Is there anyone here who agrees with Bush on Social Security?

[qanda]

Poll question: Is there anyone here who agrees with Bush on Social Security?

There's always somebody who disagrees with the mainstream. So, now is your chance to be anonymous and let us know what you really think.

Edit: Please kick on your way out.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. I said in 2000 that we should dump the surplus into SS.

So much for that idea...

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[qanda]

3. Which parts do you agree with?

[leanin_green]

4. There was a time. . .

when I was younger when I had the same thought about partial privatization. And as I look back to who I was then I realize how bad an idea it is.

I hadn't a clue on how to use money then. My God, truth be told, if I had the opportunity then I would have screwed myself royally. I was thinking about partying and and singing in a band then. I wasn't thinking or worrying about retirement! How many so-called young people are just like I was today? Those Wall Street fat cats count on the fact that the young don't know shit about money. All the more to flower their nest eggs, my dear.

[SnoopDog]

5. First of all, bush is trying to kill Social Security.

My initial answer is - leave it the f*ck alone - especially the idiot we call *.

Just exactly what do we get for all the tax dollars we pay Uncle Sam? Our money is simply pissed away or put into the pockets of the crooks that run this country. Where is our health care? Where is our clean water? Where is our clean air? Where is our safe food? Where is our upgraded transportation systems? Where are the solar energy farms? Where, where the f*ck does our money go?

So now these MoFo's want to destroy Social Security You know, we do pay into it each paycheck we get. We buy our social security - our "when we get old, we can at least have a roof over our heads and food to eat' plan. Social Security is the only thing our government provides us. The only thing.

Write/call/email our Congress men and women. Flood them we communications.

We cannot assume that just because some Repuks don't want it to change and because our Dems will all vote against it - that our government will keep SS.

You have to realize we are dealing with an evil disgusting president who wants to kill our nation.

Yes, our government, this SOB president, is trying to kill our country. We have to act.

[Journeyman]

6. Some changes to Social Security MAY BE necessary. . .

and I support a full investigation to determine what, if any, problems may be on the horizon, and an open discussion on the best means to deal with those concerns.

Fundamentally, I believe the program should stay as it is, with perhaps additional incentives and savings plans incorporated on top of the existing situation.


SS is an insurance policy for society, that we may take care of the elderly, the disabled, the children of the dead and their surviving spouse. To change the equation, to make it something the individual does for himself, changes all . . . and society's stake in it is diminished (until, of course, such time as the unlucky and the incompetent find that their investment decisions are inadequate for their 'golden years' and they turn to society for help).

[Jack_DeLeon]

7. Clearly something needs to be done...

Bush doesnt have a clue, but something needs to be done to make SS better.

As it is now, its a pyramid scheme of sorts.

It will only work aslong as there are more and more people in the future and as long as they are all paying into it.

Yes I suppose for the time being there will be more people in the future than there are now, but for how long can we sustain growth?

[ferg]

11. leave it alone until 2025

Social security is in surplus until 2028 according to the trustees.

But that's given an economic forcast 20 years in the future and since it's not possible to accurately predict the economy that far in advance, it makes sense to wait until we have better data to know what changes need to be made.

By the way, if benefits were cut by 10% in 2028, social security would have a surplus forever (assuming a gloomy economy). So the needed changes really are small.

[Mr.Green93]

8. Social Security

belongs to our party. They have no right to even to discuss the issue. This is the line in the sand.

[Jack_DeLeon]

10. okay...

then shouldnt "we" discuss the issue?

[hughee99]

19. WTF??

I'm sorry, but I can't think of a single reason why ANYONE would "have no right to even discuss" ANY issue related to a government program... Can you help me out with this?

[Mr.Green93]

23. Republicans

can not be allowed to take the issue from us.

[hughee99]

28. If the repukes want to talk about Social Security, I say let them.

If they want to propose bad ideas (as I'm sure the will continue to do) they won't "take" the issue. If (by some miracle) they propose a not-that-bad of an idea, it would give us a starting point for a real discussion. Social security is definately not an issue that we should be afraid to debate the repukes about, and the more we can get them to talk about "our" issues, the easier it will be to frame the issues of the next election.

[henrik larssonisking]

24. erm i think social security belongs to all

americans, i think its something we need to start talking about. Personally i trust myself with money more than the government.

[eridani]

35. Of course, let's all do everything ourselves

So, according to the Wednesday night’s SOTU, we can solve any and all problems just by making them more personal. Financing Social Security should no longer be insurance, but a personal investment. And that’s just for starters.

Isn’t the interstate highway system far too public? We can make it much more personal by giving every driver title to a piece of it, which s/he will be responsible for maintaining, funded by little private toll booths every few miles. Anything left over after maintenance would be pure personal profit! See, we pay for the toll booths by borrowing 10 trillion and adding it to the national debt, but all the unleashed entrepreneurship should make up for that in two or three years.

Or how about personalizing fire protection? All that property tax money down a rathole just because some know-it-all gummint elitists force responsible sober citizens to subsidize the irresponsible people who have fires. Somebody doing something stupid, like letting their kids play with matches, is the cause of 99% of all fires. If we had personal Fire Savings Accounts, we would be empowered to get money back for not having fires, and the expense of supporting fire departments would be the sole responsibility of those whose lack of personal responsibility causes fires in the first place.

I'd particularly like to do something about those meanies in my state government who force us to buy liability insurance in order to drive legally. I’ve paid it for years, and not gotten any return on my investment at all. That we don’t already have personal Liability Savings Accounts makes me so mad that I need to find a utility pole someplace to smash my car into, just so I can get a little of my own personal money back. Enough of public, shared risk-spreading insurance schemes! I want my personal investment money, and I want it now!

