Posted on 02/03/2005 1:10:54 AM PST by The Loan Arranger
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush is drawing a long gray line through the baby boom generation, hoping to keep the oldest at bay and the youngest at his side as he pursues drastic changes to Social Security.
Gingerly touching the third rail of politics, Bush said in his State of the Union address, "I have a message for every American who is 55 years or older: Do not let anyone mislead you. For you, the Social Security system will not change."
But it will change dramatically for people under 55, if the president gets his way: Benefit cuts, increasing the retirement age and discouraging the early collection of retirement checks are all on the table.
While urging Congress to create private investment accounts for Social Security taxes, he told the under-55 set, "Your money will grow over time, at a greater rate than anything the current system can deliver." With that line, Republicans jumped to their feet and applauded while Democrats sat glumly in their seats.
Bush can't guarantee market-based private accounts will always yield better rates than the current program, but that might not matter to young and middle-aged Americans who have long assumed Social Security would sputter before they grew old.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
For you, the Social Security system will not change."
It already has. You have to be 68 now to collect instead of 65.
Well, a ponzi scheme.
Moreover, the 100,000 I have paid is SSI went not to my grandparents - but to KKK Byrd's latest highway project.
The lies are so deep - does anyone not see the truth anymore?
One hundred thousand dollars.
Hmmm. The population of divorced/widowed/single women between 40 and 55 is huge, and they spend all that they have. As is the nature of politics, they will be supported by the government as they age out of the labor market.
And how will the men between 40 and 55 (many who lost manufacturing jobs in the '80s) vote during the next election? ...if they vote. And how many low income men between 40 and 55 voted Republican recently?
I would give up all I have put in the system (which I guess I probably have any way) to be released from this ridiculous burden. I save about 15% of income now, but if I had another 15%...
Oooooohhh! The "third rail"?? Bush may have trouble getting elected to a third term.
I didn't think he was gingerly at all.
Denny Crane: "There are two places of truth. First God and then Fox News."
Was watching Brit Hume last night. Had a bit on SS. The libs want you to believe the system is sound for 50 years. They quote the non-partisan CBO to back them up. It was funny that during this segment they played a member of the CBO testifying before Congress that SS was heading for a crisis in 2018. I really don't think that's 50 years or is my math that bad. IMHO I believe that a big reason the libs don't want to touch SS is for the following reasons:
1) FDR could do no wrong so SS can't be broke and they'll tell you everyone just loves SS.
2) They don't want anyone touching that pot of money that they can borrow upon without having to pay it back.
3) They aren't the ones putting forth ideas to fix the problem and don't want to admit that in this case the Republican party just may be visionary enough to fix something before it totally derails and is unfixable.
4) They just plain don't care because it doesn't affect them.
Not true.
You have to be 68 now to collect instead of 65.
Gee, I'm only 62 and I just started collecting, what's with that?
One of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated on free people.
It's not Bush's next term that's in question. It's the election and reelection of Republicans in states where the Democrats demonize him over this.
well, isn't that too bad....
She always looks a bit under the weather to me.
What I do not understand is why this impacts the elderly anyway. They will get their checks regardless. If the Libs say that the system is in ok shape for the next 30-35 years than creating a new busket to put the money in for a new generation is irrelevant.
Bush hit a homerun last night in telling congress that they already have this so why not everyone else. The easist thing to do would be to tell congress that either they make the change or else what government employees have now will go away and they will be put into the present system, with the money they already saved being put into the SS pot.
It's welfare. Why not call it what it is? If they want to save some money, they should roll Social Security in with the other welfare programs, axe its bureaucracy, and means test it.
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.