COL Gene

BUSH - CUT Social Security Benefits to 70% of Americans!

▼

BUSH - CUT Social Security Benefits to 70% of Americans!

from JoeUser Forums




George W. Bush finally came out of the closet on how he wants to fund his private accounts within Social Security. He wants to cut the benefits for 70% of Social Security recipients! It is one thing to consider cutting Social Security benefits for the wealthiest 5 or 10% of retirees but it is quite another matter to propose cutting benefits to 70% of retirees. This revelation should be the last nail in the private account coffin of George W. Bush.

Although Bush does not have to worry about being reelected, picture ANY congressman or senator up for reelection explaining that they voted to cut benefits for 70% of American retirees. The president’s plan to create private accounts not only doesn’t solve the existing funding problem with Social Security, it makes the problem worse. This is because it would remove trillions of dollars from the trust fund which is needed to pay for the baby boomer retirement. In other words Bush’s solution to a system that does not have enough money is to take even more money from the system. President Bush just doesn’t get IT- the vast majority of Americans do not want what he is selling. If he strong arms the Republicans in Congress to vote for his plan and cuts benefits for 70% of future retirees, we are going to see a power shift in Congress very very soon.
politics
13,179 views 48 replies
Reply #26 from PolMach Forums Top
I just got done reading the Article on CNN.com: Link

This is what the Democrats have wanted for a long time. More money for the poor upon retirement and capping any extra increase on those who make more money. They just won a battle in the class warfare fight, it was just handed to them on a platter. Why are they fighting this?

IMO, it is because history shows those who invest their money, are more likely to vote Republican. They are just trying to protect their voter base.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
You fail to understand that we individual accounts do not resolve the funding problem in social security. The individual accounts make the funding problem bigger because less money will flow into the trust fund due to the creation of the individual accounts. Thus the amount of money needed to both fix the solvency and fund the individual's is huge .There is no way that we have money to pay for the president's plan. We should separate making social security solvent from the individual account issue. The reason for this discussion is to make Social Security solvent not create individual accounts. The simple solution is to make sure Social Security is properly funded by raising the retirement age and lifting the tax limit on Social Security wages. Individual accounts should be encouraged over and above the Social Security but not as part of the system. It is possible to enable Social Sceurity to meet its obligations by increasing the age for full retirement and adding to the trust fund by lifting the limit on Social Security Wages that are taxed. We need to Fund the baby boomer bubble. After that bubble has passed, the number of people working compared to the number retired will return to something closer to today when the system is able to pay the full benefits.
Groupy 2 - Organize multiple applications into grouped tabs on your Windows desktop
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
Island Dog

www.newyorktimes.com

google Search "Bush Social Sceurity benefit cuts"

These are two sites. The story was on the CNN news all day.


Like I said, part of your problem is CNN and the NYT. If you are going to make accusations against someone, why don't you post a link to your sources.



In addition, the majority of Americans DO NOT WANT the structure of Social Security changed. Bush is as far away from where the vast majority of Americans want to be on this issue he could be. It is time for him to understand this is not a dictatorship where what he says goes. It is what the majority want and the vast majority do not want the Bush change to Social Security!


Bush doesn't run the country based on polls. Another good quality. It also has nothing to do with being a dictatirship,m your rhetoric is getting more fanatical everyday.

If a poll showed that people wanted to live under a dictatorship, then you would agree?
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
Island Dog

www.newyorktimes.com

google Search "Bush Social Sceurity benefit cuts"

These are two sites. The story was on the CNN news all day.

I said Bush was proposing to cut benefits for 70% of Social Security retirees. He is proposing to cut them from what they would be on a sliding scale except for the bottom 30% .Only the bottom 30% would receive the benefit levels that have been promised upon retirement. As I said in my blog, I want to see Congress pass something like this. Because if they do, a lot congressmen and senators will be looking for something to do after their next reelection. We do not need individual retirement accounts for the simple reason they do not provide any solution to the funding issue in Social Security. Today the Social Security Administration admitted that individual accounts do not resolve the funding issue. You cannot fix the shortfall in Social Security by taking money out of the system and put that money into individual accounts. In addition, the majority of Americans DO NOT WANT the structure of Social Security changed. Bush is as far away from where the vast majority of Americans want to be on this issue he could be. It is time for him to understand this is not a dictatorship where what he says goes. It is what the majority want and the vast majority do not want the Bush change to Social Security!


