Bush Holds News Conference [Proposes to turn social security into a poverty program]

The New York Times ^ | April 28, 2005 | DAVID STOUT

[stockstrader]

Define rich.

[Chunga]

This thread is full of bogus conservatives.

[ChefKeith]

All Americans born before 1950 will receive the full benefits."

Am I the ONLY one that heard and read this?

Anybody born after that is getting SCREWED worse that we are now!!!!!

I turned the channel when that was spewed from his mouth.

< /TOTAL DISGUST >

[glock rocks]

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.

- Karl Marx

[ChefKeith]

You hit the cast iron shop again yet?

[glock rocks]

I really tried to avoid it. LOL.

Yep.

[ChefKeith]

I knew you would not be able to skip it;)

Kinda like the gun shop...

[ARCADIA]

first prescription drug benefits... now this wealth redistribution scheme !!! wtf !!!

Bush has been a socialist all along. That is what it means when you are a "free trade" globalist. Where once we had an economy driven by opportunity, innovation, and productivity, we now have one based on taking advantage of the arbitrage created by international political winds. The market is no longer a creative force, it has been transformed into just another mechanism for promoting public taxation, and private pork.

[No Surrender No Retreat]

You made an excellent point and the change needs immediate implementation. There are some trolls on the site who would lament even if President Bush gave everyone in the USA one million dollars tax free. I presume it comes down to who could you trust in looking out for the welfare of SS eligible people? bill klintoon, shrillary klintoon, the democommies or a man of honor, integrity, leadership and compassion for all Americans(President Bush) I most avidly choose President Bush in reigning in this program for the betterment of all Americans. Private accounts can be left to the survivors of the deceased. Under the present system if a person paid/worked until eligibility and was unmarried/divorced/no dependents (died) their money would stay in the pot. The demo-commies like this way, they need your money to give it away to some undeserving foreigners who turn 65 and become US citizens and receive ss even though they have not paid into the system. If the program were changed they would lose part of their clandestine voting bloc. In summation, there are too, many chicken littles crying the sky will fall if the program is changed. Pro-active action in this matter sure as hell beats the standard reactive method. The AARP members need to wake up and stop being hoodwinked by the democrats who do not have their best interests in mind. "Gotta Fled" from the soap-box. NSNR Take care Oceanview, and it is always nice to see other sane people on this site.

[goldstategop]

The President didn't say that. What the President say is NO ONE who has worked hard all their lives should forced to live in poverty. And he stood firm on the subject of personal account, in allowing American workers to own their own assets and pass it on to their heirs. He observed that members of Congress have a personal account style program for themselves and their families. As he stated succinctly, if its good enough for members of Congress, its good enough for the American people. The point of Social Security reform should be to allow Americans to enjoy their retirement with dignity and peace of mind. To say the President proposed American retirees should live in poverty is a deeply offensive notion. Not even the New York Times made this charge.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[Brilliant]

Fine, if that's what the proposal says, I have no problem with it, but as I understand, he wants to index benefits according to what you earned during your working years, and those earning less will receive more. That was not the "promise" of social security, and it's too late to do the bait and switch.

[Brilliant]

Agreed. I was born in 1957. Looks like they're going to breach their promise to us.

[HankReardon]

I'm self-employed, my payroll tax is 12.4%, where does guy get off off saying the payroll tax is only 6.2%? Does he think an employee only pays the 6.2%? The other 6.2% his employer pays is money that costs the employer to have him as an employee that could otherwise go to the employees earnings. The employee actually pays the entire 12.4%.

I did not go college, this guy did. He must be pretending to be stupid.

[ARCADIA]

Looks like they're going to breach their promise to us.

From last nights speach:

"So I propose a Social Security system in the future where benefits for low-income workers will grow faster than benefits for people who are better off."

A variety of options are available to solve the rest of the problem, and I will work with Congress on any good-faith proposal that does not raise the payroll tax rate or harm our economy.

Worse; it sounds to me like the issue has blown up in Bush's face. Even after cutting benefits for those who are "better off" he may not be able to prevent a social security tax hike.

[BillM]

Please note that he offers PRIVATE ACCOUNTS which should easily make up the difference!!!! The higher taxed individuals will not lose unless they are stupid.

[HankReardon]

I'm reading the posts now, did i stumble onto the DU you website by mistake? Were you being sarcastic when you said the rich acquired their wealth from their mommies and daddies and it should be confiscated and distributed?

What is your definition of socialism?

[PigRigger]

This is the first step; a means test for higher income earner's.

The other shoe will fall down the road (another administration); up the cap on taxable income (a major tax hike in no uncertain terms).

Let's not fool ourselves; it does not matter who is in power, it is gonna happen.

I've been saying this for years now, and now that the breaking point is coming closer, so are our elected officials.

So, the only thing I can recommend to those who are fairly affluent, don't expect much from social security when you retire.

In the end both parties will see to it that social security does not go away; the only difference down the road will be who will be entitled to it and how much you will be required to pay into it (even if you get little or nothing in return).

IMHO

[7thson]

My favorite is when someone invents something foolproof, God creates a better class of fools.

[HankReardon]

There is already a benefit cap on Social Security which we never hear about. What is the amount of the Social Security benefit cap?