I think the Post has had to correct their story.
I thought I smelled a Socialist RAT!! The article just didn't make sense, not after what W said last night!
The White House should haul them over the Coals!!
and some people here believed it!!!
Social Security's projected insolvency has been a political football for at least a decade or more.
Democrats claim "possession" of the SS scheme. Their solution will be to increase the Soc Sec tax rate and to increase the age of retirement to 75 years of age. Under Democrat party dictation, Soc Sec would become a ubiquitous all-purpose welfare blanket covering all social and health problems for EVERYONE. Thence the ultimate horror - imposed socialism and a tyrannical government.
Soc Sec benefits and "entitlements" have been bankrupted by Congress' siphon. Congress has double-crossed American Workers by manipulating taxation and social security.
There's one reason and one reason only that the dims don't want the SS fund to leave congress' control: It's a source of pork for them, and that is the coup that W will achieve, taking it away from them.
New MSM motto "Fake but accurate".
E.D. on Fox and Friends this morning interviewed John Corizine, and he specifically stated that people will have to "pay back" the treasury, and mentioned this "claw back."
I wanted E.D. to ask him exactly what he meant.
It looks like the dems are back to bald face lying again!
Mark
Hmmm...two problems.
* "If he were to divorce, his account would be marital
property."
Okay, the real family movement (we who believe that fathers should be in families) says, "Seeya, seeya, wouldn't wanna be ya!" We'll go into political hiding and watch the big socialism show after 2008. What's the difference between creeping socialism and immediate socialism? Populations get too accustomed to creeping socialism, as ours has.
* "Personal retirement accounts provide ownership and
control."
That's wrong. I know a man who works for a developer (residential builder) and requested money from his retirement account to purchase vacant land to build his house on. His employer (the builder) said "No way--not unless you are buying from our industry (that is, a house that is already built, mortgage and all).
And as for Social Security, will we see the tax go away? If we see the tax go away, I'm all for it. If it goes for defense, that's alright with me. If we see it go into HHS stuff to appease the anti-family crowd, count me out.
No more incentives for divorce/cohabitation/"hooking up" or children reared by our government (government funded "day care," and all that)!
This is what I'd like to see projected:
What's a conservative estimate of how many younger Americans would opt for the private accounts? And then how much money would Americans be putting into the broad stock market each year, at a 4% payroll rate?
And with that extra vast sum of capital flowing into our nation's publically traded companies, what new business expansion might result? How much new R&D? New products? New factories and production? How will that translate into new jobs? New industries? Increased wealth for average American workers/investors? What will those average workers spend their wealth on? What stuff will they buy? How will the workers of the companies that make that stuff then benefit from increased demand?
marker
If you choose to invest not all in stocks when opting for private accounts, that is almost a guaranteed loser because bonds don't typically earn 3% over inflation. I oppose the President's plan as outlined, absolutely. It is a risky and nonsensical scheme.
"Raise the retirement age" should read..."We need more dead people"
These ghouls love performing economic abortions on our elder citizens. They are naturals at it. They have that sixth sense. They see dead people.
Look into the eyes of Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton. Listen to them wail and howl in the days ahead as you rest your weary head on your pillow. If you make it to their "Promised Land" collect your pittance, but sleep with one eye open. If you should die before you wake, your money's theirs, the socialists to take.
bump for later reading
Corrections and errata are BS. The MSM publishes things they know are false (i.e., lies) and that few if any will ever read the fine print in a later issue.
FDR on Social Security Message to Congress on Social Security on Jan. 17, 1935:
"In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, noncontributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps 30 years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions.
Second, compulsory contributory annuities that in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations.
Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."
It's what they do..
it's all they do..
and they won't stop..
EVER!