Agreed. I'm sick of not having any say so whatsoever about where my cash goes. I know I can do a hell of a lot better job of managing my retirement than the FedGov.
Posted on 04/28/2005 6:38:41 PM PDT by Brilliant
WASHINGTON, April 28 - President Bush said tonight that Social Security should be adjusted so that benefits for people with lower incomes would grow faster than for those who were more affluent.
Mr. Bush said the change would go a long way toward solving the retirement system's problems and would keep a solemn pledge to people who have worked hard for a lifetime but have not amassed great wealth: "You will not retire into poverty."
Speaking at a White House news conference on the eve of the symbolic 100-day mark of his second term, Mr. Bush again pushed for voluntary personal retirement accounts within Social Security for younger workers. And he said again that he was open to good ideas from either party, provided the suggestions, if carried out, would not "raise the payroll tax rate or harm the economy."
While ruling out raising the 6.2 percent payroll tax rate for Social Security, perhaps significantly he did not rule out raising the ceiling, now $90,000, on which earnings are taxed for Social Security.
"As we fix Social Security, some things won't change," Mr. Bush said, recognizing that for decades any talk of changing the system has been considered the political equivalent of Russian roulette. "Seniors and people with disabilities will get their checks. All Americans born before 1950 will receive the full benefits."
The president also called on the Senate to pass his energy program, the outlines of which have already been endorsed by the House, so that the United States can be energy-independent. Among his ideas, which he said involve obtaining more energy through "innovative and environmentally sensitive ways," is drilling in a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
"My administration is doing everything we can to make gasoline more affordable," Mr. Bush said, alluding to a recent trend that polls show is annoying the American people and perhaps endangering him politically. "There will be no price-gouging at gas pumps in America."
The president also touched on several other hot-button issues. He declined to offer a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, but said they would begin to come home "as soon as possible," and he insisted that the United States and its allies were making progress there.
Mr. Bush said, too, that he stood by his embattled nominee for United Nations ambassador, John R. Bolton, and that Mr. Bolton's by now well known abrasiveness might stand him and the United States in good stead.
"John Bolton is a blunt guy," he said during the hourlong session with reporters. "John Bolton can get the job done at the United Nations."
Mr. Bush and his top aides have repeatedly said that the United Nations needs to adapt to the 21st century instead of being little more than an international debating society.
But Mr. Bush dwelled heavily on his Social Security proposals, emphasizing, in response to a question, that any Congressional action that addressed the system's solvency - but did not allow for private accounts - would be unacceptable to him.
He said these accounts would allow only for safe, conservative investments, like Treasury bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government, which has never defaulted. (The president's Democratic critics chided him recently for referring to the $1.7 trillion in Treasury securities that make up the Social Security trust fund, amassed by the current accumulating surplus, as little more than a pile of i.o.u.'s. These securities, too, are backed by the government's full faith and credit.)
Mr. Bush, in the fourth prime-time news conference of his presidency, said his two-month campaign to promote his ideas for Social Security had convinced him that the American people "understand that Social Security is heading for serious financial trouble." "Congresses have made promises they cannot keep for a younger generation," Mr. Bush said. By 2041, he asserted, "Social Security will be bankrupt."
Mr. Bush did not go into detail, in his opening remarks, on the inexorable trends that actuaries envision as baby-boomers move into retirement. Actuaries have forecast that the retirement system, which now takes in more than it pays out, will start to run a deficit in 2017.
From 2017 until 2041, the system could still pay full benefits by drawing on its store of Treasury securities in which the present incoming surplus is now invested. And starting in 2041 - the point at which Mr. Bush said bankruptcy would occur - the system would be able to pay benefits at only about 72 percent, unless changes are made in the meantime.
"Social Security is too important for politics as usual," Mr. Bush said, after months in which the White House and its Republican allies have argued bitterly with Democrats, who generally oppose the concept of individual retirement accounts within Social Security because they fear the change will undermine the system without fixing its admitted long-range problems.
As for opinion polls showing that many people are wary of his ideas for the retirement program, Mr. Bush said, as he has many times and in connection with many issues, that he does not worry about them. "You know," he said, "if a president tries to govern based upon polls, you're kind of like a dog chasing your tail."
This is very true. People keep blaming the "Baby Boomers," but none of us have even hit retirement age yet, and the group that is most opposed to SS reform are people of our parents' generation, who are currently receiving benefits. (This is the case even though they have repeatedly been assured that they would not be affected.)
