Social Security bill may pass

The Washington Times ^ | 2-23-05 | Tony Blankley

[CDB]

snip...

Thus, it is highly relevant to the politics of Social Security that Sen. Hillary Clinton started talking positively about events in Iraq last week. As a particularly acute bellweather of political expediency, Sen. Clinton's positive rhetorical shift on Iraq suggests good news for Mr. Bush. With the economy predicted to continue in healthy 3.5 percent growth for the year, and with things going the president's way abroad, he could well go in to the autumn legislating season with 55 percent to 58 percent job approval.

snip

[CDB]

The ever-changing politics of Social Security. Good news for President Bush.

[OneTimeLurker]

We have $200MM being spent by business interests to push the legislation too....Wall Street will make a boat load on private accounts and corporations want to get out from under having to contribute to 401Ks.

We may kill Social Security yet!!!!!

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

I just looked at my "Social Security Statement" last night. If I were allowed to have the money that I paid into it up to now I could retire. Instead, we've got Kennedy/Kerry/Clinton to spend my money for me.

[CDB]

I just looked at my "Social Security Statement" last night. If I were allowed to have the money that I paid into it up to now I could retire. Instead, we've got Kennedy/Kerry/Clinton to spend my money for me.

Isn't that reassuring? /sarcasm off

[HMFIC]

With the amount of money forcibly seized by the Feds every year for my SS, I could send BOTH of my kids to a PRIVATE school. Pretty sad s**t.

[misterrob]

Actually, Bush and Co. are doing the spending, not that the democrats would be any better about it. If government would have left the SS surplus alone and not used it to balance (or apply it to) the federal budget then there would be no crisis and there would not be any financial risk in allowing some of us to have a choice in the matter.

[massgopguy]

Oh Boo-Hoo, somewhere, someone is making money.

[Nuzcruizer]

dream on, lefty. If you could do math you would realize that SS is about to be very much improved. Of course, people like you would rather sit back and watch it go bankrupt. No one is suggesting that employers will not be required to continue their contributions to the base amount, what these
changes do is take this money out of general revenue that you liberals like to spend on bigger government. Hint: it's not yours to spend. These changes also make it possible for the contributor to add extramonies to the plan, creating a much better retirement nest egg, a manageable account that belongs only to YOU, out of reach from spend happy liberal governments.

[hattend]

Dittos

[Nuzcruizer]

Plus, the whole idea IS "for someone on wall street" to make money on it, thus making money for YOU, rather than it being spent by Government, generating NO income. When government takes this money and spends it, the create debt which must be payed out regardles to pensioners, which in turn comes out of YOUR pocket. every dime the government spends comes from YOUR pocket. they don't have some magic money tree to harvest like lefties seem to think

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

And smart, working, kids making a lot of money is a good way to retire...

[OneTimeLurker]

I am a lefty? I am only stating the facts of why companies are supporting the reforms to the tune of $200MM in advertising. Give me a break pal. I want to see socialism in this country ended.

If you read what I said, it had nothing to do with companies not contributing to pay roll tax. What I am saying is that corporations believe (and they do), there will be less pressure to match 401K contributions if people already control part of their retirement. Doesn't bother me a bit, I don't have a 401K, I am self employed.

They aren't poneying up this money because they believe in the cause, it's because they stand to gain. IT'S CALLED CAPITALISM.