What is the real reason Bush is messing with Social Security?

[bobweaver]

I am particularly resentful about this because I am self-employed and I pay the self-employment tax, which is usually equal to, or sometimes more than, my income tax payment. I pay it out of my pocket and I expect my benefits to be there for me when I retire.

I am angry that Bush is now trying to reduce the expected benefit payments in the future. I feel that Bush and the Republicans are basically skimming from my retirement money. They have absolutely nothing to do with my business, yet they are digging into my pension. I'm being "Enroned!" And I can't opt out of it - the IRS requires me to pay the self-employment tax.

But why are the Republicans doing this? What is the true underlying reason they want to mess with Social Security? The reason nobody in the MSM will admit?

[Norquist Nemesis]

1. Because it makes money for friends and family

throught the fees and commissions that will be charged.

[liberal N proud]

10. Exactly, His only motivation for the power is to make money

for his friends, family and himself.
The war in Iraq has made his and Cheney's friend very rich indeed while the less fortunate fight it for him
Social Security will be a profit for his financial friends at the cost of the less fortunate, those who are counting on getting back a portion of what they put in the system.

[sui generis]

2. easy - short sighted economics

Bush wants to dump two trillion dollars into the U.S. economy. It will create an investment bubble, the rich people who can buy into IPO's and later LBO's will get extraordinarily richer on vapor companies, just like the tech bubble, there will be frenzy of hiring, optimistic consumer spending, and then a selloff.

Over the first four to six years the economy will look marvelous, but when it crashes it will probably crash the entire world economy this time and take decades to claw out of, if ever.

But who cares. Just so long as his rich friends can get richer today, that's all that really matters, isn't it?

Oh and get this: with SS gone, there is absolutely no obligation on the part of our government to take care of you in your old age. It really is YOUR problem now. Gotta love that "compassionate" conservatism.

[No Exit]

3. To help the bankers and the brokers

who will, no doubt, kick back some money to you-know-who.

See, your government is no longer that thing we see in Washington. Your government is now a set of very large corporations and similar entities. Corporate governing entities are assigned pieces of what we used to call "the government" according to their particular expertise. For example, timber companies would be assigned to take care of conservation, since, after all, who knows more about natural resources than timber companies? Defense contractors are in charge of war-making (which used to be called "defense".) It's my understanding that Vicente Fox, CEO of a big entity called "Mexico", is in charge of our southern-border crossings. And bankers are in charge of YOUR money, see?

Oh--and, war is peace! Let's get with the program, now!

[retread]

4. It's a government social program that actually works and makes

people's lives better.

[fertilizeonarbusto]

5. read paul krugman (NYT) today

He says it's because the SS trust fund would be a great place to raid in order to pay for the outrageous deficits the Chimperor has incurred.

[StClone]

11. Krugman is giving W too much credit

I think the Chimp could care less about debt and wants debt to destroy all Government while sending money to his rich cronies.

[bluedeminredstate]

6. Repugs also have HATED The New Deal

since its inception. They've been trying versions of this for years. This scam is slick enough to interest people who would otherwise be screaming about screwing SS.

[Warpy]

7. Even though income is limited to labor income and even that is

capped at a laughably low level, freeing the rich from the burden, their maximum benefit is also capped. They look at that few hundred dollars a month SS payment, which makes the difference between living decently and living on pet food for most of us, as a useless pittance. They sneer at it because they don't need it and consider it too small to consider to be important at all.

I've met a few of the super rich. The were all affable but utterly clueless that people exist from paycheck to paycheck, are unable to save or invest enough money for a cushy retirement, and don't have trust funds to support them when times are bad. They just have no clue that this is how most of us live our lives.

They see the funds going into the social security program and marvel at how high the stock market might go were those funds pushed into stocks instead of supporting old people with inadequate or even looted pensions. It's a souce of frustration that this money bypasses their coffers entirely.

They can't wait to get rid of it. They've been trying to since the 30s when it was started.

[elehhhhna]

15. You nailed it! Putting our names on the accounts upfront also forestalls

any talk in the future of means testing, and would logically also morph them ito inheritable assets. Just like a 401K.

Any possible advantage to this experiment dies in the face of the borrowing it would require. We can't afford this. Not now.

[StClone]

8. K-Street Influence

SS is the biggest lump of money left to steal in the Treasury.

The investment potential and transaction fees would be worth many billions. Since America is lagging in production income what new potential of income left is moving SS money.

Destroying it, the strength of the New Deal, the very efficient SS system is seen as a linchpin to finally deliver American rich from any forced social responsibility.

They hate "social safety nets" and love Corporate Welfare and Gov. contracts to big Corporations.

[giant_robot]

9. To line the pockets of the "haves" and the "have-mores"...

...in other words, his base.

[oldtime dfl_er]

14. continuing to shift the wealth and starve the beast

when the masses have no money and no form of support for their old age they are pretty powerless.

[Malva Zebrina]

12. throughout the campaign

More than one Bush voter referred to Kerry as a communist.

Conservatives want all their money to themselves and abhor that some one else is getting "their" money--in this case, it is the old folks who are getting "their" money and without pause to consider the larger picture, or even without knowing any facts, they resent that the old folks are retired, have a home, travel a little bit if they can afford it, and see them as not worthy or deserving of getting "their" money.

The New Deal has always been a resentment to the Republicans and they will do everything to erase it. The new Bush dynasty will take the place of Roosevelt, in their view, and Bush is not a communist, or a socialist or a red commie evil atheist.

That goes for public education as well and in that field, they have been fairly successful so far.

my two cents

[Catchawave]

13. AARP article - Don't Mess with Success

http://www.aarp.org/bulletin/socialsec/Articles/a2004-12-28-success.html

[ThomasJackson]

16. past performance does not guarantee......

the standard mutual fund disclaimer about prior performance.

just so's everyone on the same page .... the "cash flow" analysis is best. the "treasury securities" in the SS trust fund are not "real" Treasury securities in that the Trust fund can't sell them to raise cash, unlike the Treasuries held by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac etc. For those worried about the overall defecit, this is critical, because the ONLY place to convert these "assets" into cash money is to redeem them from the US Treasury. If you haven't been keeping up with current events ..... WE DON"T HAVE 3 trillion dollars with which to redeem those securities. Soooooo ..... if you don't like the current 500billion dollar defecit, how will 3 trillion in the hole feel?

Look, I'm not saying that private accounts are a great idea....BUT doing nothing is not going to fix Jack. And raising taxes only plugs a bit of the hole ..... still lots of room for improvement. So, lets have a rational discussion about how to deal with the issue, not stick our heads in the sand and hope it goes away.

[housewolf]

17. I can think of 2 goals he may have in mind

First, it is a step towards dismantling of the entire SocSec system, a so-called "entitlement" program that conservatives hate. They have a goal of eliminating all of the FDR New Deal programs and this would be a move in that direction.

Second, it would put billions of dollars into the hands of the banking and financing industries, very big Bush supporters. Can't you just see them salivating over it?