Bush's Social Security Plan Would Fix Nothing

[nodictators]

Dec. 20 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush talked at length last week about the long-term problems facing Social Security with its huge $10.4 trillion unfunded liability.

"The crisis is now," he said.

Then Bush described at length the glories of allowing workers to divert a portion of their payroll taxes to fund private investment accounts that would earn a better rate of return than the Social Security trust fund, accounts whose assets could be left to heirs.
"One of my strong beliefs is that all public policy, to the extent possible, ought to encourage ownership in America. I believe in owning things," the president <sic> said, to applause at the White House economic summit.

Not once, not once, did Bush acknowledge that the creation of private accounts actually would do nothing to make Social Security solvent in the long run. In fact, by itself, diverting a portion of payroll taxes makes the problem worse, not better.
<more>

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000039&refer=columnist_berry&sid=aq8.PqWU1nAA

Remember:

Stolen Election ==> Stolen Social Security Money

[PurityOfEssence]

1. It's not supposed to fix anything

They want to destroy every last vestige of the New Deal, and this one just stands out in their greedy little minds.

The coldhearted reality of conservatives is that far too many of them don't just need to be greedily doing well, they have to be doing better than others. It serves as some kind of proof of their superiority, and it also keeps the losers in their place. It's just a handy side-effect that it keeps people desperate, and hence willing to work for very little and unwilling to rock the boat.

Don't even bother talking about the real costs of crisis intervention when there are legions of homeless old people. Forget about the hard costs of emergency medical care, crime and the like. These people want society to be run on the abject fear that if you lose your station in life, you will founder and die in the cold drizzle of the streets. It is their god: self-reliance and personal responsibility. Don't bother your pretty little head thinking about how the system sustains many who were born into it; that messes with their fantasy.

It's deep, profound meanness, and they consider it a virtue.

[zann725]

2. The only thing it would 'fix' would be those private Swiss Bank accts

that none of us have access to!

Someone yesterday gave an interesting take on the word 'fix.' When Bush says 'fix' in reference to S.S., does he mean 'fix' as in 'fix' the Election? To him, that word could have a whole new meaning! In which case, none of us should want that 'fix'...unless we want to 'lose'...since the only one who 'won' in the Election 'fix' was Bush!

[OnlyInAmerica]

3. The problem with Social Security, as I see it...

Is that when the program started, the average life expectancy in the US was about 62 years old but you did not qualify for full benefits until you reached 65 years old. Now the average life expectancy is about 72 years old (10 years longer than when the program started), yet the age for full benefits eligibility has not changed.

[Warpy]

6. The lower life expectancy

..reflected a higher infant and child mortality rate, not the overall life expectancy of those who had survived childhood illnesses.

Early immunizations and antibiotics are what have increased life expectancy, not care at the end of life.

My grandparents all managed to survive into their eighties, and they weren't alone. All had siblings and friends who did, too.

Don't hate old people for living too long. You may be lucky enough to do it, too. Just realize that after a certain age, everything you do will hurt, and it's horrible to expect people to compete in physically demanding work against people 45 years their junior.

[OnlyInAmerica]

7. I agree

Part of the lower life expectancy was due to higher infant and child mortality rates. However, some of it was also related to afflictions that occur in elderly people that were untreatable at the time. I certainly don't hate older people for living too long. In fact, I hope to live as long as possible. However, the same medical advances that have extended the lives of so many of our senior citizens have also begun to strain the government programs in place to assist those individuals in the twilight of their years.

[Warpy]

4. Upper income earners will get a few extra bucks

to throw at the stock market. That's what Bush is hoping for. He hates social security, since he doesn't need it. He wants to prop up an inflated market. QED.

Most earners will find that 2% of their yearly FICA will amount to less than fifty bucks, not much to build into a solid retirement, not in something as risky as the stock market.

It's sucker bait.

[nodictators]

9. The 2% is applied to the worker's earnings, not the FICA

Thus, a worker earning $50,000/year could put $1,000 in the stock market annually.

Since the stock market has a long-term incrase of less than 10% annually even $1,000/year investments wouldn't come close to sustaining a person for their life expectancy after retirement.

On average, a individual on Social Security gets about $1,000/month benefit. A two-earner retired married couple gets an average of $1,600/month.

[opihimoimoi]

5. There is the ASPECT of GAMBLING. Taking your money out and investing

is a GAMBLE. As in Gambling, there are losers and winners....so what happens to the LOSERS?? BTW, thats many of US.

[Zinfandel]

8. Because nothing needs to be "fixed"

Except to fix it so more bucks flow into the wealthy's pockets!