Bush explains his Social Security Plan

“"I can think of quite a few who fit this mold”

LOL! Hey Ewker, switch cry-baby liberals with neo cons, and Clinton with Bush and then go take a look in the mirror. I find it funny how you bash on Stove Stomper all the time yet you are his mirror opposite and act just as he does.”

“Nigal, did I say who I was talking about? It could have been you =)

SS, started with the attacks and trolling for arguements but when I turned it on him he got all mad and put me on ignore. If you go back and look SS got mad when no one replied to his trolling. Heck I wasn't the only one who made comments about SS doing that. If you notice a lot of his post he will have the wink behind it like he is joking but you do the same and it upsets him. Seems to me he wants to dish it out but he doesn't want to take it.

You on the other hand will dish it out and take it also.
last edited: 2/15/05 8:20:11 AM”

“I wasn’t talking about your interaction with SS. I was talking about your posting habits on political subjects. It’s even more mystifying because you claim to take no sides and say you’re neither a liberal or a conservative simply because you didn’t even vote. Give me a proud liberal like Treebeard or a staunch conservative like SS every time. Straightforwardness has a value that is self evident.

Having known SS for years now I can say with certainty that he can take about anything. We all freak out some days.”

“I am very straight forward on my thoughts.

Social Security doesn't need to be messed with. Quite a few Republicans are against Bush on this.

Immigration is a topic we both agree on. In one post I made it clear that the Republicans were the ones who passed the bill in the house. Pissed me off the Dem's didn't do a lot to help.

I don't think we should be in Iraq or even be thinking about Iran. Would Gore have done a better job about the whole Iraq issue or 9-11. I don't know but i would have jumped his butt when he screwed up. I do think Bush should have kept after Bin Laden until we got him instead of changing horses in the middle of the stream.

Clinton got the same kind of crap that is going on right now that Bush is getting. some of Clinton's policies I didn't care for but I wasn't on the board back then. I do think Clinton screwed up royally with the NAFTA thing. That has done nothing but hurt this country.

I am really tired of this country sending billions of dollars overseas to help out the rest of the world when that money could be used at home. We can't police the entire world, if a country wants to self destruct from within let them.

This country needs a lot of help and it is split pretty evenly about politics right now. You have both parties not willing to work with each other. Bush is even having problems with the GOP on some of his issues which says a lot considering the Rep's control the Congress.”

“

M E M O R A N D U M

CONFIDENTIAL: NOT TO BE LEAKED

TO: Conservative Senators, Congressmen, Wall Street Sugar Daddies
FROM: CEO-in-Chief, George W. Bush
RE: Cramming Social Security Privatization Down the Rooster-Necked Throats of the Feeble Near-Dead Hordes


Gentlemen,

As many of you may recall from the recent campaign, the lynchpin of the domestic policy I occasionally mentioned (when not stirring my bubbling cauldron of brimstone-scented terror gruel) was "reforming" the socialist ATM machine known as Social Security. Invented by that snotty pinko cripple FDR over seventy years ago, Social Security represents our easiest target to firebomb as we redouble our efforts to restore America to its Great Depression gilded age – a time when the otherwise asinine secular theory of "natural selection" saw its only worthwhile application: facilitating the acquisition of whole fleets of Duesenbergs for my grandpappy Prescott and his Hitler-fellating cronies. Because who wants a merciful meritocracy when you're born with mad loot?

That said, I understand many of you are concerned that your constituents won't accept my impending mutilation of this sacred social contract. You're concerned that the massive oldster lobby, the AARP, is wringing its piss-drenched Depends in a sour little knot over our gloriously compassionate plans. So let me start by offering you loyal Christian soldiers a simple piece of advice: grow a #&%!$ing pair of sperm bells already! The dentures-and-dementia class can #&%!$ and moan all they want. It's not like we have anything to fear from voters so decrepit, their annoying protests are totally ignored by all the younger generations who will actually suffer the consequences of us gang-raping their futures!

Do you know what an "opportunity society" is? Neither do I, but I'm spouting it constantly these days because it sounds all individualistic, strong, and self-empowering – so long as we never mention that a democracy IS an opportunity society. Well, theoretically anyway, unless those in power do everything we can to discourage (preferably thwart) a citizen's so-called right to vote.

So moving forward, whenever anyone asks you what we're doing to Social Security, simply repeat this line: "Allowing people to invest in their retirement means that they have control over their retirement." Sure, it's bunk. But never forget that all those non-rich retirement-age losers have only themselves to blame that they weren't born trustafarians or got lots of hot tips on the sure-thing stocks which might have otherwise bankrolled their twilight year diets of Fancy Feast cat food. Yes, because by forcing all Americans to play the glorified craps table that is the stock market, we funnel billions of dollars directly into Wall Street – dollars which in turn boomerang right back to where they belong: paying for the upkeep on our helipad-equipped yachts!