[qanda]

9. kick

:kick:

[flyarm]

12. all that needs to be done is add a small tax on those

who are making over 90 k a year..i swear most of us will never miss it! but * is trying to destroy the middle class and all programs to support the middle class. look at greg palasts globalization..its what the bushes did to argentina!! argentina was the test case...they are now doing the same here..wake up!
fly

[qanda]

13. kick

:kick:

[Yupster]

14. I voted partly

I'm listening for the details.

My biggest fear is what if a few years of hyper-inflation wipes out the buying power of your private account.

I'm looking for the details of the guarantees and options.

If it's close to the Swedish model, I might be able to go for it.

[ProfessorGAC]

15. Yupster. Also think about. . .

. . .equity inflation. What do you think will happen when an extra $100 billion dollars flows into the equity markets each year, with no increase in corporate value to rationalize the change in cash flow?

You're worried about hyperinflation. I'm worried equity inflation. Within a few years the whole market will be overpriced by 9 to 12%. As some point, as it always does, the market will correct down to reflect true profitability and value. So, people will buy $100 worth the equities, and in 2 years it will be worth $89. No quality of return above the SS plan as it is now will recover that lost value.
The Professor

[Yupster]

29. I listened to c chief economist

for a mutual fund company about a month ago. He was very positive about Bush's idea. It seems he knew pretty much the details.

I asked him my inflation question and he answered sort of cryptically. "keep asking questions because that is a good one."

Well thanks, but even better than a good question was a good answer though.

Anyway, I think I pretty much got the inside line on the proposal.

It was interesting. The most surprising thing he said was that bonds were close to fair market level, and he didn't expect too many more interest rate hikes. That surprised me. He did say this one was pretty assured.

[Cleita]

16. Other.

A pox on any Republican who goes near these programs. When we get a liberal government back then they can make a few minor changes to improve the program, not before.

[PowerToThePeople]

17. ghey

No "real" answer on this poll. Changes need to be done, but the changes * wants to instill are no good. We need other solutions- the best imo is payroll tax increase, ie increase level of income which is taxed. If * could come up with any good ideas I would be fine with him being the one to do it, but....

[Yavin4]

18. Halliburton Represents Partial Privitization of the Military

If you want to see what partial privitization of SS will look like, look at what Halliburton is doing in Iraq.

Simply put, if you put Wall Street firms in charge of SS, they will steal the money. Wall Street is a culture of unbounded avarice. It's run by people who are more than willing to steal $100 million, go to jail for it, but still come out worth over $10 million. That's how they think.

SS represents a contract between the government and its citizens. It's an insurance policy, a supplemental income for retirees. Millions of Americans both young and old are dependent on it. All that it would take to ensure its solvency is to raise the limit on the income at which taxes are taken out. That's all.

[teakee]

20. Might as well shoot the people on SSDI and under 55......

We live at poverty level anyway and when we hit retirement age; we will be getting less money. We earned the credits, cannot work anymore, and do not have any other resources. If you think this could not happen to you, I used to be like you. And trust me, you will lose EVERYTHING before you get your disability along with your pride and dignity.

Last night, I seen on TV where some news program said that Britain had tried what Bush is trying to do and it failed. (It was in the middle of the night, and I suffer from chronic pain so details are hazy.) Does anyone else know anything about this?

BTW, that picture of Cheney makes one's stomach heave. :puke:

[Yupster]

30. Quite a few countries have

different types of privatized programs.

The most well known are in England, Sweden, Poland, Chile, Argentina, and Singapore.

Each has their own problems.

Chile's is very costly, England's got rocked by scandal, Sweden has too many investment options, Singapore allows early withdrawels.

Lots to learn by seeing their experiences.

[stlchic]

21. Take away Congressional and Presidential pensions

And have their only source of government retirement be in the form of SS.

They'll have it "fixed" before * can utter thefirst "freedom" in his 4th of July speech...

It's easy to gamble with other people's money...

[henrik larssonisking]

25. lol how true.

[qanda]

22. kick

:kick:

[geniph]

26. They should quit frigging stealing from it!

It was fine before they started raiding it...oh, sorry, I mean "borrowing" from it. They just don't want to have to pay back the money they "borrowed."

Piratization is nothing but Welfare for Wall Street. The fees charged by private investment firms will eat up the majority of any of those highly-dubious promised profits. Sure, changes need to be made - changes like income caps, but piratization...oh, sorry, I mean "personal accounts" are just a way to let the brokerages get their sticky fingers into our pockets.

[Yupster]

31. The fees don't have to be high

Vanguard does very well running mutual funds for .3 % per year. The government could limit expenses to .5 % and still have many choices.

[ZombieNixon]

27. My plan for social security:

1) Eliminate the income cap on payroll taxes; those with high incomes should pay into social security, too.

2) Al Gore's lockbox; the government must be prohibited from taking money out of the social security funds to pay for other programs, domestic or otherwise.

3) Others that I come with in the near future.

[Yupster]

32. My plan

The social security surplus must be kept out of reach from the congress. Actually deposit the money in CD's or insurance company fixed accounts.

Sorry, but the lock box was nonsense.

The IOU from the treasury department is worthless. It will never be repaid and was never meant to be repaid.

If you put a worthless IOU in a safe, what difference does it make whether you lock the door or not?

[Dave Reynolds]

33. Get rid of the $87,000 cap. /nt

[TOhioLiberal]

34. I agree...

get rid of the cap. Most people won't even notice.