And CNN was WRONG! See reply #22 for starters on the correct path.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
And you seem to forget that Congress has long since spent the "trust fund" (hence Al Gore's much touted promise of a "Lock Box"). Quit acting like you're oblivious to the fact that the Democrat congress raided that fund years ago and the Republican run congress has followed suit.

What makes me laugh at you and the Congressional Democrats the hardest is that you and they keep talking as if there is not Social Security Crisis. Well, Clinton first brought it up, Al Gore RAN on saving it, and now the deaf, dumb and blind Congressional Democrats are acting like it's news to them.

You suggest they come up with an alternative? They don't have the brain power!! All they have is childish games and feigned concern for anyone put their pathetic selves. As long as they think they can make Prs. Bush look bad, that's all they care about.

When are you going to wake up to the fact that you are as mindless as they are!!!
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
i dont know why anyone hadda difficult time confirming what col gene said.

i dont expect many of you to admit he's just taken the next step towards being able to dump ss by making it unpopular with 70% of the country.
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
ParaTed2K

If you contend that the Social Security Trust fund does not exist because it consists of U S Trearury Bonds, then you are saying that U S treasury obligations are not assets? The federal government debt is worthless. A lot of Americans and foreign investors will be surprised and a bit upset by that argument!

The issue is not that the President runs on Polls. However, any government that is a democracy (Republic) that does not meet the overall wishes of the majority is not either a democracy or a republic. Nether Bush or Congress should change something as basic as Social Security unless the majority agree. Finally, the individual accounts DO NOT solve the funding issue of Social Security. Why are we talking about something that does not resolve the issue at hand?
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
i dont know why anyone hadda difficult time confirming what col gene said.

i dont expect many of you to admit he's just taken the next step towards being able to dump ss by making it unpopular with 70% of the country.


Why? Because what the *col* is saying is flat wrong. It is NOT what President Bush said. See reply #22.
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
Because what the *col* is saying is flat wrong. It is NOT what President Bush said


in #22 youre trying to deny something col gene didnt say. nobody said bush is gonna cut ss benefits by 70%. jeez luiz
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler you are the one that is the wrong. Every news program has said the same thing the proposal Bush is making will reproduce benefits from what has been promised for 70% of American retirees. It is true that no one that is currently retired will be subject to a reduction but future retirees will NOT receive what Social Security has promised except for the bottom 30% and it will be done on a sliding scale based on income. That is what the proposal is and your BS about me being wrong is itself wrong. the problem you and the others who support Bush have is that you can never accept some of the things he is doing make no sense and are ineffective. Your failure to recognize that does not change the basic results of his policies. There are three reasons why the individual accounts for example should be dropped:

They do not solve the funding problem that exists in Social Security.

Adding individual accounts compounds the funding problem because you must raise the money for not only the current funding issue but also for money that is diverted from the trust fund to create the individual accounts.

The majority of Americans do not want the structure of Social Security changed.
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
Because what the *col* is saying is flat wrong. It is NOT what President Bush said


in #22 youre trying to deny something col gene didnt say. nobody said bush is gonna cut ss benefits by 70%. jeez luiz


Oh REALLY? Are you blind? Go reread the title!
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top

drmiler you are the one that is the wrong. Every news program has said the same thing the proposal Bush is making will reproduce benefits from what has been promised for 70% of American retirees. It is true that no one that is currently retired will be subject to a reduction but future retirees will NOT receive what Social Security has promised except for the bottom 30% and it will be done on a sliding scale based on income. That is what the proposal is and your BS about me being wrong is itself wrong. the problem you and the others who support Bush have is that you can never accept some of the things he is doing make no sense and are ineffective. Your failure to recognize that does not change the basic results of his policies. There are three reasons why the individual accounts for example should be dropped:


Try again *col*. This is from the Washington Post.