Be that as it may, over the years they themselves received or developed a completely unrealistic view of SS and passed that on to us. One of the reason Boomers save very little and invest very little is that they were not taught to do so; unrealistic expectations about SS had become part and parcel of people's thinking in post-war years, and certainly by the 1960's, with the advent of the major welfare-state policies of LBJ, these attitudes were well-entrenched. Personally, I doubt that most Boomers will actually get to retire - perhaps we may drop back to part-time, but we won't retire the way our parents did. (Frankly, I'm not sure I'd want to, anyway.)
We need to get rid of Social Security.Period.means testing is a first step in doing that.Social Security is Welfare.
Dripping with sarcasm. I was watching basketball and forgot the sarcasm tag. Interesting, however, that there seems to be support, at some level, for that which I was being sarcastic about.
The President just gave in to the liberals on the one thing they have always wanted. Means testing for SS. It is a fundamental change in postition for the Republicans and it seems to be getting ignored.
Just a wealth transfer. And this is THE only thread I have seen on this site so far today. It says more about the people on this site than anything I have in all the years I have been here.
Precisely.
means testing is a first step in doing that.
I totally disagree. Private accounts are the first step in doing that. Not the goofy tiny accounts that the President had evidently proposed, but a bold stroke.
Means testing being PROPOSED BY REPUBLICANS, is an affirmation that it is OK to have transfer schemes.
Social Security is Welfare.
It's a ponzi scheme. If they means test it, it becomes welfare. Both are horrible, but society will tolerate the latter. Most of them didn't understand the former.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need!
The Robin-Hood idea from Bush is simply the political price he is going to have to pay to get the personal accounts enacted as part of a comprehensive package.
Probably worth it to persons of all means in the long run.
Thanks for the tagline.
"I've been working for 222 years now."
Holy cow! You have a heck of a work ethic!
"What about the poor slob who is 59? Screw him cause you got yours?"
What about the poor slob who is 29? Screw him so you can get yours?
Anyone who never made their own plans for retirement and counted solely on SS made a bad choice. We shouldn't reward bad choices by ensuring the majority of the citizens have no choice.
"Maybe we ought to demand our money back? At least those born after 1950 should get everything back they paid in no?"
They can "keep" mine if they let me opt out.
"You just want the older guy to get screwed more so that you can cut your losses."
You just want the younger guy to get screwed more so that you can increase your gains.
Agreed. I'm sick of not having any say so whatsoever about where my cash goes. I know I can do a hell of a lot better job of managing my retirement than the FedGov.
My point is society will not tolerate the latter.Private accounts will be to small,they will not be private, the government will run them,administration costs will be outrageous.Try explaining to people that we need to get rid off welfare or a ponzi scheme where they get money?Our goal should be to make it harder for people to collect government checks.Wouldnt you have preferred the medicare bill to be means tested?
LOL!
Glad YOU don't own this place.
Ah, the PURISTS. You should all hold a convention, and check credentials at the door.
I've never claimed to be a PURIST conservative. I'm a Republican and a patriot. I'm a practical conservative, a realistic idealist, if you will.
To my way of thinking, that is better than being a Libertarian, and there are lots of them enjoying the discussion here, too.
Grumbling that other people on the right here (not just your holier than thou brand of it) have the right of free speech is not the way to engage someone in a discussion in which you may get them to see the wisdom of your particular viewpoint.
Only in the goofy proposal the Republicans floated. If you can figure out exactly the proposal was,,,
they will not be private,
In that crappy plan of the President yes. In a real proposal, they would.
the government will run them,administration costs will be outrageous.
Not under a logical plan.
Try explaining to people that we need to get rid off welfare or a ponzi scheme where they get money?
I do so all the time.
Our goal should be to make it harder for people to collect government checks.
By eliminating the programs, not by making them more goofy than they are.
Wouldnt you have preferred the medicare bill to be means tested?
I prefer NO medicare. And no SS program.
Why? I'm in favor of having liberals allowed. You would fit right in.
Yes, I admit it, I'm to the left of Atilla the Hun.
Better get those who agree with you to vote. You're losing in this FR poll. My viewpoint still has a plurality win here.
Free Republic Opinion Poll
Members answer: Do you favor privatizing at least part of Social Security and means testing future increases in benefits?
Favor privatization, and means testing future increases in benefits: Yes 39.2% 197
I'm for privatization, but not means testing 28.8% 145
I favor dumping the system altogether 22.9% 115
Undecided/pass 3.8% 19
I favor reform, but this is not it 2.8% 14
No 1.4% 7
Leave it as is 0.6% 3
I'm for means testing, but not privatization 0.6% 3
100.1%
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.