Finally, when talking to voters, please remember lesson numero uno from this past election: fear sells. Tell them that Social Security is about to run out of money, even though it isn't a fund but a re-appropriation of current tax revenue. And to your younger constituents, tell them to keep watching MTV, swilling tooty-fruity malt beverages, and whatever you do, don't remind them how they all got laid off four years ago because the markets are so easily manipulated by the older, wiser, and almost incomprehensibly greedy.

Your God-Ordained Ruler,



GWB/kr



- whitehouse.org”

“Y'all are screwed!!”

“http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1802&e=3&u=/washpost/20050315/ts_washpost/a35231_2005mar14

Skepticism of Bush's Social Security Plan Is Growing

By Jonathan Weisman, Washington Post Staff Writer

Three months after President Bush launched his drive to restructure Social Security by creating private investment accounts, public support for his program remains weak, with only 35 percent of Americans now saying they approve of his handling of the issue, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

While the White House has helped convince more than two-thirds of those polled that Social Security is heading for a crisis or possible bankruptcy without change, 56 percent disapprove of his approach, a survey of 1,001 adults conducted March 10-13 shows. By comparison, 38 percent approved of his handling of the issue and 52 percent disapproved of it in mid-December.

Moreover, 58 percent of those polled this time said the more they hear about Bush's plan, the less they like it. The latest polling, combined with detailed interviews last week, shows that Bush's drive to significantly alter the 70-year-old national insurance program has run into significant hurdles with every age cohort.

A majority of elderly voters have turned against the plan for private accounts, even though the White House has assured them it would have no impact on their Social Security benefits. Younger workers, who have the most to gain, also tend to be the most difficult to mobilize, according to interviews. And many middle-aged workers are faced with the reality that there would not be enough time before their retirement to gain much financial benefit from the new approach.

"The president knows it's a challenge and is taking it head-on," White House spokesman Trent Duffy said. "He is just getting started, and he's going to keep traveling, pushing and explaining to people of all ages why Social Security needs to be fixed permanently and why it's best that personal accounts be part of the solution."

For middle-aged workers such as Kathy Remenar of Midland, Mich., the issue is simple mathematics.

"I personally wouldn't get a whole lot out of it, really," said the 46-year-old director of science and technology for Dow Corning Corp.'s specialty chemicals business. "It's not relevant to me."

Bush has promised that, under his proposal, workers would eventually be able to divert 4 percent of their income subject to payroll taxes to private accounts, which could then be invested in stocks and bonds. A 46-year-old earning the maximum income subject to Social Security taxation -- currently $90,000 -- could theoretically salt away $3,600 a year.

But the plan would be phased in slowly, starting in 2009 with an initial annual cap of $1,000 and rising by $100 a year. It would take an additional 26 years for someone at the taxable maximum to save the promised 4 percent. By then, Remenar would be 76 and long since retired. And in the short time period available to middle-aged workers, investment gains would have to exceed inflation by 3 percent for the accounts to make more money than the traditional Social Security system would provide.

"If there are no other incentives than this, we probably wouldn't take part in it, because the numbers don't make a whole lot of sense for us personally," said Sue Smorodin, 45, a homemaker in St. Louis.

Republican Michael Cardwell, a land-use planner in Washington state, did the math. He would retire with $11,000 in his account, plus maybe $900 more in investment gains if all went well on the stock market.

"Wow," Cardwell, 50, said with a laugh. "I may get one additional paycheck, thank you very much." Nonetheless, he said he will support the president.

Not all middle-aged workers are skeptical. Marilyn Donnelly, a 46-year-old nurse on Florida's central Atlantic coast, said that with luck a personal account could grow substantially, and she relishes the opportunity to give it a try. She is already saving 16 percent of her income for retirement, Donnelly said, but too much of her paycheck is going to a Social Security system that is not likely to do as well with the money as she could.

"I want the opportunity to invest some of that money myself so it will grow more than what Social Security is going to give me," said Donnelly, of Rockledge. "And I feel [Bush is] offering me that opportunity."

But after nearly a dozen interviews with middle-aged voters, it appears Donnelly's optimism is not widely shared.

"If you're my age, it isn't going to make much difference really," said Mark Kaufman, 52, a rancher and farmer in Nebraska's panhandle. "I can't get all that excited."

"It won't add up to much," agreed John Hall, 50, a small-business man in Lubbock, Tex., and a strong supporter of the president. "But for my daughter, it could be a tremendous amount. She's 19 years old, and for her, the future of the Social Security system is not too bright."

Indeed, the White House is pinning its political hopes on younger voters such as Hall's daughter. They tend to be deeply ambivalent about the future of Social Security and blessed with enough time until retirement to build up sizable accounts.

In this month's poll, 68 percent of adults 18 to 29 years old said they support investing some Social Security contributions in the stock market. That support falls with the respondents' age, to 60 percent among those 40 to 49, 53 percent among those 50 to 64, and 37 percent among those 65 and older.

But young workers present their own political problems. For one thing, they tend to be less politically involved. Only 38 percent of young respondents say they know much about Bush's Social Security proposal, well below the levels seen among middle-aged and elderly respondents.

At 32, Kathy Lavigne of Wayzata, Minn., said she thinks she supports the president's Social Security plans. But, she conceded, she cannot be sure.

"Honestly, I've discussed it with my business partner here or there, but I'm not watching it too closely," the insurance saleswoman said.

If she were moved to call her representative in Congress, she would have a little problem. She does not know her congressman's name.

If it were up to Ray Waters, a 32-year-old construction sales representative in Kansas, he would keep all of his Social Security taxes in a private account, but absent that, he strongly backs Bush's proposal. "I guess it comes down to it's my money," he said.

But though his congressman, Rep. Dennis Moore, is a perennial Republican target, Waters is not clamoring for a bullhorn to pressure the state's only Democrat in Congress.

"I don't get to camp out in front of Fox News as much as I would like to," he said. "Between work and a little boy and a baby, there's not a whole lot of time for politics."

Finally, younger workers may support the idea of private accounts, but they also tend to oppose Bush. Democratic candidate John F. Kerry claimed 54 percent of the 18-to-29-year-old vote in November, the only age bracket he carried. And distrust of the president is lingering among even some young workers inclined to support investing part of their Social Security contribution. Only 40 percent of these younger workers say they support Bush's Social Security proposal.

"I'm not a big fan of Bush, not at all," said Michelle Hinson, 31, of Morgan Hill, Calif., just south of San Jose. But she grudgingly says she likes the idea of personal accounts. "If I think it's a good idea, then I'm willing to listen and hear what's going on. But for the most part, I don't agree with anything he's doing."

If young voters tend to be apathetic or ambivalent, the elderly are anything but. GOP strategists are convinced Republican politicians must emphasize over and over that anyone older than 55 will not be affected by the plan. By exempting those in or near retirement from participation in the accounts or any benefit reductions, Bush hopes to neutralize opposition from the most vocal and reliable voting bloc.

But the strategy may backfire, homemaker Smorodin said, noting that her mother has grown incensed about the issue. By and large, the elderly do understand the president has promised not to touch their Social Security checks, according to polling.

But that is not relevant to their political opposition, Smorodin said, noting that older people also worry that pension benefit cuts will hurt their children and grandchildren.

At 69, Gene Wallace knows the White House's proposal would have no impact on his Social Security check, but if Bush believes that will silence the Republican mayor of Coldwater, Mich., Wallace grumbled, "he's all wet."

"I'm a parent as well as a grandparent. Somewhere along the line, they are going to be eligible for retirement assistance," he said, with all the energy he could muster three weeks after open-heart surgery. "It's everybody's concern what happens to this country."”

“Bush Says Won't Offer Specifics on Social Security

By Caren Bohan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush said on Wednesday he would not send Congress a specific plan to change Social Security because it would be "dead on arrival" and admitted his idea of personal accounts would not fix the retirement system.

Overhauling Social Security is Bush's top domestic priority but polls show a lack of public enthusiasm even after he spent weeks traveling the country to promote the notion.

"The first bill on the Hill always is dead on arrival," Bush said. "I have not laid out a plan yet, intentionally."

"I'm interested in coming up with a permanent solution. I'm not interested in playing political games," he added.

The centerpiece of Bush's Social Security plan is the idea that younger workers should be able shift part of their payroll taxes into stock and bond accounts.

Bush said he was "not going to go away" on his drive to restructure Social Security and said he thought it was important for Congress to discuss the personal accounts idea.

But he added, "Personal accounts do not permanently fix the solution."

Congressional Democrats have vowed to block any plan to overhaul Social Security that includes such accounts, arguing they will they drive up the national debt by requiring trillions of dollars in new borrowing.

Democrats and the AARP, the seniors' lobby group, plan to hold forums during the two-week congressional Easter recess to rally opposition to Bush's plan.

Bush plans events of his own, starting with a trip to Florida on Friday and to western states next week.

Democrats said they wanted to work with the president to shore up Social Security's finances, but they want him to take private accounts off the table first.