"I believe the reformed system should protect those who depend on Social Security the most," he said in a nationally televised news conference. "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."



AGAIN proven wrong!
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
Because what the *col* is saying is flat wrong. It is NOT what President Bush said


in #22 youre trying to deny something col gene didnt say. nobody said bush is gonna cut ss benefits by 70%. jeez luiz


And while your at it? Try rereading replies 3,8,10,13,25 and 35.
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler - not true The Bush plan would only provide the promised benefits to 30% at the bottom of the income scale. All others would receive less than promised under crrrent Social Security benefits on sliding scale based on their income. No matter how many times you deny it that is what he proposed . He wants to pay for his individual accounts by cutting the benefits for 70% of future retirees!
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
Are you blind? Go reread the title!


there are times i wish i could type in braille just for you doc. the title is (ill go slow here...and if you get lost just swing your cane): bush cut social security to 70% of americans!. that is NOT bush cut social security by 70%.

youre diggin a hole from which you'll never emerge.

on second thought...
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top

drmiler - not true The Bush plan would only provide the promised benefits to 30% at the bottom of the income scale. All others would receive less than promised under crrrent Social Security benefits on sliding scale based on their income. No matter how many times you deny it that is what he proposed . He wants to pay for his individual accounts by cutting the benefits for 70% of future retirees!


So your saying the Washington Post is lying?
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
there are times i wish i could type in braille just for you doc. the title is (ill go slow here...and if you get lost just swing your cane): bush cut social security to 70% of americans!. that is NOT bush cut social security by 70%.


After rereading #22 I now realize I did not type what I was thinking. The post is worded all wrong. Ain't no sense in arguing over that.
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler

What about The New York Times, The News-Press, CNN, CBS, ABC and Earthlink on the Web? They are ALL lying? I can understand sometimes getting your fingers on the wrong keys, but in reading your blogs I think the problem is more between your ears.
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top
..... but in reading your blogs I think the problem is more between your ears.


Ya think????
Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
Drmiler et al

Fox News Sundey (Fair and Balanced) and Meet the Press covered the Bush proposal to CUT Social Security benefits to furure retirees. This is what the Chief Actuary from the Social Security Administration calculated would be the impect of the Bush proposed cuts:

Futurer retirees making $25,000 or less in 2005 dollars - NO Reduction in Social Security benefits ( about 30% 0f American workers)

Future retirees making $59,000 - 30% reduction in Social Security benefits.

Future retirees making $90,000 and above - 40% reduction in Social Security benefits.

I want to see who in Congress will support the Bush Plan!
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top
Drmiler et al

Fox News Sundey (Fair and Balanced) and Meet the Press covered the Bush proposal to CUT Social Security benefits to furure retirees. This is what the Chief Actuary from the Social Security Administration calculated would be the impect of the Bush proposed cuts:

Futurer retirees making $25,000 or less in 2005 dollars - NO Reduction in Social Security benefits ( about 30% 0f American workers)

Future retirees making $59,000 - 30% reduction in Social Security benefits.

Future retirees making $90,000 and above - 40% reduction in Social Security benefits.

I want to see who in Congress will support the Bush Plan!


Try again *col*. The links are from fact check. org. Tell *them* they don't know what they're talking about.

Link

Link




You want to complain about someone? Try Greenspan:
Link

And unlike you *col* I try to provide links for my backup. Something I have yet to see you do.
Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top
your are links are fine but they do not change the fact that if Bush policies are implemented the middle income Americans will receive last in social security payments in the future then they will without those changes. The actuary of the Social Security Administration should know what they're talking about a hell of a lot better than you. This was the source for both Meet the Press and Fox Sunday news. How would you provide LINKS to two TV shows?
Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top
Little-Whip

I tried to add a link (New York Times Story) and nothing happened. I got the box and entered the URL hit OK and the Link did not appear in my reply.http://www.nytimes.com/pages/national/nationalspecial/index.html?excamp=GGGNbushsocialsecurity