally) and living comfortably. P.S. Thank you for your service to our country 16 years before I was even born.
9
posted on
04/18/2005 6:13:32 PM PDT
by
Blood of Tyrants
(G-d is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
To: NormsRevenge
This paragraph here summed it up for me. "At age 20, it's not like Samisha Taylor is dead-set against private accounts. When she heard them explained, she shrugged and suggested they may be a good idea. But she can be forgiven for not having thought about it much. Almost everyone I have debated this issue with haven't the slightest clue as to what they are talking about. Mention to them that the Presidents position is that the money saved and accrued in this private account is all theirs and can be passed on to their children when they die if they desire I always get "Thats a lie." or "I didn't hear that." My favorite retort to union members is telling them that their money is already in the market at risk. The kicker is they will see very little of the gains if at all. Please do not punish me or my families future due to the inane ramblings of the misinformed.
10
posted on
04/18/2005 6:15:25 PM PDT
by
baystaterebel
(F/8 and be there!)
To: ex-snook
It would help her family in the long term. Obviously anything is better than letting the fat cats in congress spend 12.4 percent of her income on earmarks.
11
posted on
04/18/2005 6:16:56 PM PDT
by
Wristpin
( Varitek says to A-Rod: "We don't throw at .260 hitters.....")
To: ex-snook
The government confiscates 12.4% of Brendas income and sends it to my mother. In return she receives a revokeable promise from that same government that when she is old enough they will confiscate money from someone else's salary and give it to her. Private accounts would allow Brenda to keep a tiny portion of that 12.4% for herself and even pass it on to her heirs if she happened to expire before the government's approved age. How can that be a bad thing?
12
posted on
04/18/2005 6:17:05 PM PDT
by
csmusaret
(Urban Sprawl is an oxymoron)
To: NormsRevenge
THe population is becoming a top heavy pyramid and the scheme can't perform to historic standards, that's the bottom line.
13
posted on
04/18/2005 6:18:10 PM PDT
by
A CA Guy
(God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
To: ikka
Sorry I missed it in the article ... where's Dad ? The children's names are: Imani, Tianna, and Dikia. You have to ask where Dad is? Or maybe we should be asking "Where are Dads?"
14
posted on
04/18/2005 6:18:47 PM PDT
by
whd23
To: NormsRevenge
These "working poor" are beyond selfish. As long as they get their who cares about their kids!!! Yes, we should all remain poor and destitute because these fools make such poor choices.
To: csmusaret
I believe the number talked about was a mere 3% of the 12%. What you never hear spoken about is the fact that the 3% eventually gets pumped back into the economy. A portion of that is regained by the government in taxes. All of it is out of the hands of the government where the value of that money is decaying due to inflation and lack of investing.
The more one looks at how bad an idea Social Security is the more one winces at the thought of it.
Like another poster said. If you are relying on Social Security as you only means of retirement you are already doomed. Personally I will feel no pity for you when you are dumpster diving for your meals.
16
posted on
04/18/2005 6:28:25 PM PDT
by
baystaterebel
(F/8 and be there!)
To: Raffus
Amazing how I differ from my familyEven as I type my wife is inviting a house full of liberals over for a party.
Once again the choice is stifle, hide, or conflict.
To: NormsRevenge
"I don't want to have to think, I just want a tiny govt. check each month."
18
posted on
04/18/2005 6:33:53 PM PDT
by
NavVet
(“Benedict Arnold was wounded in battle fighting for America, but no one remembers him for that.”)
To: NormsRevenge
I see. Millions of intelligent people are going to be denied the opportunity to manage a portion of their Socialist Security withholdings because of a few twits like Brenda Ellis.
19
posted on
04/18/2005 6:34:18 PM PDT
by
Texas Eagle
(If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all)
To: expat_panama
Well, I have to say I feel for you. I suffered years under liberal rule (whole damn fam). I married a delightful "right winger" and I am the happiest person in the world. I just love my guy (we spoil each other rotten)!
The question was on the application -- are your (R) or (D) -- right or left.
20
posted on
04/18/2005 6:37:17 PM PDT
by
Raffus
(Thanks to all Veterans for their service to our Country.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-31 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson