tell me if you paid insurance premium for 50 years and you die you don't expect your family to benefit.

You just proved that Bush's plan is the right one. Thanks.

How? you may ask. (I assume you'll ask, because you aren't smart enough to see the obvious answer in front of your face).

Because I CAN PAY INTO SOCIAL SECURITY ALL MY LIFE -- IT IS INSURANCE AFTER ALL -- AND MY FAMILY DOESN'T GET SQUAT FOR IT WHEN I PASS ON. Or, at least they don't get anything close to the benefits that were promised to me.

I die, my benefits die. Too bad for me.

Try this article to educate yourself on that point.

The current system is racist, and based upon the idea that most will not live long enough to collect what they paid in. God knows, there are probably plenty that wish you fell into that category, but lets not go there.

I want very much to live to retire at a reasonable age, be able to enjoy my retirement, and be happy knowing my children, and their children will be financially comfortable because of the ability to pass along my retirement funds to them.

Draginol

Well after we have cut expendatures, stimulated GDP growth, closed the loop holes and returned the tax rates on the top 5% to pre 2001 rates and we are still not balanced, we would need to increase taxes as a last resort until the deficit ends and we have payed down the $7.6 Trillion of the debt. If your family spends more then they earn after cutting, you seek ways to increase your INCOME! The point, we can not continue going further and further into debt. Bush needs one of those companies that help people get out of debt!

Well after we have cut expendatures, stimulated GDP growth, closed the loop holes and returned the tax rates on the top 5% to pre 2001 rates and we are still not balanced, we would need to increase taxes

What part of NONSENSE is still unclear? Below are the actual numbers for '04 (columns are year, GDP, receipts, outlays, deficit/surplus). The following years the GDP grows as the current rate (6.6%), the receipts are actual estimates from a spreadsheet progressive provided on another post, the outlays GROW at 3% (approximated inflation). The deficit goes away, the budget is balanced by '08.

2004	11,552.8	1,883.1	2,287.5	-404.3
2005	12,303.7	2,067.0	2,356.1	-289.1
2006	13,103.5	2,214.5	2,426.8	-212.3
2007	13,955.2	2,400.3	2,499.6	-99.3
2008	14,862.3	2,600.9	2,574.6	26.4

These are for the TOTAL budget (the commonly reported number). For the ON budget, using the same criteria, it takes another 2 or 3 years to get to a surplus. No tax hikes, no cutting expenditures, just capping increases for estimated inflation and maintaining GDP growth (which tax hikes will send plummeting)

TB

the deficit is not an end by 2008 and a and if you don't believe it just the Office of Management and Budget and web site which clearly shows will be a continuing deficit is for out as the eye can see. In addition, the cumulative deficit as of 2008 per President Bush is just short of $10 trillion upon which we must pay interest each and every year.

Creating individual accounts has nothing to do what Congress is spending. If the Social Security trust fund was not lending money to the government would need to sell more bonds to people like the Chinese the Russians the French or for that matter Americans to fund the continuing deficit.

To propose a solution of private accounts when that solution does not address the problem is either stupid or there is an alternate reason why is Bush wants to privatize Social Security - so the Wall Street tycoons can make billions in fees. I have yet to see one word from President Bush as to how we pay for the transition other than borrowing more money. Who will pay the annual fees to maintain these millions of accounts and how much will be charged investors. For a worker investing a $1000 per year at 8% has $80 per year in investment income from which the account maintenance fee will be deducted. If the investment firm charges 35 or $40 as a fee to maintain that account as a truly big deal for that average investor.

Social Security needs to be looked at as a floor that is guaranteed. we need to encourage each and every person to build on top of Social Security with IRA's or 401(k). Too many people will not put aside the money needed nor are they capable of making investment decisions. That is why maintaining the assurance of Social Security not subject to market fluctuations is the best thing for the majority of Americans.

The entire way in which this administration has addressed the fiscal affairs is a joke. For 21 of the last 24 years we have spent considerably more than we were willing to tax. The Republican party that I believes in balanced budgets and yes if we cannot balance the budget with spending cuts or increasing GDP growth that means increased taxes. What we cannot continue to make believe someone else is going to pay for what were spending. The Brutal truth is that someone else is going to be our children and our grandchildren under the policy of George W. Bush and conservative Republicans controlling the government of the United States of America.

The $7.6 Trillion debt is fact. The $330 Billion in interest is fact. The $600 Billion last year is Fact. It is you that is full of BS. You and all the other Bush supporters. Hope you have fun paying for all the tax cuts and sepnding increase that Bush has given you!

drmiler

At least I will know why and who was responsible. You will still be following the white rabbit with a pocket watch down a little hole.

The $7.6 Trillion debt is fact. The $330 Billion in interest is fact. The $600 Billion last year is Fact. It is you that is full of BS. You and all the other Bush supporters. Hope you have fun paying for all the tax cuts and sepnding increase that Bush has given you!

Hmm are you talking out of your ass? Sources?

XX For$7.6 Trillion and $330 Billion in interest go to www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdint.htm. If you have a problem just use google and look for Federal debt and you will locate the Treas dept. Actual interest in 2004 per the Treasury $321,566,323,971.29 Actual National Debt as of 12/31/2004 per the Treasury $7,596,165,867,424.14 As for the $600 billion last year you go to OMB Table S-10 Budget Summary Start with the reported deficit which per the President was $412 Billion Remove the surplus in Soc Sec and Medicare to reduce the debt 200 Billion $612 Billion The impact of adding the Surplus in Social Secxurity and Medicare to reduce the annual budget deficit is explained at the following site; www.cepr.net/real_budget.htm This is Center For Economic And Policy Research site if you have a problem. You are the one passing gas.

Hey COL have you noticed that your the only one that keeps going on and on about this subject?

$330 Billion in interest go to www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdint.htm

Your bias really detracts from any credibility. Per this site, the interest on the debt was over $360 B in '98 and '00 (Clinton budgets), and over $350 B in '99 and '97. The interest has gone DOWN over 10% (not including the time value of money, which would make the % greater) under Bush.

The impact of adding the Surplus in Social Secxurity and Medicare to reduce the annual budget deficit is explained

Once again, it's been reported this way for Decades. Not unique to GW.

because you and the other Bushies never answer the questions or propose solutions

I've already shown you a solution, you ignored it.

Why do I keep on these matters? Because Bush is doing nothing to solve them!

BS again. Privatizing SS will help solve Medicaid problems (though I'm sure with your anti-Bush bias you'll ignore this too). When retirees have significantly LARGER liquid assets due to getting 4 or 5 times the returns on what SS would give them and owning it, they won't need Medicaid to to take care of them (or for that matter, even qualify).

All you have demonstrated is a hatred for Bush, not truth nor objectiveness. None of the numbers you cite are earth shattering, or new, or even out of line with recent administrations (in many instances they are better). One thing is certain, we could solve some energy problems with all the hot air you continue to blow.

The Unified Budget which combines the surpluses in Social Security and Medicare with the federal budget is not new under George W. Bush. However we were not running the huge deficits prior to George W. Bush. By combining the surplus in Social Security which is a standalone system and Medicare which is again a standalone system with the federal budget the size of the federal deficit is distorted by making it look far less than it truly is.

Sorry but this won't wash! If the Unified Budget is NOT new under Bush. Then he hasn't been lying about the budget any more than ANY other president. You CAN NOT call him on something the rest have done too.

drmiler

On CNN today they reported that even more Americans do not agree with the private accounts and the prospect of passing that change with the majority opposed to the private acccounts is not good. The only age group that support the private accounts is the under 35 group. The home town metings in Fl where I live are pro Bush but the paper reported today the vast majority in Florida do not suppotrt private accounts. The issue of the unified budget is that ANY Peresident, including Clinton was distorting the deficit using the accounting trick. My point, lets report the budget without the distortion. We should also show Americans the individual statements from Social Security amd Medicare so a true picture can be sceen.

Just watch. It will not pass the congress!