Posted on 04/28/2005 6:38:41 PM PDT by Brilliant
If you work your entire life, earn lots of money, and pay thousands into the social security trust fund, but then you suffer setbacks and end up in poverty in your retirement, you apparently would be entitled to reduced benefits. You, poverty-stricken in your senior years, spent thousands to support others in their retirement, but now the system has breached its promise to you.
And just how good are those treasury securities?
The Prez did a good job of getting the issues and the proposals before the country.
It's hard to batter your message through the lefties' broadcast news monopoly.
And, now Social Security raises are higher than needed. It's a good idea to stop giving that much increase to the rich Social Security recipients, and leave it only for the poorer recipients.
...or I could be full of crap.
He's going to index the benefits according to your income. That's a poverty program.
"If a paper tries to report it's own ideology when it should report news, it's kind of like a chicken plucking it's own feathers"
"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. - A. Dent
The only good thing about Bush's proposal is that it's DOA. I was previously in favor of social security reform. Now I'm against it. And I'm not the only one.
SS was never meant to be a retirement program - it was meant to be the ultimate safety net, so that the elderly, particularly those who had lost their savings during the Depression, would be protected. The problem is that the expectations of SS have gone way up.
Soak the rich! Soak the rich! After all, none of them worked for their money. They got it all from their rich Mommies and Daddies.
I just want the ability to "opt-out" of the pyramid scheme. Let me invest the money that the Feds would have squandered.
That's classic socialism.
Exactly.
True, it was meant to supplement retirement, not finance it. Even FDR wanted personal accounts to be part of socialist security.
That's 20th century thinking. We're in a brave new world where wealth redistribution becomes the cornerstone of a "conservative" Republican president's second term.
GWB is going to surpass even LBJ in the entitlements arena.
good grief !
I'd expect something like this from the dems... but wth is our side doing promoting this class warfare stuff and trying to stick it to the rich.
If reform means that I am going to get even less, I'm against it too. He sure does know how to antagonize his base.
I want private accounts, among other reasons, as a stepping-stone to eventual complete privatization of the system, but introducing this means-testing moves away from an eventual privatization of the system.
I wish Bush had stressed the wealth-building part of his proposal more. The problem with SS contributions is that they don't build wealth. Even if you live long enough to get a return on it, you have not created an asset that you can leave to your dependents and thereby create wealth.
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.