Posted on 11/15/2007 8:16:52 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
FRED THOMPSON may have come late to the presidential race, but the former Tennessee senator has produced the most courageous proposal of the campaign. Mr. Thompson's Social Security plan is not as progressive or as balanced as we would prefer. Yet in a campaign in which candidates have preferred to dodge difficult choices on Social Security, Mr. Thompson's proposal has attractive elements and deserves applause for making some tough choices.
Mr. Thompson would cut benefits for future retirees from the unsustainable amount currently promised; he would combine that move with voluntary private accounts sweetened with a generous match from the federal government. Mr. Thompson points out, correctly, that by 2041, Social Security will be able to pay only about three-fourths of promised benefits, but he assumes -- as do his fellow Republicans -- that the burden of solving the problem should fall exclusively on the benefit side. This thinking is as faulty as that of Democrats who assert that all promised benefits are sacrosanct.
Mr. Thompson proposes to change the way initial Social Security benefits are calculated by linking them to the increase in the cost of living, rather than the growth in wages, over the course of a worker's career. Because wages tend to grow faster than prices, under current law each generation is promised more generous benefits than its predecessor. There is logic to changing the system so that workers across different generations receive the same benefit in dollar terms. But such a change means that benefits over time would replace an increasingly smaller share of workers' pre-retirement income; it would be better to do that in a more progressive fashion that preserves a decent standard of living for workers at the bottom.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
There is a whole thread on this. It seems almost everyone received them.
This is NOT a Fred supporter; it is obviously someone who is pissed off about what they perceive to be unfair treatment of their candidate on FR, thinking Fred is the preferred one. They lump Hunter with Romney as socialist Rinos. Come on. What serious Fred supporter thinks Hunter is a socialist Rino?? Then they reference the time-out of pissant as their proof. The intent was to make people irritated with Fred AND Free Republic.
Apparently it is working.
This was a very juvenile stunt that resulted in the two posters, B4Fred and Im4Fred being banned. If I were to guess, I would say they are probably one in the same and probably signed up recently. They must be laughing themselves silly over the aggravation this has caused.
I’m thinking this government matching thing might be just something to sweeten the deal to get Congress to pass it. I could see it being in place for a fixed amount of time, so that those closer to retirement can get a jump on their personal accounts. Then it can drop off and the personal accounts can be allowed to be beefed up, if folks choose to do that. The younger folks have plenty of time to set their accounts in motion and for that miracle of compound interest to get working for them.
Ok , thanks for the explanation . I guess I got spoofed!
But if this person got banned , how is that that they can use FreepMail? And how would they have gotten ahold of Hunter pinglists ? And yes of course , alot of the communication was stupid and insulting.
Thanks again for clueing me in , I hadn’t heard
They got banned after they spammed everyone.
My guess is that they went through different threads and FReeped everyone on them. People that only post in prayer threads were even spammed.
Someone really has an axe to grind.
Personally, I would favor a "sunset" on the Social Security program: no new participants, current participants younger than the retirement age can opt for a lump sum payout now, and participants who choose to remain under Social Security get reduced benefits.
I am twenty-one, and I am deeply cynical about Social Security because all politicians lie...and the way things are looking, my generation will never collect a penny but much will be taken away from those of us who are actually productive.
We can dream all we want, but the fact of the matter is that our government is run by humans, and humans are inherently sinful (and prone to vices such as lying, cheating, stealing, clever manipulation of numbers, and so forth). And our government is going to keep spending and spending and spending because they will not pay a penny; the generations entering the labor force of today and the future will pay.
And that is precisely why we will never, ever see entitlements cut--because even those who should be against them say "Well, I want what I put in back!"
It's straight out of the leftist playbook--force an entitlement into place, and everyone wants "their" piece of it.
I'd forfeit all of my share to take my country back to being a place based on its founding principles.
Read the article. You can see where they don’t agree in a leftish, socialist kind of way.
The stated reason is the benefits other than retirement that SS provides... income for your spouse and minor children in the event of your death, and a disability payment if needed.
The second stated reason is the idea that the government will "assure" these benefits which presumes that the private sector might not.
The third reason, of course, is that they need the money that those people under 57 are putting in now to pay those people who put in for 50 years and are now collecting. I think ideas like Thompson's (and Bush's before that) to change SS recognize that such a change will need to be gradual and across a generation. You can't just take a group and tell them "Nothing you have done matters, we're going to fix this on your back." It simply wouldn't succeed politically or morally for that matter.
Considering that this "match" is coming from the FICA taxes the wage earner is already paying, I'd simply call it a refund (with restrictions) rather than an entitlement.
The reference in the SPAM to the banned/suspended "pissant" seems to indicate that this childish stunt was pulled by someone upset over that suspension/ban. I wouldn't jump to conclusions and assume it was a Hunter supporter, though, as some of the more fringe Romney supporters are quite capable of being this childish.
You do realize I was making a point about the graft?
I don't blame you for being upset about receiving this PM. I was also and I'm a big Fred Thompson supporter (still). It was uncalled for and not what anyone should be doing with Freepmail.
I received one as well, and I knew something was up immediately, particularly since I already DID give to Fred's campaign this month.
I see Im4Fred has been banned. If this dirty politics came from another campaign they should be ashamed.
I was impressed that the Mods banned him so quickly.
Oh, I agree with you. Looking at this again, I am inclined to think it is someone who wants to divide the Hunter and Thompson supporters. Someone wants to create further division between the two camps.
The question remains—how many Freepers will fall for this juvenile stunt? Some even think it is coming from Fred’s campaign for pete’s sake.
Even the Post can do the math on So-called Secuirity.
A newb spammed out those freepmails. They were meant to be disruptive. The poster was quickly banned. I would give them NO WEIGHT regarding ANY candidate as a result.
Well, you could be like me, pay in the max demanded since I was 25 — and as of 29 paid BOTH the personal and employer max, since I owned my own company.
Even as things stand now, I get a NEGATIVE return on my money -— as in, I would have done better putting the money in my mattress, let alone letting me invest it.
Anyway, under Fred’s plan, there will be no cut to current retired people.
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.