They argue that diverting Social Security taxes into the accounts would worsen the program's cash flow problems.

"If he were to take privatization off the table he would be setting up a circumstance where we could work together," said Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee

A recent New York Times poll showed that 30 percent of Americans approved of Bush's handling of the Social Security issue, while 57 percent disapproved.

The Times poll, conducted from last Wednesday to Monday, contrasted with a Jan. 7-9 poll that showed 41 percent approved of Bush's handling of Social Security and 52 percent disapproved.

Skepticism about Bush's plan is strongest among older Americans, who wield a lot of political clout because they vote in large numbers. That has emboldened Democrats and left many Republicans reticent as they look ahead to the 2006 mid-term elections.

Bush suggested that laying out his own proposal on Social Security would be counterproductive to trying to hammer out a bill that would attract Democrats as well as Republicans.

"We're open for ideas," Bush said. "And look, I can understand why people say, "Make -- force the president to either negotiate with himself or lay out his own bill."

"I want to work with members of both political parties," Bush said.

A largely symbolic vote on Tuesday in the Senate showed Bush would have a difficult time winning a majority to get approval for private accounts.

Five Republicans joined 44 Democrats and one independent to back a nonbinding resolution saying Congress should reject any Social Security plan that would require deep benefit cuts or a massive increase in debt. Even though the measure failed, the fact that it garnered 50 of the 100 U.S. senators was significant, backers of the resolution said.”

“Apparently 35% of Americans are #&%!$ing brain-dead.”

“My support for this plan has cooled off quite a bit lately. I normally don’t let the majority effect my thinking but I do have to stop and ask myself, “If this many people are against it…”. I think there should be a more conservative plan that won’t cost quite so much to start up.

I do still wonder how SS was in dire trouble in ’99 when Clinton wanted to fix it but now it’s fine and there’s no reason to fix it. WOW! Bush really turned it around in his first 4 years!”

“yes Clinton wanted to take SS and invest it in a trust fund. The Republican controlled Congress shot it down.

If you going to invest the more money you invest the more you make. So it makes more sense to invest more from SS than allowing ever person to invest 4%.

I think this says quite a lot. I took it from the first post above:

"For middle-aged workers such as Kathy Remenar of Midland, Mich., the issue is simple mathematics.

"I personally wouldn't get a whole lot out of it, really," said the 46-year-old director of science and technology for Dow Corning Corp.'s specialty chemicals business. "It's not relevant to me."

Bush has promised that, under his proposal, workers would eventually be able to divert 4 percent of their income subject to payroll taxes to private accounts, which could then be invested in stocks and bonds. A 46-year-old earning the maximum income subject to Social Security taxation -- currently $90,000 -- could theoretically salt away $3,600 a year.

But the plan would be phased in slowly, starting in 2009 with an initial annual cap of $1,000 and rising by $100 a year. It would take an additional 26 years for someone at the taxable maximum to save the promised 4 percent. By then, Remenar would be 76 and long since retired. And in the short time period available to middle-aged workers, investment gains would have to exceed inflation by 3 percent for the accounts to make more money than the traditional Social Security system would provide."

I am not worried about it for myself unless they raise the retirement age. I plan on working past my retirement age of 66 if I can. I would rather be out enjoy the woods and trails than working.”

“Rather than propose an alternative plan the Democrats respond by saying there is no problem with social security.

The Party with no ideas.

Shooting themselves in the foot has been their only achievement in four years.
last edited: 3/16/05 7:16:50 PM”

“You know, it probably doesn't help Bush that the market is basically sideways right now.

Maybe they should take all the social security money and buy a bunch of houses in California and a bunch of factories in China.

It must just grate on the Republicans that the Democrats still have enough power to kill the president's biggest second term objective.

Or maybe the Republicans just don't want it enough. Too busy shilling for the credit card companies.”

“Sideways market? You need a different broker.”

“bbw all you do is spout comments about the democrats but you never propose anything yourself. You believe everything you are told by Bush..quit being a sheep”

“Yawn. Wake me up when we hit 11,000.”

“I am a 50ish single male with two adult children. If I die today my adult (20ish) children will receive none of the money I have poured into the social security system.

If my children have the opportunity to invest in personal social security retirement accounts proposed by President Bush, my grandchildren will receive my children's contribution if my children die before retirement age.

Democrat's claim there is no problem with social security. If you can do Eighth grade math you understand that is not the truth. If you have children the you need to understand the Democrat's non-plan is not only a lie, it is anti-family.”

“This is great!

http://funny.ansme.com/politics/bush/build.html”

“I like the debate notes

”

“this one of Kerry is great, probably the best one...lol


last edited: 4/22/05 8:04:57 AM”