Judge for yourself. Here is a real Treasury security.
Somebody paid 500 troy ounces of gold for the above piece of paper. Good luck getting it back. And double good luck getting any of "your" Social Security.
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."
the "rich" dont pay SS taxes.
Well, I guess I should state the wealthy dont pay it, those who still earn an income do.
Those with wealth would do well to not pay hardly any taxes.
I'm not sure how to read it yet, let's see some details first about how they measure "poverty" for example, if they ever simply means tested this at retirement - reducing benefits for people who had other retirement assets like 401Ks to draw from - you would see a massive industry of people taking their 401K assets offshore so they would not be "counted" to reduce their SS benefit.
Can someone help me out here.
Are these truly private accounts, where I can invest the money as I please, or will I be required to invest it in a government run account?
Judge for yourself. Here is a real Treasury security.
Somebody paid 500 troy ounces of gold for the above piece of paper. Good luck getting it back. And double good luck getting any of "your" Social Security.
This is already true. Bush's proposal is part of the current structure.
you will have several choices of funds to invest in - just like a 401K.
"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."
I agree. Nothing is better than a "reform" plan hijacked by RINOs.
And, let me add... Olympia Snowe is going to be writing this SS bill. They can't get it out of Senate committee without her vote (unless they can recruit a Dem, which seems very unlikely.)
You can bet that "reform" will turn into redistribution and bigger government when Ms. Snowe is done with it.
"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."
Um...the government has ALWAYS been counting on the fact that many of us will be Good Little Earners, bust our humps, pay in GOBS of money to Mother Government, and then die early. Social Security is basically an Insurance Scam; they're betting on you to not die and keep the coffers full.
I can name a half-dozen people within my own family that this has happened to; most recently my Stepmom who paid in for 45 YEARS and collected for a two whole months before she died of cancer.
My best girlfriend died last year, as well. It took lots of "b*tch sessions" to even get her to APPLY for her benefits. Her first check arrived two days after she died. For a thousand bucks. Yep. She got her moneys worth! (She died at 47, career military, then State employee.)
People. We need to get it together. How many more years are we to be sucked dry before we rise up against this? I don't care WHO is getting the benefits. I don't care if widows and orphans and the elderly are being supported. They are a MINISCULE part of our society that could easily be taken care of through private charities.
We are soooo being scammed. Why doesn't anyone see this? President Bush can put lipstick on this pig all he wants, but it'll still be Hillary and Hillary Care, IMHO. (And I voted for him.)
You are ignorant of the current program. It already does this.
Bush seems to be dumb enough to think you can "fix" a Ponzi scheme if you make sure to only screw over certain people. And get the sheeple idiots and picture-lickers to keep voting for your party, of course.
you are correct, it does. and it does it on the "back end" too, through the income tax, subjecting a higher portion of your SS benefits to income tax depending on your total income. Clinton raised that tax dramatically.
but the issue is, will it get worse under this proposal?
But they'll be government run funds - correct? No Fidelity or Vanguard, for example.
If nothing changes, it has to be the only answer left.
It will do it a lot more, if he has his way.
no, he understands that the only way to "fix" a ponzi scheme is to start getting people who are just entering the scheme - a way to escape. that's what the private accounts do, its slow to start, but as time marches on, everybody can escape. it will take a generation to accomplish this.
its the only way. what are your solutions to this?
Sure, I don't agree with Social Security becoming a poverty program on principle. What I do agree with, however, is the idea that it's worth putting up with if we get private accounts.
Why? Because with private accounts everyone will see that the market offers results, while the idiots on the Left offer nothing more than hot air. And that, I think, is finally what will make it possible to privatize Social Security altogether.
Me too, Nyboe. Me too. Heck the Constitution Party looks better every day (donning my flame suit now).
Unconstitutional redistribution of wealth, pure and simple.
Please, let's reward the underachievers more than the achievers.
Let's just END socialist security, Mr. President.
Color me disgusted...
I can't believe the government is going to run mutual funds. in fact, the amounts of money in these funds would be so large, I imagine it will have to be spread out across alot of different financial management firms.
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.