NYTimes hints Bush should give up this Social Security farce...

[kentuck]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/06/opinion/6sun1.html?oref=login

<snip>
The more we learn, the worse it gets.

Last Wednesday, as President Bush prepped for his State of the Union address, a White House official gave reporters a background briefing on some of the details of Mr. Bush's Social Security privatization plan. Almost point for point, whatever the president said that sounded good sounded bad when the details were filled in.

<snip>
Mr. Bush is expending tremendous energy to sell his plan - daily impairing his own credibility and shredding whatever confidence remains in the country's fiscal outlook. Members of Congress would do him - and their constituents - a favor by reining him in and moving on to more pressing matters.

...more

[CAcyclist]

1. Wow! The SF Chronicle, on the other hand

wrote an editorial complaining the Democrats are being unnecessarily obstructionist

[baby_bear]

2. The editorial essentially accuses him of dissembling

"The much-touted promise that the private accounts could be passed on to one's heirs, as it turns out, is also less than it seems. That works entirely only if you die before you retire."

What I don't understand is - doesn't the existing SS program actually help the government by workers essentially loaning it money to use for other purposes until we retire? I don't see where this is a drain on the government in any fashion. Am I missing something? Is it simply the concept of "entitlement" that is anathema to Republicans and Libertarians? But is it really an entitlement to retirees (as opposed to those who are disabled or spouses of deceased retirees)?

I think I am missing something. The system has been a cash cow to the government. "Starve the beast" indeed. But it's not even a beast.

b_b

[xray s]

3. It's a good thing Bush doesn't read

It would be a shame if he followed the Times advice.

I mean, how often do you get a gift like this one?

[CoffeeCat]

4. Bush believes he can sell America a big plate o crap...

I planned to do a great deal of research on Social Security--to better understand the President's ideas and the broader issue.

It has taken me so little time to see that *'s ideas are so horrible and really, indefensible. There is no way America will be sold on his plan. It's utterly ridiculous and so flawed. Personal accounts lose money, due to inflation adjustments--and what if the market goes down? Plus, *'s entire foundation for reforming SS is "THERE'S A FARGIN CRISIS!! SOCIAL SECURITY WILL BE BANKRUPT!!". Hello, Mr. President, private accounts don't address the solvency issue. Not one bit.

Good news for Dems, truth-seekers and those who like the SS program--Bush's ideas won't even make it out of the gate. He will be shamed into dropping the entire plan.

I'm concerned, not about SS, but by Bush's arrogance. He actually believed America would buy this? I'm taken aback by this President's willingness to sell us a bag of crap, and in his delusional belief that we would actually buy into this.

[kentuck]

7. "private accounts don't address the solvency issue"

So why are they mentioned in the same breath with Social Security????

[CoffeeCat]

8. You're asking me?

Private Accounts are an alternative route for SocSec funds to go.

Your SocSec withholdings, as of now, can go to two places: To pay for current retiree SocSec payments OR to the SocSec trust fund. Bush's "private account" idea, takes a portion of your SocSec withholdings and places it into mutual funds.

Simply routing withholdings to a new place (in the stock market) does not address the "crisis" that Bush is touting. The "crisis" being, that in 2052 the monies paid to retirees will exceed the money coming into the system from worker withholdings. So, we'll be dipping into the SocSec trust fund--and through these means the govt can pay out about 80 percent of SocSec funds to current retirees.

So, there are problems--with the amount of SocSec payout funds exceeding worker pay-ins.

But...putting worker pay-ins into mutual funds does NOTHING to solve that upside-down situation.

Why are they mentioned in the same breath? Cuz Bush wants to privatize Soc Sec. Funneling gazillions into Wall Street is a big boon to his rich buddies who own mutual funds. It's a first step in many to dismantle the entire program.

[Jacobin]

10. Well, he did sell the U.S. on IraqNam

Just because things turn out badly doesn't mean he won't try it. He likes the newspapers calling him "bold" even when he's being a complete idiot....helps his insecurity as a man....at the expense of human lives, the fiscal health of the entire country.

[GetTheRightVote]

5. Thank you NYT for standing up for the American Public

:kick:

[EVDebs]

6. This related thread shows Bush knows his plan is of no help at all

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x103921

[Jacobin]

9. Guess he'll have to do his "go back to the moon" thing

so that he can pretend to have "that vision thing" :eyes:

[KoKo]

11. So ....bring it on! quote from NYT's

"daily impairing his own credibility and shredding whatever confidence remains in the country's fiscal outlook."

This won't bring him down when lying over going to war in Iraq and 9/11 and stolen elections, prison torture, cronyism which has stolen millions from our pockets and other nefarious dastardly deeds hasn't...but "Bring it On!"

"Imparing his credibility and shredding confidence in America's miserable looking fiscal outlook" is what he and his BFEE deserve.

[calimary]

12. I think we should start referring to him as The First Snake-Oil Salesman.

Because THAT is what he is. Would you buy a used car from this man? Why would you want to play "Retirement Roulette" with him?

Fucker.

I hope he does overplay his hand. If there's one word that defines himself and his cronies, it's GREED. I've been wondering if maybe the house of cards will start falling down because these guys just get too full of themselves and too drunk on their power and overreach just one time too many. And if that's what's starting to happen, I say - GREAT! BRING IT ON!!! Couldn't happen to a "nicer" guy.

Fucker.

[CoffeeCat]

13. That would be an insult to snake-oil salesmen! n/t

[lavenderdiva]

14. is this true?

my late mother once told me that lawmakers (senators, representatives, etc) don't pay into Social Security, BUT are allowed to withdraw SS when they retire. Is this true? Wouldn't that be one way to help fix SS, if it is true? Maybe not fix the whole thing, but help... Just asking.